Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On 3/27/2018 3:20 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote: Besides, I just noticed my typo ("Thriple") in the subject line carried over from mail to mail, this is s embarrassing... In forums for the DDWRT wifi router firmware, there are important must-read threads deliberately given unique, arbitrary

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Thanks, Joram, That sounds plausible... Talking about quarter tone accidentals: Internally, LilyPond uses quarter tone steps, so that I had to insert intermediate steps between double and triple flat resp. between double and triple sharp. I don't believe that it is of any practical relevance,

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi, Am 27.03.2018 um 19:49 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle: > nobody seems to know what this accidental is for I've never seen it in real life neither, but it seems to be an alternative for the ½ flat and 1½ flat signs. > 1 1/2 flat … > Symbol is usually the backwards flat sign combined with the

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Werner and Abraham, Thanks for the feedback, we're getting somewhere... :) As usual, I've kept the slashes as closely as possible to the original design in the first attempt just to have a basis for discussion. Eventually, these glyphs are very rare and especially in the case of the slashed

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current > > working draft design (the triple flat missing in the original > > design, though). All existing accidentals containing flats both on > > and between

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

> I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current > working draft design (the triple flat missing in the original > design, though). All existing accidentals containing flats both on > and between stave-lines in all design sizes. In my printout, the > opening-up of counters does

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi all, Sorry for the long pause, but I was quite occupied with my job (and music)... tisimst wrote > This is really exciting. Yes, it certainly is. That's why I'm trying to get it right, or, at least, find a good compromise. tisimst wrote > I do feel like the slash on

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Torsten Hämmerle writes: > Werner LEMBERG wrote >>> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size >>> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) } >>> >>> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the >>> distances. >>

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Werner LEMBERG wrote >> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size >> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) } >> >> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the >> distances. > > I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size > by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) } > > It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the > distances. I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have staves with different sizes

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Am 15. März 2018 05:42:33 MEZ schrieb Abraham Lee : >Hi, Karlin! > >On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:13 PM Karlin High >wrote: > >> On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote: >> > the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all >the >>

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi, Karlin! On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:13 PM Karlin High wrote: > On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote: > > the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all the > > way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line > > If a staff line fills counter

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote: the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line If a staff line fills counter white-space... I'm thinking a ledger line would be even worse. -- Karlin High Missouri, USA

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi, Torsten! On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote: > Werner LEMBERG wrote > > In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'. > > For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for > > `feta11' is very large. Is

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Werner LEMBERG wrote > In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'. > For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for > `feta11' is very large. Is this intentional? I think it's a bit > confusing. Hmmm, I was wondering, too. I just used \score inside a

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Thanks, Sam, As regards microtonal glyphs, we should probably keep things separate. If you have any suggestions, this list is a good place to discuss them. The user list is even more suited because some things are rather a question of design than a technical thing. Once "the community", or part

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

> Please find attached the proofsheet I'm planning to attach to the > issue tracker (if nothing dreadful happens). There's also a concise > test of \chordmode and note entry. MIDI output isn't contained, but > it's working as it should. > > issue3356-proofsheet.pdf >

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Torsten, This looks really wonderful; terrific work! While we're here, can anyone provide an update on microtonal work in LilyPond? I seem to remember a git project a few years ago but haven't heard anything since. Has anyone done any microtonal or spectralist notation with Lily recently?

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Am 14. März 2018 20:22:20 MEZ schrieb "Torsten Hämmerle" : >Dear all, .. > and others had nothing >negative >to say about it, either (except Urs, probably). Just stating that I don't have a strong opinion on that and will be fine with whatever solution you'll come up

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Dear all, After thorough considerations and evaluating your answers, I think I've chosen to implement Abraham's "equally condensed flats" proposal. Now that I've set up a proofsheet showing all Feta design sizes from 11 to 26 both in music examples and a uniformly scaled (artificial) proofing

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Torsten, I withdraw my vote for 3. When comparing your recent pdfs, I join Werner's statement. The bb and bbb glyphs just look too wide (4) or too thin/too overlapping (3) otherwise. I prefer the condensed form (version 2). Cheers, Joram ___

