On 8/28/11 3:52 AM, "Janek Warchoł" <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> W dniu 27 sierpnia 2011 15:51 użytkownik Carl Sorensen > <c_soren...@byu.edu> napisał: >> >> The a to b beam would have a slope of 1 ss per eighth note. >> >> The c to f beam would have a slope of 3 ss per eighth note. >> >> the a to f beam would have a slope of 5 ss per 4 eighth notes, or 1.2 ss >> per eighth note. >> >> If you choose the slope of 1.2 for both sides, then it seems to me that the >> b stem will be longer than it would be without the beam on the other side of >> the break, and the c stem would be longer than it would be without the beam >> on the other side of the break. If you force the b and c stems to be the >> same length, the a and f beams would be too short. > > Sorry, Carl, but i don't get it at all. (btw, in which octave is your > example?) > Why "c to f beam would have a slope of 3 ss per eighth note."? Oops -- I did all my calculations in half-staff-spaces, so each number should be divided by 2. > f > notehead is only 1.5 ss higher than c, and beams are usually damped, > so the beam slope in c[ f] is less than 1.5 ss. > Perhaps i didn't explain my suggestion clear enough. Please take a > look at the attachment - that's how i imagine beam breaking could > work: > - first, imagine an unbroken beam. > - break the beam while retaining the slope. > - adjust them a bit vertically: in the lower octave beam (left side) > the notes before the break have a bit long stems, but they couldn't be > shorter because beam must stop at middle line. Notes after break have > too short stems - these can be adjusted by moving the beam up about > 0.5 ss. On the right side, stems before break are quite ok, and stems > after the break can be shortened a bit by moving the beam up. > > I don't see how this could fail or produce bad output - ? I misunderstood your suggestion. When you said the stems would be the same length as if the other beam were not there, I was not thinking of adjusting the beam quanting only. I agree that your proposal should produce good output. I'm sorry for the noise. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel