Default and max playback volume much too *loud*

In answer to your questions,

My new installation was of v1.3, downloaded and installed for the first time.

I don't recognize the Synthesizer volume term; I didn't set it in MS (if that's where it resides), and it is not visible in my Volume / Mixer in the system tray on my Win7 machine.

I agree and understand that 1.x versions get no new development.

The volume issue is a puzzle to me, because I went through the same kind of software/debugging thinking that you describe - was it something that I did? already on my machine or in my machine settings? in my default / simple first score? in a play panel or something? But I came up with nothing, and thought therefore it was worth reporting, given the fresh installation, the simple default score, etc.

For now I'll just live with ("manage") the quiet volume until something changes or 2.0 comes out.

It's ok with me if this issue is closed; I'll just live with it until 2.0 comes out (and hopefully the issue will just go away)

But just to be clear, I would prefer to state the issue closure is definitely not because I messed with the synthesizer volume -- I didn't even know such a thing existed. And this is my first install of MS, so there was no previous version.

Based on your post above, I found the synthesizer window in the Display menu, and the volume was set at 10 (but I'm guessing that's 10% down from max, since the scale reads 0->50, with 0 being the loudest. So even if I had somehow set it too low before (definitely not the case), I could not fix things by turning the synthesizer volume up again. (Here I assume that 10 is the default setting, since the color bar (VU meter look alike?) goes red into some danger zone above 10.

See the attached screenshot.

I found out that MS 2.0 Beta was available, and installed it. The doc said it was ok to install beside my v1.3 that installed a couple of days ago. I am posting to this thread for the 2.0 version, even though the original thread was for the 1.3 version.

I have set the status to 'active' so it will show up on someone's list.

Using:
- Win7/x64 desktop
- fresh v2.0 beta install
- someone else's score (Nicolas Beethoven Moonlight Sonata)
- touching NO volume settings in MS 2.0 AT ALL
- I just loaded the Moonlight score from the 'Connect' panel, and hit the play button

- the MS playback volume is so low I can't even hear it.
- if I crank up my speaker levels, all other apps BLAST out loud sound

- ITunes sounds are normal (MP3s are easily heard)
- System sounds are normal (dings etc are easily heard)
- Windows Live Mail dings are easily heard
- YouTube videos in Internet Explorer are easily heard

I have attached a screenshot showing simultaneous sound settings for MS and my system mixer.

It seems to me that my computer, and all other sound-producing apps are working fine, and that MS (both 1.3 and 2.0) are the exception. I would be grateful if someone might have a solution to this problem. Thank you.

And just in case someone argues that my system sound levels are set too low, I have already investigated that. I turned down my physical speakers to the minimum, and lifted my system mixer levels up to 50% midrange, so that ITunes, YouTube, LiveMail, and System Sounds were all easily heard.

See the attached screenshot.

The Moonlight score in MS was still too low to hear (if I put my ear up close to the speaker, I can barely hear the loud sections). Thank you.

Thanks to Thomas in #8 for saying that the issue is known and open for other people too.

For Marc, the score I'm using (Nicolas Sonata No. 14, Moonlight, Beethoven) has no dynamic symbols at the beginning of the score. Please see the attached image.

Given Thomas' statement, perhaps my issue falls into the scope of the previously known issue (Thomas, is there a title or an issue number for that issue?). So I thought I might investigate further, to see if other scores had the problem (or not).

All these scores are Moonlight Sonata, No 14, from MS Connect:
by Nicolas, no dynamics, has the problem
by Chopinowsky, no dynamics, volume ok
by LucyJoDixon, no dynamics, has the problem

Hopefully identifying the scores might help to debug the problem.

PS. I forgot to include the MS mixer in the screenshot above showing all my sound levels. Of course I had not touched the MS Mixer in the fresh 2.0 Beta install. But here is a screenshot of it anyway. It shows the default settings (vol = about 2:30 oclock, maybe 75%?)

The fact that some scores work, and some don't, on a fresh installation (see my previous postings) gives me some hope that it might be an issue in the score files alone. I find myself wishing for an "XML" diff program that could understand MS score files (at least for the general or high level config setting stuff). Not that I would know what to do with the diffs anyway, since I don't understand MS internals.

