Downgrading Musescore 4 to Musescore 3

• Dec 27, 2022 - 21:30

Downgrading Musescore 4 to Musescore 3:

In many other Software such as Microsoft Office, one can click "Save As" and then select an earlier Office format for almost lossless downgrading to use on an older machine.

Would be nice to implement such a function in Musescore 4, so all the file properties and most of layout formats and element positions can be kept and easily downgraded to MS3. Convering via musicxml does not work due to a really very big loss of many element, sound and file properties.
Otherwise MS4 will not make great sense to use for the next few years.

Hopefully, Heinz Vonesch


MuseScore 4 already makes great sense to use :-). not understanding how forcing worse playback and worse engraving by opening a nice MuseScore 4 score in MsueScore 3 would help you actually use MuseScore 4, though?

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I wanted to share my new MS4 score with a friend. Her computer does not support MS4. I would like to save the file under MS3 so we could share. I need her help for viola transposition. I opened a new file in MS3 and tried to do copy paste from MS4 to MS3 with no success. When downloading ms4 any file automatically went from MS3 to MS4 easily. Why can"t we have the possibility to reverse?

In reply to by viobro

The best way is NOT to use MS4 at all. Dowgrade to MS3.6.2 and you never have peoblems any more. MS4 is very bad, because it does no more support the international normed soundfonts and the new proprierary sounds in the new mixer only plays tones over about half an octave. Some higher or lower tones simply keep silent and so no song can ever properly played. So a downgrade is a must anyway.
Greetings, Heinz

In reply to by HeinzVo

??? Soundfonts are very much still supported, and I have no idea what you mean about new sounds playing the wrong octave. Sounds like you are having some sort of problem but it isn't clear what. Best to start a new thread and describe the problem you are experiencing in more detail - and please attach your score.

In reply to by HeinzVo

Absolutely agree with you. I keep checking in to see if any of the functions and features that were important to me as a digital music creator that does not lean toward orchestra, and it doesn't seem to be a priority or even planned. I would write everything specifically for the playback, not ever to be read by a musician. Even if someone was going to play it, when offered the sheet music, they would always prefer the MIDI or the WAV. It was easy to change sounds I needed (no longer a function) which is absolutely vital in my kind of music. Going through the forums here on occasion I have concluded that the priority now is for high end orchestral arrangements (though, not for the playback, just the notation), not the lowly dregs making industrial metal like myself. And no matter what the thread, or what the complaint, Marc will jump in and say you're experience and what you're trying to do are both wrong... for reasons. It's your fault for not doing things the way classical musicians do it. The programmers are not at fault for not being clear that they want to veer away from modern music styles.

So, if you're like me, go to MU3. It's the only viable option until they decide to go back to accommodating those they deem lower.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Playback-differences between Musescore 3 and 4

Playback examples "A_Clare_Benediction_John_Rutter"; part A with 3 staffs, part B (measure 40) with 6 staffs.

Playback in Musescore 3 (which well supports soundfonts, especially easy and fast changes in the mixer):

The sound was choosen from a soundfont as "Choir=Cello", "Acoomp=Piano", "SATB(start at measure 40)=Clarinet and/or Piano".
The (because of their staff-clefs and staff-labels) so defined Choir-voices "Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass" can be easily overlayed by other instruments like "Piano, Cello, Clarinet, ..." for listening and learnig a single voice without to mute all others.

Playback in Musescore 4 (which NO MORE supports soundfont instrument selections in the mixer):

The sound is choosen from the soundsystem as "Choir=unwanted oohs", "Acoomp=Piano", "SATB(start at measure 40)=unwanted oohs" by completely ignoring the instrument overlays from MS3!
Trying to change some muse-sounds results in very bad playing (tones not or almost not playing and with random or accidental volume changes)!
Trying to change famous sondefont-instruments is NOT possible because NO MORE supported!

NOTE: Soundfonts (sf3) occupies only a few MB with very good playback results while muse-sounds uses many many many GB with a disappointing result!
NOTE: It's essential that soundfonts will remain well supported, so musicxml-exports will keep instrument definitions widely compatible with others instead of now getting proprietrary!

2023-02-28, Heinz Vonesch

Attachment Size
Playback differences MS3 to 186.95 KB

In reply to by HeinzVo

Indeed, currently, you cannot select individual sounds within a sounddont. If you simply want to play choir sounds using cello, it's not clear why you wouldn't simply use the Msue Sounds cello, which is vastly superior to any soundfont. Or use a VST instrument, which will also be superior. Or a good cello-specific soundfont. None of these require changing the instrument itself; you can select any of them from the Mxier directly. But, if you've grown attached to the cello sound from the original MU3 soundfont and wish to continue using it, see this post for a simple solution that allows you to select the cello or any other sound from within the basic soundfont just as you could previously:…

In reply to by Jacob B D

I'm sorry you feel I or someone else has been dismissive toward you or to someone because of the style of music they are making. I can absolutely assure you this is not the case, not even in the tiniest slightest bit.

For the record, there are tons of major improvements that have nothing to do with orchestra - the engraving improvement are enormous, taking MsueScore instantly from being the worst of the major notation programs in that respect to one of the best. But, it is true that if you are not concerned with engraving because you are concerned with playback only, and you are not using orchestral instruments, the list of improvements is smaller. The biggest is probably VST support, but there are others, including rit/accel support etc. Plus a generally improved UI that benefits everyone regardless of musical style. On the other hand, a few other specific things will need to be implemented to work with the new vastly improved playback engine, so a couple of things aren't working yet, and if you rely on them that would indeed unfortunately be a reason to forego all the another amazing improvements for now.

Anyhow, it has absolutely nothing to with MuseScore thinking of some users as "lower" or even "dregs". It's simply a matter of trying to make the bigger difference first for the biggest group of users. A few things that are not as commonly used as temporarily on hold, but rest assured, everything is being health with.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

For me and probably many others it is absolutely essential, that NOTHING has to be changed in the MS4 mixer! The selected and so stored or overlayed instruments in MS3 MUST exactly be played in the same way with the same instruments AUTOMATICALLY WITH NO CHANGE. Only this way I can give MSCZ or MXL files to someone else for learning voices. It is not a good idea, that other people first must study manuals and a lot of things about sound, before the can playback my prepared MSCZ. Everything must go automatically and playback in exactly the same way in MS3 AND MS4 for practical use. As long as this is not the case, I recommend all oher peoples and my collegues to keep MS3 or downgrading again so they can simply use the files for voice-learning without to tune and change lots and lots of things first.

Hopefully you will understand this. Thanks.

In reply to by HeinzVo

I understand. For this I do still think you are best off using Muse Sounds, but if that isn't an option for whatever reason (maybe the people you give the files to won't have it), then indeed, you'll need to wait for a future update that restores the feature. The method I described produces the correct results but only on your own system or on, not when you email the file to someone.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I do think it's a fairly big problem that it is impossible to make MuseScore 4 sound decent currently without proprietary software. Its' a shame that core functionality is being moved to closed source development. With luck, Musescore 5 won't just be an empty canvas that you have to install a proprietary engraving tool to use.

In reply to by oscardssmith

I don't understand what you mean by this - MuseScore 4 continue to support soundfonts as it has in the past. So it can sound exactly as "decent" as MuseScore 3. And it also supports VST instruments, which can be open source. So you can have better playback than ever before, without using proprietary software. And to be clear - absolutely nothing has been “moved to closed source development". Nothing that was previously open source is now closed - that would be a violating of the license. Everything that was open source in MU3 remains open source in MU4 and must by lawe remain open source forever. But that doesn't mean exciting new functionality can't be added.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Agreed - MuseScore 4 seems geared towards classical notation. I've gone back to 3.62 as it's more intuitive, faster, and suits my needs as a music educator far better. I miss having multiple scores pop up in tabs. I really miss the Save and Open buttons. I had no playback issues in 3.62 - If I wanted better sounds, I'd export to my DAW and use plugins. MS4 has been an exercise in frustration..

