recording
I hope someone can help me with this:
I know Musescore is (only) a notation program, but is there still a way to let your recordings sound less flat?
I use my arrangements in a singing-contest as a midi-file, while a group of people is singing with it.
The mixer-guy told me that he can do little to make it more lively, and, accordng to him, sounds produced on a (professional) keyboard/synth. have more depth.
Do I have to work more with, for instance, reverb, chorus etc.?
I also have trouble with giving volume to one or another.
Is it common that the volumebutton of the most loud sounding voice/instr. is 100% open, as there is no gain-possibility?
Hope to hear from someone
Thanx,
Frans
Comments
So you're using a MIDI file to accompany your singing group?
How is the sound being generated?
If it is from a computer, then the chances are that the default soundset is being used in which case sound quality will indeed be bad.
If you want to use backing tracks then a better way to go is to use recorded audio using multi-track recording software. This gives you the opportunity to use production techniques on each track and then mix them together in a coherent whole.
Trouble is most pro standard multi-track sequencers/recorders cost a reasonable amount of money.
You don't say which platform you are working on, so I can't really make specific software recommendations.
It is certainly possible to use MIDI to produce professional quality recordings - I used the technique for several years producing backing tracks. The secret is in the way you manipulate the tracks and the audio processing you do once rendered to audio.
HTH
I'm afraid my explanation was wrong.
I save my composition (kind of backing track without voices) and burn it on cd via wav. and audio-converting.
This cd accompanies the vocalgroup (brass, drums etc.)
I use in my opinion the best font Musescore provides (Fluid).
Is there any possibility to make those sounds better (less flat)?
Frans
In reply to Recording by karelmollen
As I said in my other post bringing the audio to life involves the use of post production processing.
The answer is not in the way you currently produce the audio direct from MuseScore, although you could apply multiband compression and perhaps convolving reverb to liven things up a little, but to produce a professional quality backing track you need to change your production method.
I would look at using an Ubuntu Studio installation of MuseScore using JACK MIDI to drive either VST instruments, the LAMMS sampler or Fluidsynth to record with Ardour.
You may find these articles helpful
http://igevorse.lited.net/category/gsoc2014/
http://musescore.org/en/node/21159
http://musescore.org/en/node/25785
HTH
In reply to As I said in my other post by ChurchOrganist
It's, unfortunately, far too difficult for me to understand the contents of your links but, never the less, thank you for it.
One more question: can I make a little progress by using a 'good' keyboard or synth.?
And is it doable to connect it with Musescore?
Frans
In reply to too difficult by karelmollen
You may want to give MuseScore 2.0 beta 1 a try which comes with many audio quality and playback improvements. You can download it from http://musescore.org/en/node/30866
In reply to too difficult by karelmollen
Purchasing a "good" keyboard is not going to help.
The problem is not with the sounds themselves, particularly if you are using the Fluid R3 soundfont.
The problem is in the way the music is performed - a human performer adds subtle nuances, particularly in phrasing to the written music, which are missing from MuseScore's output, and which need to be added separately in a sequencer.
I would first of all follow Thomas's suggestion about MuseScore 2 beta as playback is much improved.
Peter Schaffter is the acknowledged guru about rendering MuseScore to audio. It might help you to contact him.
In reply to Purchasing a "good" keyboard by ChurchOrganist
Thanx!
In reply to Recording by karelmollen
Knowing you speak native Dutch, you better translate "minder vlak to "more lively" instead of "less flat".
Thanx for the little correction, Thomas.
One's never too old to learn, I guess.
Thanx!