The issue may also be caused by the interaction between the score files and the default program settings, of course.

Thomas, could you please say a few words on why you think it's not an easy fix? And what strategy you think might be best for investigating (and hopefully solving) the issue?

I would be pleased to help by clearly identifying the scores with issues, and thought I had already done so in my previous post. Here is the list again, all from the MuseScore Connect panel in v2.0. I had clicked the Nicolas' version at random to start with, and simply searched for Sonata No. 14 to see the rest. So I thought anyone could fetch them there, like I did. If I post them, it means they have to pass through my hands and my computer, and I run the risk of someone saying that "maybe the files were corrupted passing through my hands..." or whatever.

Regarding the pp in the Nicolas version:

I anticipated the "well the score has a pp, so the volume is supposed to be low" argument, so I checked for dynamics (as I always do on this problem). I saw a tiny pp buried in the long (Italian?) phrase. I had typed that observation into my previous posting, but questioned whether it had any effect, because I went to a new score, added a pp dynamic, and the added pp font was different, so it was not clear to me at all that the Nicolas embedded pp was _functional_ in any way, being embedded in the middle of a foreign language phrase "sempre pp e senza sordini" that I could not understand. So I removed the typing that I had done in the posting. (As I type this sentence, I wonder if Google translate could have helped me.)

_In addition_, I loaded some other Sonata 14 scores from other people, and those scores had (1) no dynamics that I could see, (2) embedded in foreign phrases or not, (3) and but still had the volume problem.

So I reasoned that the embedded pp (if it was a functional dynamic at all; that's not clear to me) in the Nicolas score could not be the problem (or be relevant) in itself, since other scores of the same Sonata had the same sound (ie, essentially none) even though they had no dynamics at all.

You can see that it is consistent for me to question the functionality of the Nicolas embedded pp if other similar scores had exactly the same volume issues, without having dynamics at all.

----

I do want to comment that I feel like I'm on the defensive in this thread. Thomas has been the only person to add a comment that he thinks it's an issue because he's seen other people report it too many other times.

Several other postings feel (at least to me) like they point the finger at me (it's my fault for early installs, my machine settings, my scores, etc.) I spent 25 years of my career running a small software company, and have spent decades reading/participating in forums, so I do make this posting lightly. I know that there are thousands of issues in forums, and especially in open source forums, where all manner of posters can post stupid or uninformed things, and that forum postings (like email) can seem more aggressive than they are meant to be.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I did not post this thread on a whim -- it costs us all precious time and effort to deal with the thread alone, let alone the underlying problem. If there is something reasonable you need me to do that I am capable of to help solve this problem, please say so. But please try to accept that this is a real issue. Thank you.

Thank you for your post. It helps to read that you do not intend to be aggressive.

I do not think the pp is relevant to this discussion, because (1) other scores without pp have the problem, and (2) even if pp was the issue, of course it should not drive the volume on my machine towards zero. I should still be able to hear the music without effort. Neither do I believe that "MS is doing what it is supposed to do by design -- how could it, when multiple scores have essentially zero volume level?

Nonetheless, because the pp is the central topic of the thread right now, I'll explain my view once again. Focusing on the pp Nicolas score - of course the first thing I did before posting was to look for a dynamic, and to right click on the pp (it was a slightly different font on my screen in MS v2.0). But nowhere could I see a MIDI level value in what popped up "Edit element" showed nothing relevant to MIDI levels that I could see. It was all simply text.

Marc keeps talking about an "Inspector", but I don't know what he means. I right clicked again, and thought maybe he was talking about the "Debugger" option on the right-click menu. I have included a screenshot of the debugger dialog window from the Nicolas score, with some red arrows. The debugger shows the word Dynamic in the left XML? structure, and the XML? SGML? tagged text itself, but nowhere do I see the MIDI 33 velocity that he mentions. I do see a 0 in the bottom right Dynamic box, but it is not obvious to me that the 0 has anything to do with MIDI velocity.

Please see the Debugger screenshot (hopefully Debugger = Inspector?)