In reply to by teodorico.zurlo.7

It would be nice indeed if it were always possible to create amazing advancements in technology while still maintaining 100% backwards compatibility, but unfortunately, it’s just not the way things work. Always keeping that kind of compatibility would hamper progress. That’s why you can’t refill your 1990
Ford Taurus at a modern electric charging station, why a USB-C device doesn’t work on a 1980’s Mac, etc. sometimes things can be designed this way, but sometimes it’s just beyond the capabilities of the technology, or would be cost—prohibitive, or the resources needed simply don’t exist.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Backward compatibility would be nice (such like a "Save As MS3" command.
But Forward compatibility is a MUST, and this is indeed NOT the case with the new sound system NOT supporting and automatically selecting the same soundfont-instruments.
As long as this is not the case and MS4 stayes and leaves in a alpha or beta stage, nobody may be really interested in upgrading to a system where all the already generated mscz-files will no longer work and play correctly. On the website please set MS3.6.2 as the default and stable download as long as MS4 comes out of the uncomplete beta stage (that means at least the same commands and functionality as MS3 will be implementated). Thanks a lot.

In reply to by HeinzVo

I think you are misunderstanding. The format is completely compatible going forwards - MU3 files load into u4. But it’s true certain features are still in process of being redesigned and improved. But the features in this stage on are ones most users don’t access often, so it makes sense to allow the majority of users to enjoy the benefits of MU4 without needing to wait for literally every single feature that will ever be present to be completed.

For the sound selection, this is easily worked around using the ZIP archive I posted recently in the Soundfonts. Most other features in this category similarly have simple workarounds.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Everybody would surely be glad to get a very new car, which now has a new digital radio, a Wifi, GPS, Bluetooth and so on and even a system to communicate to the ISS or the people on the moon or mars.
But this new car don't have yet a motor-engine inside or only an simple steam-engine as a workaround because the real foreseen motor didn't leave the development yet. The motor is essential for a new car and so I guess nobody will be happy with a no driving new car...

For MuseScore the playback sound system is like the motor, everybody and really everybody absolutely needs! If millions and millions of people cannot or no more properly playback all their existing mscz files without endless tuning them manually, it's like a car without a proper working motor and so they will give it back and rather drive with the working old one. I hope you will agree with this and first develope on the compatibility of the soundfont and their instrument-selection system with the highest priority. Thanks again.

In reply to by HeinzVo

Wait. I can absolutely play MS3 files in MS3. And MS4 files in MS4. And MS3 files in MS4. And MS4 files in MS3. It might be to be able to save as a previous version. I don't think there is any real responsibility to do so. Ask any Mac user about backwards compatibility. There is little guaranty of forward compatibility for Windows.

In reply to by HeinzVo

To be clear - the vast majority of MU3 scores do play back perfectly in MU4 - in fact the vast majority play far better than before, because of Muse Sounds. It's only a tiny percentage of scores that will have issues that might require you to spend a couple of minutes updating things in the mixer.

Of course, it's unfortunate indeed, and it could be that for a tiny percentage of users who not only have scores that don't playback as expected, but also cannot afford to spend that extra couple of minutes updating things, they might be better off continuing to use MU3 for those scores specifically,. Meanwhile those same people can continue to enjoy the enormous improvements in MU4 for everything else (the vast majority of older scores that do play correctly, plus all new scores).

So those few people who need to still use MU3 for certain scores they are unwilling/unable to update can still use it for those scores, and use MU4 for everything else, and everyone else can simply use MU4 for everything.
Everyone wins

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

To me the playback is not better, it's not even identical. A distorted electric guitar is reset as clean and I can't change it. That's just an example. Other sounds like Organs, Hurdy gurdys, Harpsichordes, various synths, just about any non-orchestral/symphonic instrument is gone. It makes my scores go from amazing to sounding like an 8-bit knock off.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not an upgrade if it can't do everything the previous version can with addition of new features. It's just a new program that can't do as much.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Again, not every score will be automatically better - guitar specifically was not improved yet indeed. A new guitar set within Msue Sounds is expected to be released later this year. But, the distortion is still there, you just need to add the "distort" text from the palette to get to it. And the non-symphonic instruments aren't gone at all - you simply need to select them from the instrument list, rather than trying to force one instrument to sound like a different instrument via the mixer. Or you can use the ZIP file I posted earlier to allow you to change sounds.

