Page 2 of 2

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Posted: 08 Feb 2022, 03:59
by tisimst
Yes, much better. Well done, Ben!

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Posted: 08 Feb 2022, 08:33
by OCTO
I just wonder, benwiggy, why are the stems longer than octave?

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Posted: 08 Feb 2022, 23:42
by Fred G. Unn
benwiggy wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 09:21 I've decreased the length of the stub (down from the factory length of 1 and 5/24th spaces(!) to 7/8)
They are "supposed" to be the width of a notehead, right?

Gould
Image

Ross
Image

Stone
Image

Re: Tertiary beams: a case for widening/thickening?

Posted: 09 Feb 2022, 13:41
by benwiggy
John Ruggero wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 01:33 That looks fine, Ben. The factory needs to issue a recall on that default.
In fairness, the factory default for space after dot is 1/2 space; I had it to 0 for some reason. Just using 1/8 was enough to fix it.
Fred G. Unn wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 23:42 They are "supposed" to be the width of a notehead, right?
I guessed as much. A quick check in Affinity Designer shows that they are the teensiest bit wider than Bravura's noteheads, -- though because of the curve they look a lot wider. My Sebastian noteheads are a little smaller.
OCTO wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 08:33 I just wonder, benwiggy, why are the stems longer than octave?
Good point. Strangely, changing the "shortened stem length for 16ths and smaller" doesn't seem to affect this pair. There must be some other setting somewhere.... Though it does seem to balance the other groups.

I dislike it when sometimes you see a beam on short stems immediately followed by a much taller stemmed beam. To my eye, this:
Screenshot 18.png
Screenshot 18.png (21.45 KiB) Viewed 7329 times
looks better than this.
Screenshot 19.png
Screenshot 19.png (21.16 KiB) Viewed 7329 times
Possibly a bad example, but .. that kind of thing.