And once again, here is the previous list of scores that I used for my investigation:

All these scores are Moonlight Sonata, No 14, from MS Connect, using MS v2.0 Beta:
by Nicolas, no dynamics (has an embedded pp), has the problem
by Chopinowsky, no dynamics, volume ok
by LucyJoDixon, no dynamics, has the problem

Thanks to jpfleury for pointing me to the inspector. I was able to see the 33 velocity that Marc was talking about. Thank you; no doubt that will help me to provide better info in the future.

On my machine:
- the Nicolas score _does_ have the problem (it also has a pp).
- the LucyJoDixon score _does_ have the problem (it also has a pp).
- the Chopinowsky score does NOT have the problem (it has no pp).
In this score, the Inspector says the velocity is 0 and of type offset (presumably from the default of 80?)

Marc also makes a valid point that we hear logarithmically, so pp might sound a LOT less than the MIDI levels might indicate. (Eg. at velocity 33, 1/4 of 127, it might sound like 1/8 instead (which I think it does).

Following more of Marc's suggestions, and using the Inspector, I increased the original 33 up to 80, and finally could hear some sound out of both "problematic" scores. I could delete the pp (as Marc suggested), thus invoking the default mf = 80, and could hear the score.

---

With the help of the nice Inspector and contributors to this thread, it seems clear to me now that Marc is correct on his main points about:

(1) MS generates, by design, a huge dynamic range,
(2) that pp at 33 is far below normal system / YouTube / ITunes sound levels,
(3) pp is so far below normal that you can't hear it (with logarithmic ears), and
(4) that my issue is one of understanding, not one of machine, MS software, or score.

Further, I cannot reproduce the original issue (no sound on a new, no-dynamics score in v1.3) that prompted me to start this thread (see my original entry on this thread). Neither can I recreate the low volume experience on a new score (no dynamics) in v2.0. And although I cited the Moonlight scores as evidence to support my original issue, I can see now that they are behaving technically correctly, so they do not support my original case either.

Since I can't come up with reasonable (and relevant to v2.0) evidence to support my original issue (with v1.3) I must abandon it.

Finally, I gently suggest:

(1) that it might be useful to write up a section for the 2.0 manual on understanding sound levels in MS, so people don't have to go through this exercise again, (even with Thomas supporting them :-)).

I volunteer to write up the section based on the knowledge I have gained from this thread. I can write up the text and images in a Word doc, if someone else can cut/paste it into the manual in an approved way. (I would prefer not to have to learn all that other stuff at this point in time.) Give me an email address or process to follow, and I'll send in my work.

(2) that it might be useful to reconsider the default sound levels bound to pp (and friends) so that they might actually be heard on computer speakers that are set comfortably for other system sounds, ITunes, YouTube, etc.

I cannot see the point of having pp sounds so low that people can't hear them on their computers. As Marc said earlier, "keep in mind the main purpose of MS is to be a notation program that can generate written scores for real musicians...", and I cannot see how super-wide dynamic ranges (that effectively interfere with normal computer sound level settings) promote that goal.

If super-wide dynamic range is _really_ worth the price of having future people go through the process that we just went through, then maybe consider an MS option that allows custom binding of dynamics to different MIDI levels, so people can just choose a mapping that meets their needs. The default, of course, should be something they can hear on their normal work computers.

Sorry once again for all the thrashing, but at least we have a link we can point to in the future that will hopefully shorten future discussions.

This issue can be closed.

Just for completeness, here are the MIDI levels that the inspector just showed me for v2.0:

ppp 16
pp 33
p 49
mp 64
mf 80
f 96
ff 99
fff 99

Obviously, this thread shows that I do not have a deep understanding of why these MIDI levels are set where they are. I have only used the default piano and violin sounds; other instruments might be different.

But it seems odd to me that the default level mf=80 is so close to the max dynamic level ff = fff = 99 (only 99-80 = 19 ticks difference out of 127 max), and yet so far away from the minimum dynamic level ppp=16 (80 - 16 = 64 ticks).