I understand that un an ideal world, it would be nice if it were possible to completely redesign an application and somehow retain every single feature and have it work exactly the same way and get it done in just a few months, but that's just not feasible in the real world. Sometimes some seldom-used features might take longer to redesign and reimplement in order to improve them, but that shouldn't prevent the vast majority of users from being able to take advantage of the other improvements. Meanwhile there are always workarounds for the few things that are still in limbo, just as there are for what you just described above. Just start a new thread and ask for help with anything you still have trouble with!

In reply to by Chuck Bermingham

Just wait a year or so, and the majority WILL be loving Muse4 ... because the rest of us will have given up and found another product, even if it means paying hundreds of dollars and going through yet another set of steep learning curves.

The lack of support in M4 for sound fonts, many of which are the only voicings I can find to be acceptable for my compositions and demos. The default MS4 fonts are buzzy and synth-ey. So my question is, (now that I'm being forced to cough up about $1,000), which commercial product is better for contemporary classical, instrumental and choral composing? Steinberg or Sibelius?

In reply to by joe.shupienis

I think you might be confused. MU4 most certainly supports soundfonts, as well as the vastly superior VST instruments and Muse Sounds. Maybe you’re thinking of the fact that it doesn’t allow selecting non-default sounds within soundfonts? No need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to solve that. If free General MIDI soundfonts and VST and Muse Sounds options don’t provide what you want, you can also simply split your favorite soundfont into separate files using completely free tools, and then you can select the individual sounds. And 4.2 will return the ability to select non-default sounds within soundfonts, so the issue will be moot within a few weeks anyhow.

And if you really want to spend money to get even more sounds, no need to change programs - just invest in some paid VST instruments.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Hello Jacob
Many thanks for your comment. That's exactly the point !!!
The new musesounds are really not better, because they randomly change the volume during playback and therefore it's not an option to use them.
And the old perfectly playing soundfonts are no more fully supported, that means the selected and stored soundfont-instruments from MS3 will not automatically restore in MS4 for playback.
So it is NOT a thiny percentage of people they want MS4 to do at least the same as MS3 could - it might be the hole rest of the world loosing with the upgrade to MS4. If there is no fast correction of that, I guess MS3.6.2 will be the last practical and stable musescore version for the next couple of years or even forever.

In reply to by HeinzVo

Muse Sounds most certainly don't randomly change the volume during playback in general , but if you have a specific score where there are specific notes where you believe the volume is not correct, the first step is to start a new thread here and attach the score and precise steps to reproduce the problem. THen if someone is able to confirm there is as as-yet-unreported bug, you can open a new issue on the official support site for Muse Sounds over on Of course any sufficiently advanced technologies will have a few bugs here and there, and it's important for people to help out by reporting them so they can be fixed.

And again - it takes only a couple of minutes to update a score to use the custom sounds you were using before, but if you don't have those couple of minutes (perhaps you spent them all posting here?), then of course you are welcome to continue to use MU3 for those specific scores. But statistics don't lie - a simple check of scores posted to will demonstrate that's a minority of scores that used this capability, and again, it takes bu minutes to update your scores.

Meanwhile, if enough requests come in to support these older scores better, that can certainly be considered along with all other requests!

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

No need to get Sassy.

You know, you keep saying that these issues only effect a small percentage of users, as though that's something that excuses the idea that fixing these issues are far down on the list. We are that small percentage of users. We're not happy being pushed to the bottom of the list. I believe you can see that. Whether or not you actually care is a different story.

You can either pass the message along that the small minority is not happy, or you can waste another couple minutes of your life defending why you think complaints are worthless and how we could be doing something more productive with our time. Frankly, so can you.

You can help us, you can talk down to us, or you can do nothing at all and except we aren't happy.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Not sure what you mean about being sassy or talking down; I'm simply explaining how the process works. Not everyone understands how to report bugs, or the role of prioritization, etc.

Anyhow, absolutely no one has said fixing issues that only affect a minority of users isn't important, or that we don't care about some users. Literally, no one has ever suggested any such thing, It's just common sense that issues that impact many users get higher priority. I am sure it's the same in whatever field of work you engage in.

Anyhow, helping users is what I do with my time. Not everyone chooses to acknowledge the help, but that won't stop me from offering it.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I'm in customer service... You've spoken down to everyone with a complaint and tried to justify it every time you were called out. This is absolutely a way of insulting people.

You're very bad at your job.