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

> Version 2: Abrahams equalized flats: > test-issue3356-condensed.pdf > > Thanks. And this is still my preferred version. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Stefano Troncaro wrote > Hi Torsten, I'm undecided between the second and the third. Would it be > possible to compare them in a musical example? Hi Stefano, it took some time till I had a chance to compile the whole thing with different parameter settings, but here you go: Version 2: Abrahams

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Noeck wrote > I like your "intermediate 3/4 pdf". > In a very large size (your pdf 400%) they look perfect to me. > It is hard to tell with the limited resolution of a monitor, but in > usual sizes (100%) they might be too much overlapping (i.e. still moving > a little bit towards version 4 might

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Torsten, I am in favour of version 3 (or between 3 and 4). Equally spaced, full-sized flats with maximal overlap. I think, saving horizontal width is important. I like your "intermediate 3/4 pdf". In a very large size (your pdf 400%) they look perfect to me. It is hard to tell with the

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Torsten, I'm undecided between the second and the third. Would it be possible to compare them in a musical example? 2018-03-13 12:38 GMT-03:00 Werner LEMBERG : > > Nice work! > > > 2. Abraham's equally compressed flats > > > > Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise,

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Urs Liska-3 wrote > If I had to choose between 3) and 4) I would go for 4), but actually I'd > suggest to go for something between those two. Good point. To narrow down the number of suggestions, I just took the extreme cases. If we go for natural width flats, the overlap can be optimized. Urs

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Nice work! > 2. Abraham's equally compressed flats > > Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the > original glyph width: > > > This is my favourite. Werner

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Torsten, thank you for that comparison. Am 13.03.2018 um 15:52 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle: ... Double-flat alternatives in comparison In the old discussions mentioned in some of the answers, Abraham proposed a compromise that kept the original glyph width by applying an average compression

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

First of all, Thank you very much for all the feedback! Sorry I didn't dig the archives myself, but initially I took the original Feta designs for granted and carved in stone. Where did the original double-flat design come from? Music(X)TeX was a good guess, but the Music(X)TeX accidentals look

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On 3/12/2018 3:36 PM, Karlin High wrote: Unless MusiXTeX and MusicTex are different projects? With TeX variants, I never can tell. Ah, this fits my TeX experience so far: apparently there is one MusicTeX and two different MusiXTeX projects. Among other related projects.

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi, from what I learned (only in the last days), #x seems to be the "default". I like your suggestions, Torsten. When looking at the triple flat, I wondered why it is so inconsistent – only discovering later that it is the bb part that is inconsistent not the third b that you added. In short, I

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On 3/12/2018 2:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Perhaps worth checking how MusicTeX fonts (derived from MuTeX work) looked. Google led to... ...which led to Werner Icking Music Archive, which led to...

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Karlin High writes: > On 3/12/2018 12:17 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote: >> this would mean changing a traditional Feta design traded down from >> generation to generation > > Any chance of finding the discussion where the current design > originated? A lilypond-devel thread

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

On 3/12/2018 12:17 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote: this would mean changing a traditional Feta design traded down from generation to generation Any chance of finding the discussion where the current design originated? A lilypond-devel thread from 2015 has Han-Wen Nienhuys saying he doesn't

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the dot (it's too high). The glyphs are built using existing character drawing

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Abraham, Thanks for chiming in! tisimst wrote > I agree that it should be #x and not x#. Ok, then this seems to be settled. :) tisimst wrote > Can I make a request while you're in the mode? Can we please, please, > PLEASE, make the double flat look correct? > [...] Yes, you can, and

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Urs Liska-3 wrote > I can't comment on the implementation, but IMHO it looks fine. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know here on the user list. The actual implementation isn't perfectly complete anyway (and I'll have to do a lot of testing because note names and accidentals are terribly basic

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi, Torsten! On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote: > Hi Urs, > > Many thanks for having a look. > > > > Urs Liska-3 wrote > > I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's > > the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Am 12.03.2018 um 17:07 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle: Hi Urs, Many thanks for having a look. Urs Liska-3 wrote I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new. I'm not too happy about it either, that's

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Hi Urs, Many thanks for having a look. Urs Liska-3 wrote > I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's > the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new. I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking here. The only

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

Am 12.03.2018 um 15:41 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle: Dear LilyPond user community, As the issue reappeared again, I'm currently implementing triple flats/sharps (as exotic as they may be). There are very few examples and therefore, I'd like to ask the community at large what they think about the