Quite a bit of asymmetry in those settings. So much asymmetry so that you can't even hear pp = 33 (47 ticks away from mf=80) on your computer with normal sound settings. And ppp=16 (64 ticks away) would be even farther below audible level.

Maximum dynamic levels ff = fff = 99 are a bit louder than mf = 80 to my ears (only 19 ticks away), but not by much. I would have intuitively expected a FAR louder sound at fff, comparable (by symmetry) to the quietness of pp or ppp.

I'm glad to hear that you would not oppose the idea of an option that would use "compressed sound levels" to make the default MIDI levels sound "workable" on a normal computer (without changing any of the normal levels inside or outside of MS). A default mode like that would prevent this whole "why can't I hear the score" process in the future, I think.

Provide the advanced "wide dynamics" MIDI level mapping 16-126 option for advanced users who have great speakers and who know what they're doing. But for most newbies and normal users, I'm thinking a "compressed mapping" (as you call it) is a far more workable and realistic solution.

Those are all reasonable points about defining "normal."

But having spent a lifetime with computers and computer users of all kinds, I would easily say that anyone (eg. you) who has the understanding, the ability, and the practice of

(1) knowing that there is a system mixer that allows access to sound levels of individual apps,
(2) knowing that it's possible to control the sound level of most individual apps in the OS mixer,
(3) actually does that in a way that turns down the normal OS sounds,
(4) in favor of turning up the overall OS level to support the one app (MS) that cranks out near-inaudible sounds at pp level,

is most definitely an advanced, _non-normal_ user.

For example, to me, you are _far_ from normal with your very deep understanding of sound levels in both music and computers (to say nothing of knowing that the ear is a non-linear mixer itself (which enables us to hear "beats" between frequencies)). I can't think of anyone in my computer or music circles who has anywhere near your understanding of these issues.

So I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the most practical default compression should be set so that everything from ppp to fff should be easily audible with the OS mixer and sound levels set for "normal" OS sounds, for normal users that watch YouTube audio videos, etc.

A good test (to me) is to just install MS on a variety of "normal" user machines, play those pp Moonlight Sonata scores for the users, and see if _they_ can hear pp easily, and/or if they think it should be a bit louder for comfortable listening. If not, I would adjust the default compression values to increase the MIDI levels.

At any rate, this is not my call, so all I can do is hope for something reasonable in the future that gives me a choice of compression maps to suit my machine, my music, and my ears... :-)

And I'm totally with you on your second posting where you address the problem of actually associating MIDI level numbers with the various dynamics. As long as MS has only one mechanism to associate those MIDI levels with dynamics, and as long as that mechanism is buried below user visibility levels (as it now), MS (you?) will have to set an association policy, have that mechanism implement the policy, and essentially force that policy on users.

The only way users could escape from the single MS policy is to do what you did to your computer (boost the OS levels for MS, and cut levels for all other current and future apps), or dig into the inspector and reset the levels for individual pieces.

It seems to me that it would be useful to distinguish between the ideas of

(1) What MS should try to be capable of (wide dynamic range), and

(2) What users should be able to do (I think they should be able to easily choose their dynamic range / compression mappings as named sets (eg. narrow 60-110, default 50-120, wide 40-126, super-wide 16-126), and

(3) What the default dynamic range setting should be (not what it currently is, I hope).

In many of our posts, I end up thinking that I'm talking about (2) and (3) (which you clearly understand), but that you use evidence from (1) to support (or explain) the policies and mechanisms used in (2) and (3).

Believe me, I see your points for (1), and agree with them. But I don't think arguments from (1) are good support for the more practical UI issues of (2) and (3). You move easily from 1->3 and back again in a heartbeat, but normal users start at (3), and only move to (2) with added depth, and then to (1) with extreme knowledge.

I think a happy medium for everyone would be to implement the mechanism of (2) (User-visible, and hopefully user-defined, named sets for dynamic mapping), and then pick a compressed default that will minimize user complaints about pp-fff sound levels. With a good section in the manual on the whole topic, people can then easily switch to a wider dynamic range if they want to.

And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the issues in picking a policy. Let's make this thread a comprehensive one, now that we've invested so much time and thought.

PS. You say:

That is why we really cannot be in the business of assuming people will have
their system volume turned down low and therefore applying lots of
compression by default. It will pretty much destroy the effectiveness of
playback of dynamics

And I would respond,

By symmetry, neither can you be in the business of assuming people will have their system volume turned up high and therefore removing all compression and using a very wide dynamic range. Doing so would pretty much destroy the audible level of pp (which is where we are now).

PPS. I hope you are not assuming that my system volume is "turned down low", because it is not. I showed two screenshots, one with sysvol at 20% (or so), and one with it at 50% (or so). Whatever the level is, I just turn the knob on my external (high quality) physical speakers up or down until the sound level is comfortable. In both cases, I can't hear pp in the Moonlight.

The only way I can hear the default dynamic range is to do what you have done -- push the OS level up for MS, and adjust the sound levels for each app down, until things are comfortable.

Maybe an easier way for everyone is to just explain what users have to do on the first page of the manual -- turn up your OS level high, turn up the MS mixer level up high, and turn down all apps except for MS, until everything is comfortable. It's a nice solution in a way -- it's front and center and would reach anyone who looks at the handbook, it gets to the heart of a solution quickly, and it's really easy to implement -- just add the front page paragraph! (No messy code or policy or mechanism investments... :-)

It's kind of funny that you think my setup is not normal. I run a routine desktop machine I bought off the internet, and $20 Logitech external speakers (because the original computer didn't have any speakers at all.) I use the onboard sound too, no special sound cards.

And I don't think I run my volume that low. Like most normal users that I imagine, I listen to the odd bit of music, talk to people on Skype, don't like to be shocked by loud system error beeps or incoming email dings, etc.

It just seems to me that MS doesn't play nice with other apps, or with the OS sound levels either.

Even you admit you have to crank up the OS and crank down the other apps to make MS sound "right" (whatever that is). I just think MS should play nice with the system and with other apps, and should sound reasonable while doing so. And if that means defying some inner sense of musical logic that sophisticated MS users have, so be it. Let the advanced users pick a wider dynamic range option on their systems. It's easy for them to do, and essentially an inaccessible thing for the average person to do.

I'll say it again. It's not my call.

All I can do is contribute my two bits as yet another "normal" user who couldn't hear pp out of MS, and who was essentially told that my computer, my apps, and my understanding of dynamics are at fault, and that the right and workable "solution" is to change the sound levels of my speakers, my computer, and all other apps on it in order to allow MS to "do the right thing" with dynamics.

In closing, I don't think we're making any progress here. I do not argue with your logic of pp = 2/3 of the max being illogical. I merely say that it is workable and audible for default users.

And whatever the outcome of this thread is, I think the policy decision should get a front page slot (a warning and a link to a deeper discussion) in the handbook.

I have a great deal of respect for your logical arguments. I agree with almost all of them. For example:

I agree with you that MS must map pp-fff to 0-127 MIDI levels.
I agree with you that some default policy mapping is required, else MS won't work.

I agree with you that no policy you chose will satisfy everyone.
I agree with you that defining "normal" is impossible (and unproductive IMHO).
I agree with you that everyone's normal is normal to them.

I agree with you that the current MS policy is logical - it does a reasonable, logical mapping of dynamics that preserves dynamic range of the scores that it plays, from ppp=16 to fff=126.

I agree with you that people will eventually "take some responsibility" and find some way to work their computer sound levels to get what they want (maybe by adjusting their mixer levels, OS sounds, apps, or speaker knobs).

I agree with you that the dynamic range put out by MS often exceeds the dynamic range of the sound systems that MS is played on (you've said this in various ways -- turning up laptop speakers, volumes set too low, all amounting to sound systems that can't really do MS justice.)

---

My point is that it could be a LOT easier for typical unsophisticated users to have a better experience from MS if pp wasn't so low, and that it could be a LOT easier for everyone to choose their preferred dynamic range if they could just choose a range from an MS menu, like so:

Edit, Preferences, Dynamic Range:

(A checkbox could select one for MS to use):
narrow (60-100)
default (whatever)
wider (40-110)
widest (16-126)

And then add some doc (a warning/link up front, a detailed section in the handbook).