You're implying you won't help me in the future like it's a dire situation I can't live without. I honestly look forward to not being smuggly treated like crap.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Jacob. As a customer service person, don't you just hate it when someone keeps coming back to you and insisting they are being mistreated? In those cases, what do you say to them?
I'm not defending Marc. But I am saying that you aren't helping much.
Written communication is so easy to misinterpret. You think you have been insulted. But do you take the higher road? No, you join right in. Good job.
So now I'll sit back and wait for whatever charming things you have to say.

In reply to by bobjp

Truthfully, he has been taking all the wrong turns in a customer service roll. Insulting the customer, insisting the complaints are nonsense and/or stating it only effects an insignificant few and implying they are therefore not worth the time, insisting he hasn't done what he's being called out for, shifting the blame, and antagonizing.

Instead he should be acknowledging the complaints, validating the feelings of those making the complaint, and stating what can be done about it, if anything. If nothing can be done about it, appologize and offer a different solution. If a different solution can not be offered, don't insist the person should accept the situation and work around it the best they can. Just appologize and acknowledge.

In this particular case, "we're very sorry these features weren't rolled out in the newest version of musescore. It is something we're working on to bringing in in future updates. I absolutely understand it's an inconvenience and maybe sticking with the older version is better for you in your situation. But please stick around and keep an eye on further exciting versions in the future that may better meet your needs. Can I offer some tips on how you can possibly get close to what you want to do in this version?"

It's a bit robotic but it works. Some people just want to be acknowledged, not taught. Adjust and personalize as needed.

Not, "this one's better. You're all just using it wrong. Yeah those features are gone, but lots of people like these new ones. So few people even USE those features, so don't complain about it!"

That's not exactly word for word but that's the feeling I receive from the responses. Make sure the customer leaves happy or at least not as upset as they were coming in.

If you have someone like me who keeps calling you out on the kind of job you're doing, step away and hand it over to someone else, don't keep antagonizing and insisting you did nothing wrong and the customer is just being an ass, because it's not going to help.

And, yeah, you can possibly spot a few pedantic errors in what I wrote in this response. Not everyone responds the same way. That's why each situation should be felt out and personalized to each individual.

In reply to by Jacob B D

For the record, I am a volunteer here - it's not my job to be on this forum at all. I happily donate my time to help users who come and ask questions. I never "speak down" to anyone who comes here with a request for help. Although sometimes I do have to correct erroneous statements, and some people do for whatever reasons get highly offended when that happens. As a professional in the field, I'm sure you can relate to customers who respond that way.

Anyhow, because I am a volunteer, I do get to choose how I use my time and whom I choose to help. I am happy to help 99.99% of people here. But every once in a while, there is that 0.01% who comes here and does nothing but post rude and disrespectful rants full of personal insults. As a professional, I'm sure you know the type. Luckily, it is not my job, so I can simply choose to not respond further when addressed in this completely inappropriate manner. That's not meant as any sort of threat, just a clarification should you wonder why I am not "doing my job" - again, replying to disrespectful posts here is, fortunately, not my job at all.

In reply to by bobjp

I agree with bobjp that it is not straight forward using bad words.

But it's also not straight forward from a support to say that people having problems with the uncomplete sound system of MS4 (and I guess thats not a thinny rest but rather 99.999% of the world at that time) have now to wait for the next several months or years for a fix when MS4 may probably come out of its still uncomplete alpha-state to a more completed beta-state then getting ready for testing by users. I think it is better now to push MS4 back to its real alpha-state on the website and then trying to force the development for the absolutely essential sound system to work as it should (the soundfont instruments are not automatically be selected at openig a mscz and the new musesounds, e.g cello or clarinet or bassoon or whatever, do almost not sound, that means probably about 100dB more silent as a piano sound when playing together - so there is a real volume bug problem today; note I already attached some mscz-samples earlier for testing).

Please, please first make tests by your own and so everyone definitively will see that both the soundfonts and also the very new musesounds do not work properly so far and there is really time to work on them to push MS4 from alpha to to the next more usable beta state, then ready for some selected testing-users. Many Thanks.

