Ok. Second comment
You've fixed some things, but made some other things worse.
Dynamics seem ok, I don't have anything to correct there (assuming that these are the dynamics that you want). I didn't listen to the sound file, because there's little point (the dynamics in the file will not be the same dynamics you'll get from real people playing the piece). Which is also a thing to notice - never write dynamics so that they "sound alright" on Finale/Sibelius, but write them with the instruments in mind. As Qccowboy has said, orchestration is a fundamental aspect of composition, it's not just assigning notes to instruments, and dynamics are an important aspect of orchestration. So, I won't bother listening to the file because I will assume you didn't fall in this trap and you wrote the dynamics as *you* want them, not Finale, thus the Finale midi performance of this piece should not sound like what you want to hear, thus there is no point in hearing it
Anyway, continuing with the score, the instrument abbreviations you've used are absolutely dreadful
I don't mean to insult you, but I am afraid they look very confusing and they are even more misleading than they should be. I don't see why you shouldn't use the normal abbreviations that people have been using for the past few hundred years, even if you don't personally like them. Unless you can find a better, more effective, simpler and easier way to indicate which instruments play what, then I would suggest to stick to traditional notation and habbits. Gardner Read in his book on music notation, he says that there is no need for modern innovations in notation unless they make communication between the composer and performer easier (a very good book to read indeed =P )
Now, about tuplets, you seem to have decided to write all tuplets with just a single number. It makes things terribly complicated. For example, m.32, bottom staff, you have sextuplets, quintuplets, then duplets, then quintuplets, then triplets. I assume the sextuplets are to be played in the time of 4, and so are the quintuplets, but what about the tuplet? Is it supposed to be played in the time of one (in which case you should have notated it with half the value), or are they to be played in the time of three? Duplets are rarely used, and they are mostly used in triple metter (an example is Debussy's "Claire de Lune" from his Suite Bergamasque). Triplets are very standard today, but quintuplets and sextuplet are not so standardised, so just for the sake of clarity you should indicate the time in which the 5 or 6 notes are to be played (i.e. 6:4, 5:4 etc).
The beaming of the tuplets is also problematic: you tend to beam quite randomly, if I may say. For example, on the second-from-the-bottom stave of m.32, the notes of the triplet are beamed with a note outside the triplet. You should generally beam all the notes of a tuplet together and avoid beaming them with outside notes, unless necessary. You can always indicate phrasing with slurs (as you have done), so leave beaming for the rhythmic division of each measure. You should also try and beam together the notes of a quintuplet such as that of the top staff of m.33, among lots of examples throughout the score.
Also, regarding triplets, you have absolutely no reason to write the held note on measure 12 of the bassoon as you have
You indicate a duration of 7 quarters (which is pretty straight-forward as a whole-note and a dotted half-note) as a half-note tied to an eighth note tied to a triplet consisting of a quarter-note tied to an eighth note, which in turn are tied to another eighth note tied to a dotted half-note D= I assume this is a mistake that has been overlooked? =P You do this kind of unnecessary tying in other places too, such as m.10 of the horn, m.13 of the double-bass and m.14 of the flute (among nuuuuumerous other appearances throughout the score) - please do avoid that, since it only makes it harder for the players to read. No, in fact, players will ask "why did you write it this way?" and you'll say "um.. I don't know, it's a mistake", so they'll say "well, if you don't bother with your score, neither will I" and they'll just walk away =P
About the "clashes" I mentioned in the previous post, well, I can see them in places like m.81, flute part (oh, the bracket of the second quintuplet of m.80, trumpet part, must *not*extend to m.81, because it complicates things quite a lot - the performer may think that the quintuplet includes a note from the next measure, which it doesn't), m.18 oboe part (the notes after the triplet are very close together), same measure double-bass part (the natural sign touches the previous notehead), m.30, trumpet part (the crescendo falls directly on the slur).
Moreover, you mix french and english terms ("a bit accented" on m.30, and "à dehors" directly above "but with emphasis" on m.40-41 - I think you mean "en dehors" which roughly translates to "prominently"; it literally translates to "outwards") . Personally, I'd stick to the Italian terms for the standardised concepts (like crescendo, diminuendo, "poco a poco" etc), and I'd use English terms for everything else (although someone could use German or French terms wherever I'd use English ones). Even if I used a French term here and there (but *only* if it made it easier for the performers to understand more easily what I want to say), then I would never mix terms in one sentence, like you've done in m.82, double-bass and bassoon parts: "un poco à dehors" :X You should either write "un poco prominente", or "un peu en dehors". But mixing up languages in one phrase is really confusing =P Lastly, you write "cuivré" in the last page. As far as I know, "cuivre" is French for "copper", so I assume "cuivré" means "coppered"? :X Unless you meant "brassy", in which case you should just use the term "brassy"..
I really wonder why you're using French terms. You told me you want to study in Leipzig, so I assume you speak German alright, so why do you use French if you speak German better than you do French? Or even use English? It's not as if French will add "class" to your pieces =P The main point is communication and functionality, not the looks of a score (well, not in most cases anyway), don't forget that =)
Also, gms5287 is right, you're using very low metronome markings. I don't think many non-digital metronomes can go below 40, 32 at the most. You can always double the amount of beats per minute and halve the durational value of a metronome marking. Just because your piece is in 4/2, you don't
have to write the metronome markings in terms of half-notes. You can indicate them in terms of quarter, or even eighth notes (if it's too slow).