Here I am arguing for a better MS _mechanism_ (checkboxes, doc) for users to control dynamic range. I am not arguing in any way for a particular policy for MS to adopt. I say give users a better mechanism (doc and some drange checkboxes), and let them choose their own policy.

One final post for me on this thread, after some experimentation.

I've been playing with sound levels and MS dynamics over the past few days, to see what I could learn. Here are my conclusions. The point of this post is try to provide some clarity of the key ideas at work in this thread. I hope this post adds positively to the discussion, rather than disturbing sleeping dogs.

1. My starting point is a "normal" machine like mine -- a routine desktop computer (no internal speakers, external Logitech $20 speakers), adjusted for "normal to quiet" volume levels for OS sounds (beeps, dings, etc), YouTube, ITunes, Skype, etc, such as might be found in an office environment where no loud music is allowed because it would offend your coworkers. A public v2.0 Beta of MS from a "front page announcement" in August was used (not a nightly build).

The main points here are that the machine (1) does not have its volume turned up loud for music lovers, and (2) especially does not have any OS mixer adjustments made to favor music apps over other apps such as OS sounds, skype rings and voices, YouTube videos, or online TV shows.

I know that using the word "normal" will trigger antibody reactions in some people (because they'll get lost in the definition of what "normal" means for individuals). But I need some kind of label for a machine that is not set up to favor the dynamic range of MS, and so I called it "normal." Feel free to assign any label that you like.

--

2. As things stand with the default MS dynamic range settings, the ONLY way to hear pp on a machine like mine is to (1) turn up the machine volume until it is "loud" enough to make pp audible, and (2) take special OS mixer action to turn down the sound levels for "all" other apps on the machine, otherwise said other apps (like OS beeps) would be so loud, sudden, and jarring that they would be uncomfortably loud.

The lowest dynamic that I could reasonably hear (to distinguish notes) was "p" (49) on my machine, about 30 ticks below the default mf=80.

The highest dynamic fff (99) did not seem "loud" at all, about 20 ticks above mf=80. (This build only allows 2 digits in the sound level, thus the 99. Later builds supposedly allow 3 digits and 126, which would allow 46 ticks above mf=80. So the extra 25 ticks might make fff "loud" on my machine, I don't know.

At any rate, now if I want to hear the full dynamic range of a piece of pp-to-fff music, I do what Marc (and I assume, everyone else) does, which is to crank up my volume and somehow deal with the way-too-loud sounds from the OS and other apps while I'm listening to the score.

--

3. This means that I once again must agree with Marc when he says (about other people who report audio problems with MS because they can't hear pp either) "Inevitably they have the volume set too low...etc."

But I think this statement could be rephrased to be less about the person, and more about the machine, like so "Inevitably, the existing (comfortable) machine volume settings above zero do not provide enough dynamic range for the wide default dynamic range of MS and any music that uses a wide dynamic range that reaches down into pp and ppp."

--

So the summary is that MS dynamic levels (ppp=16 to fff=126) are way too wide for "normal" (see the definition above) computer sound levels that have not been turned up "loud" for one reason or another, or have not been specially adjusted in the OS mixer to provide a larger dynamic range for the MS app.

At least on my machine, the "normal" (default?) dynamic range runs more like 50-126; of course mileage could vary on other machines.

I see three groups of MS users to consider:

1. musicians who need to play off the printed notation
2. people who run adjusted machines and sound levels
3. people who run "normal" unadjusted machines sound levels

MS user musicians in group 1 need all the ppp-fff range that is allowed, since it's on paper and notation is the main point of MuseScore. So there's nothing to change there.

MS users in group 2 (adjusted machines and sound levels)
- want the dynamic range from their computer,
- know how to adjust all the MS levels (MS levels, mixers, play panel, synthesizer)
- know how to adjust the OS mixer levels (specialized treatment for different apps),
- and will do it

MS users in group 3 most likely don't have the knowledge to be in group 2 (I was a newbie this way when I started this thread), and may not want to be in group 2 even when they understand and are capable of giving specialized treatment to the MS app through the OS mixer (where I am now).