In reply to by bobjp

No one on this forum is in customer service. Everyone of us are users just like everyone else. Some of us (not me) have a lot of experience using MuseScore and are trying to pass that along to others. Those of you who complain about MU4 need to realize that it is not MU3. Get over it. Neither program is perfect. Not by a long shot. There are those that say MU4 shouldn't have been released yet. There are those that seem to have nothing better to do than complain about all the things that they don't like. There are things I don't like, either. Since the December release of MU4, I have spent hours every day on the forum trying to understand the problems. I have been able to help many people get their software to work much better.
I have seen many posts by people claiming to have programing experience who complain about how poorly MU4 is written. Guess what. It's open source. Anyone can work on it and make it better. But no takers I guess. They'd rather complain and accomplish nothing.

I see many posts from people for whom MU4 didn't live up to their expectations. They feel the need to sadly say that they will have to go back to MU3 because MU4 just isn't ready for them yet. Great. Do it. Get on with it. MuseScore doesn't owe anyone anything. It's just a piece of software. No one is forcing anyone to use either version.
Personally, I have no use any more for MU3. On the other hand I have a long list of things I don't like about MU4. Oh well.
Every one needs to chill.

In reply to by bobjp

Ok, I understand. So this forum does not make very much sense, because no one reading this is in customer service. The promblems placed here may therefore not recogniced and veryfied from customer service and so nothing will be planned to do, making things better in future.

So the only thing we can do here is to tell all other users in the world to continue using MS3 for the next couple of years if they intend to continue using the playback function of Musescore.
And new users should understand, not to download MS4 from the main website, but rather immediately switching to the site with the older MS3.6.2 if the also intend to use Musecores playback for hearing an learning tones and/or making mp3 outputs from there scores.

In reply to by HeinzVo

There is no (paying) Customer, and no (paid for) Customer Service, for the MuseScore editor or this website here.
Instead, the MuseScore Editor (and the use of this website here) is completly free of change, and the support is done by (unpaid!) volunteers, mere mortal members of the community.
Occasionally though a a (paid) staff member pops by.

In reply to by HeinzVo

I count myself as one of the "disappointed" MuseScore users who are staying with MS 3.6.2 (or the helpful 3.7.0).

But I have to recognise that MS4 represents a massive rewrite of the codebase. This was done in large part to introduce new technology to the MS playback system.

And that codebase rewrite has two consequences:
a) because of time and budget pressures, some features of MS3 are not yet ported to MS4;
b) because of the complexity of the codebase rewrite by a team which included some brand-new members, there are inevitably more bugs and deficiencies than anyone wanted in 4.0.0 and 4.0.1.

I will use MuseScore4 in due course. Just not quite yet.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

This forum most definitely has a purpose. When people have a problem, they post it here. Then others join in and either solve the problem or help solidify that there is a problem and just what that problem is. Then a report can be filed on GitHub. Otherwise they get flooded with "Sound doesn't work" reports that are not helpful.
If you were to change to different notation software, you would be confronted with many things that don't work the same as MuseScore. Or are missing. Guess what MU4 is different Software. And no one is talking about all the things that are better.
You can add a Rit. text and the tempo slows down.
You can define how much.
Accel, rall, and others work as well.
You can play a single staff without having to open the mixer.
As well as consecutive staves.
These things and more are all things that paid software has had for years. Things that MuseScore users didn't know about. And are actually really useful.

In reply to by bobjp

"This forum most definitely has a purpose. When people have a problem, they post it here. Then others join in and either solve the problem or help solidify that there is a problem and just what that problem is."

Agreed! I absolutely love the forums here on As a "newbie" in 2013 I lurked for almost a year, learning how to ask a question - and what the etiquette was. was and still is the most friendly and most helpful forum I have ever come across.

In reply to by Jacob B D

Agree. Still can't change sounds in a soundfont, have to split them. I thank Marc for writing that code, but still I agree--it's a patchy solution for soundfonts. I tune in from time to time, will be doing it less and less, getting disappointed more and more.

We'll see how long we get pushed to the bottom of the list.

Oh, and I don't take too well to belittlement over my lack of interest in fancy engraving.

I hope to God my 3.6.2 keeps working as long as I live.

In reply to by Chuck Bermingham

No one is belittling anyone - I was just printing out something about good engraving that might not have occurred to you.

3.6.2 will likely work for years then stop as new operating systems come out and can’t be supoorted. But not to worry - that’s many years off. And the few missing features will be added to MU4 long before then - months rather than years.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Musescore 3 does not have worse playback than Musescore 4.
Musescore 3 has some incredibly useful playback features for practicing/rehearsing that Musescore 4 just does not have.

In Musescore 3 I can:
1. Have musescore count me in with a measure of rest
2. set playback to use a %-age of the target tempo (e.g. 80% of the target tempo)
3. listen to all parts when my instrument's part is open
(e.g. listen to the full band when I have the trumpet part open)
- Musescore 4 will not allow me to un-mute other parts in the mixer.

I can't do any of those things in Musescore 4

The last point hurts especially bad as my instrument is not keyed in C.
If all I have available is musescore, I get to choose between being able to hear all the parts and being able to read my part.

Musescore 4 is still a HUGE downgrade in the playback experience for anyone using it as a practice/rehearsal tool.
And this is with the current release (4.0.2) 7 months later.

Maybe the Musescore 4 experience is much better for arrangers,
but as a player (especially of a non-C instrument) the experience is so much worse.

In reply to by gishblade

To be clear, the worse playback mentioned refers to the quality of the sound - being limited to soundfonts instead of Muse Sounds and VST instruments which are far superior. It's true that the controls for play-along / rehearsal purposes are not yet as well developed, although that will surely change over time as MU4 continues to improve.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Yes, the worse playback refers to the quality of the sound - but in opposite manner:
Very well playing and compact soundfonts in MU3, but in MU4 limited to the excessive large Muse Sounds that do not play proper because of a sever volume problem instead (some instruments almost not hearable even at full volume settings), especially when there are two or more different instruments playing together and soundfonts in MU4 are not usable supported at that time.

In reply to by HeinzVo

You’re not limited to Muse Sounds at all - soundfonts continue to be supported, and also VST. So more and better options than ever.

Not sure what volume problem you mean - my scores sound amazing - but feel free to start a new thread with your score attached and someone should be able to help. For choir sounds, I do have to turn them up in the Mixer, but aside from that balances seem about right in all cases I’ve tried.

In reply to by gishblade

I really have to chime in here.

I cannot use Musescore 4 in its present form. It's pointless for anyone to advertise the "beautifully engraved notation", because I can barely see it anyway. I do music for the ear, not the eye!

I wish they would go back, look everything over, and make a Musescore 5 that everyone who does music, especially cassical music and keyboard music, can use. Were it not for my domestic situation, I'd throw my hat in the ring, but that's not to be. So all I can do is make my wishes known.

In reply to by Chuck Bermingham

Even if your vision is such that you have difficulty reading the notation, one of the main purposes of MuseScore is to produce printed notation so that others can read your music.

Anyhow, not to worry, the goal of MuseScore is to meet the needs of all musicians. Tons of advancements have been made in the area of playback - especially orchestral music - and of usability for this very reason. A small handful of features from MuseScore 3 have not yet been ported over the new architectrue, but rest assured that's just temporary.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

MU4 is definitively not made to meet the needs of most or all musicians - it seems to be just a special trial for some freaks, not for wide users!
Especially the sound-engine in that state is a miscarried disaster and probably even in the next few years never going to work in a usable manner.
- MuseSound are completely unusable, because of their enormous extreme delay for seconds on some instruments (never watching/hearing to a maestro/metronome), so in ensembles it sounds like caterwauling!
- MuseSound instruments do not have equal sound levels for same volume settings, so some instruments in ensembles almost disappear, and volume settings are not easily settable with a mouse.
- SoundFonts are incomplete supported, especially "Automatically Selecting sounds within SoundFonts", so millions of existing MU3-files do not play correct!
- When SoundFonts selected (which is the only practical way to use) and MU4 detects an ornament like a trill, then it trills endless forever unless the MU4-playback is aborted!
- I'm sure there are hundreds and hundreds of other bugs in the playback-engine, so probably it will not come out of an alpha-trial-state for a very, very long time.
We thank to God that MuseScore 3.6.2 still exists (and will never disappear from the webpage) and hope to God that a MuseScore-5 with a completely new and stable playback-engine (or with the old and working MU3-engine) will come out earlier before...