MS cannot simultaneously help people in both Group 2 (adjusted machines and levels) and Group 3 (unadjusted machines and levels) right now, and so has been designed to support only Group 2 (adjusted machines).

MS cannot support both groups 2 and 3 simultaneously because it does not have any software mechanism for doing so.

In particular, MS currently has a hardcoded set of dynamic levels (ppp=16 to fff=126) that users (especially newbie users) cannot change in any practical general way to apply (dynamic range compression) to all scores. So the MS dynamic range _mechanism_ (which is to hardcode dynamic level MIDI numbers) currently enforces a single MS policy for Group 2 users that says "If you want to listen to scores with a full dynamic range, you have to adjust your machine in order for this app to work the way we mean it to work, on music that uses low dynamic levels like pp."

Please notice the difference between the ideas of mechanism and policy -- flexible software typically offers mechanisms that let users implement a variety of user-chosen policies.

My suggestion is to provide a more flexible, user-controlled _mechanism_ to implement a variety of dynamic level MIDI number _policies_.

For example, by clicking a checkbox, a user could chose the dynamic range that they want to use on their computer (eg 16-126 the current range, or 50-126 for my machine, or maybe 70-110 if users wanted to custom define the top and bottom levels.)

MS internally would map (scale) the default 0-126 MIDI levels into the target range chosen by the user (eg with a range 50-126, ppp could be 50, pp 60, p 70, etc, linearly scaling up to fff=126).

That way both Group 2 and 3 users would have very easy access to a mechanism that would give them exactly the policy that they wanted to use on their machine. Different policies could easily be used on different machines, if they had multiple machines such as laptops and desktops.

I see this thread is still active, which surprised me. The status is not my call, so I will leave it alone, and will understand if it is closed. I don't even think it's a bug report any more. More of a "limitation by (inadequate) design," I think. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. I learned a lot about dynamic levels, MS, and OS mixers from posting my original blues in this thread. :-)

I generally agree with everything Marc has said. If you want to hear dynamic ranges wider than what your computer is set up for, you must turn up the volume on your computer. No argument there. I agree with all the stuff about real instruments, real dynamic ranges, etc. etc. too (really, it's all true, so who could rationally argue with it?)

But if you don't want to turn up your computer and mess with the settings, or if you don't care if your computer "accurately" reproduces real dynamic ranges?

All I'm suggesting is that MS give users a way of compressing the 0-127 MIDI dynamic range into something smaller that fits the user's computer settings, rather than forcing them to turn up their volume and mess with various level settings. Set whatever default MS policy you like, but it would be really nice if you gave me a way to compress the MS dynamic range levels to fit into my existing computer environment.

I was very frustrated with my recent MS volume experience, and with the long "discussion" in this thread (that essentially amounted to nothing more than "if you want to hear dynamic level p in MS, you have to change your OS mixer levels for all other OS and all other app sounds, because MS is right, and all the other sound levels and apps are wrong."

So I went out and bought Finale PrintMusic 2014. It arrived today. I installed it on my computer, which runs sound levels that let me hear all the other OS sounds, Skype, YouTube, ITunes, etc at reasonable levels for me.

I installed Finale, loaded the demo Scott Joplin piano rag, clicked play, and listened to it all the way through. Sure enough, the default sound level volume was just fine (presumably mf, since there were no dynamics at the score start). Then a section marked f came along under the playhead, and volume jumped up noticeably. Next, a section marked p came along, and volume fell noticeably, below the original level (assumed to be mf).

The p volume level was easily heard, not like MS and the Moonlight Sonata experience that motivated this thread.

I cite this effortless Finale experience, containing p, mf, and f dynamics, to reiterate my points in this thread:

- MS does not play nice with other apps

- MS demands custom changes to OS / app mixer levels to hear p dynamics

- MS has no easy way for users to compress the 0-126 levels into the existing physical dynamic range of their computers

- and (at least in this case) it seems impossible to change the minds of MS developers that the default behavior of MS should be changed in this case

Wishing you all the best, since I now have a notation program that does the notation AND plays nice with the other apps on my machine. (PS. I just deleted it, too. Really, who needs the hassle?)