In reply to by HeinzVo

The main discussion is here:

Jojo is continuing to maintain and develop a fork of MS3 which is being called MS3.7.0 and which runs like the portable version of Musescore rather than being installed. I used 3.6.2 and 3.7.0 side-by-side for a while, (MS4 is a non-starter for me), but now I only use 3.7.0.

The artifacts for 'installing' can be found here:
You download the artifacts for your OS and then unzip twice to any location on your system. After that you can run the .exe file directly or make a shortcut.


To see what's changed since 3.6.2 you can view the pull requests, (some are still open).

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Can you please send me a link to the page where I will find the appimage? I have your source, but it wants a newer version of qt than I have.

I'd love to try this out though!

Thank you for your kind assistance. It looks like I'm going to try to join in the development, but I don't know if I will have the time or resources to do much.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I hope this is the best place to talk with you about this.....

If I can figure out how to join in I will, but as I said elsewhere, I don't have a lot of time to work on code; also, I new at Github, and have not yet contributed. but I will help if I can.

I hope that pull request isn't holding anyone else up.

Also, was that the best place to post a feature request? If it was not. please advise what I should have done differently.

Again, thank you. I'm glad you're updating version 3; it would be nice if Muse would bless the work.

In reply to by yonah_ag

I know. But he really has no idea how many people are using MU4 no or little issue. Yes, there are many things missing or need improvement. Duh! MU4 doesn't work for everyone. We know this. Improvements are happening. Just not fast enough for some people. I get it. It is interesting how many posts end with almost the exact same sentence : MU4 is unusable so I'm going back to MU3. I have no problem with anyone using whatever version they want. But what proceeds that last sentence is always something about how it was released to early. It's not ready. There are complaints that the developers don't know what they are doing. And on, and on.
MU3 doesn't work for me. I don't even have it on this computer. I don't need it. Is MU4 perfect? No. No notation software is. But for me it is far better than MU3. I thank the developers for the work they have done so far.

In reply to by lxtus_xoxo

Or not.
I would like to continue to use V3 because no matter what I do I always end up with a problem in V4.
This time (after several months of ignoring it) I just went to a simple unfinished choral piece, loaded it with V4 and added the 1st Tenor line.
Imagine my surprise when a few bars in the default sound starts screeching like a walrus. I finished it because it's not very long.
Now I'm kind of stuck with a useless SSAT because I am not able to go back to V3 and before anybody sez anything, no, I did not save a copy.
At this point I don't really care.

In reply to by Chuck Bermingham

It's still not clear what in particular you are looking for - what (specifically* about the 4.1 reverb you have an issue with. Best to start a new thread, attach a 3.6.2 score, and explain exactly what reverb settings you are using and why, and then we can help you reproduce this in MuseScore 4.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

what if the guy really just wants to revert back to musescore 3. i want to too. musescore 3 performs much better than musescore 4. my computer just freezes on musescore 4. i cant find a way to revert back the version of my score from ms4 to ms3. i did use ms4 for a while. you're right it has better playback, but i got tired of freezes every single time i do anything.

In reply to by mikechadyt

Frezes are bugs, and we'd love to fix them! If you have a score and steps to reproduce the freeze, please post them here so we can investigate. If someone else is able to confirm the problem, you can then report this directly to developers on GitHub. Freezes and crashes are always given the highest priority and are generally fixed very quickly after they are reported. If you report this soon enough, there's still time to get the fix in for 4.2.1

In reply to by mikechadyt

You would certainly do well to report such freezes as this would benefit all MS4 users. I have tried MS4.2.0 on an ancient, underspec PC and it ran very smoothly without any crashes. So, other than the crashes, (which will get fixed), in what respect do you find that MS3 "performs much better"? (I'm not moving to MS4 yet due to some missing features critical to my workflow but maybe sometime in 2024 I'll make the jump.)

In reply to by mandelbrotkid

"There's also something I use that MS4 has, which you copy a note onto a rest, and the new note will be the same length of the rest."

This is not what I see in MS4 (or in MS3). When I copy a note or chord into a rest of a different duration, the resulting duration is exactly the same as the copied note or chord - not the same duration as the targeted rest.

Can you explain in more detail what you mean?

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.