Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Hi Urs, > It is surprising that LilyPond makes it that hard to move a > single note that doesn't have any dependencies … Is this maybe a case where #'extra-offset is your [current] best option? Of course, I don’t love it… but I don’t shy away from using it [via the edition-engraver] when absolutely necessary. Hope that helps, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Am 09.12.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> On 09.12.2015 17:07, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> Hi Urs,
>>
>>> It is surprising that LilyPond makes it that hard to move a
>>> single note that doesn't have any dependencies …
>> Is this maybe a case where #'extra-offset is your [current] best option?
>
> It’s possible to wrap into a music function to deal with note head,
> stem, flag, accidental, but the beam won’t move along. That’s the
> complication.
Indeed.
By now I got a suggestion that brings me much farther (thanks, Janek!):
\once \override Staff.NoteColumn.X-offset = #-0.5
Interestingly this will not affect the same noteColumn in the other
staves but the *next* one. This can be avoided by overriding
Score.NoteColumn *after* the note:
Still a bit awkward, but I could wrap this in a sufficiently convenient
function:
\version "2.19.32"
shiftLocal =
#(define-music-function (offset mus)((number?) ly:music?)
(let ((off (or offset -0.25)))
#{
\once \override Staff.NoteColumn.X-offset = #off
#mus
\once \override Score.NoteColumn.X-offset = #(* -1 off)
#}))
<<
\relative c'' {
a8 a a
\shiftLocal a
a a \shiftLocal #-1 a a
}
\relative c'' { a8 a a a a a a a }
>>
Best
Urs
>
> Yours, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
On 09.12.2015 17:07, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Urs, It is surprising that LilyPond makes it that hard to move a single note that doesn't have any dependencies … Is this maybe a case where #'extra-offset is your [current] best option? It’s possible to wrap into a music function to deal with note head, stem, flag, accidental, but the beam won’t move along. That’s the complication. Yours, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
"Urs Liska" wrote Friday, December 04, 2015 10:59 AM > Am 04.12.2015 um 11:54 schrieb Trevor Daniels: >> \once ] \override Arpeggio.minimum-X-extent =#'(-1 . 0) > > This creates additional space by moving the Arpeggio to the right. But I > want the fourth note e' to move to the left because the intention is to > keep the regularity of the left hand intact. Ah, sorry, I should have also said leave optical spacing on and slightly increase the same-direction-correction from the default value of 0.25: \once \override NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction = 0.5 seems a reasonable compromise. Larger values make the notes of the left hand more regular in this example (but that may depend on the note pitches). Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Am 04.12.2015 um 11:54 schrieb Trevor Daniels: > \once ] \override Arpeggio.minimum-X-extent =#'(-1 . 0) This creates additional space by moving the Arpeggio to the right. But I want the fourth note e' to move to the left because the intention is to keep the regularity of the left hand intact. Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Urs Liska wrote Friday, December 04, 2015 10:23 AM > As discussed recently (starting here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2015-11/msg00054.html) > LilyPond's optical spacing can have side-effects. If you consider the > first attachment you can see that the quavers of the left hand are > spaced irregularly because LilyPond moves the fourth note of each > semiquaver group slightly to the left. > > As we have discussed optical spacing can be prevented with >\override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t > as you can see in the second attachment. > > If I do this I sometimes have the situation that I need more space > between the fourth and the fifth note, as you can see from the third > attachment. > > It is possible to give the fourth note some extra space through > NoteHead.extra-spacing-width, but this spoils the regular spacing of the > quavers again (fourth attachment). > > What I would like to achieve is moving just the fourth note a little bit > to the left, as if just this note were optically spaced. > > However, no combination of NoteHead.extra-spacing-width or > NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction, applied to the fourth or third > note, seems to have any effect. > > How could I achieve what I need? Isn't the problem caused by the arpeggio? In which case using something like [ \once ] \override Arpeggio.minimum-X-extent =#'(-1 . 0) might achieve what you are seeking, perhaps after fine-tuning the -1. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Am 04.12.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Urs Liska:
> How could I achieve what I need?
And for experimenting, here's the code
%
\version "2.19.32"
music = {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff {
c'16 e'
% place this override before the a' or the e' to experiment
%\once \override NoteHead.extra-spacing-width = #'(0 . 0.75)
\once \override NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction = #-20
a'
e'
% comment out one of the following two lines for musical alternatives
\arpeggio
%c'
e' a' e'
}
\new Staff {
\clef bass
a8 a a a
}
>>
}
\score {
\music
\layout {
\context {
\Score
% optionally comment the following override
\override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
As discussed recently (starting here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2015-11/msg00054.html) LilyPond's optical spacing can have side-effects. If you consider the first attachment you can see that the quavers of the left hand are spaced irregularly because LilyPond moves the fourth note of each semiquaver group slightly to the left. As we have discussed optical spacing can be prevented with \override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t as you can see in the second attachment. If I do this I sometimes have the situation that I need more space between the fourth and the fifth note, as you can see from the third attachment. It is possible to give the fourth note some extra space through NoteHead.extra-spacing-width, but this spoils the regular spacing of the quavers again (fourth attachment). What I would like to achieve is moving just the fourth note a little bit to the left, as if just this note were optically spaced. However, no combination of NoteHead.extra-spacing-width or NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction, applied to the fourth or third note, seems to have any effect. How could I achieve what I need? Thanks for any suggestions Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Moving a single note (optical spacing once more)
Am 04.12.2015 um 12:12 schrieb Trevor Daniels: > "Urs Liska" wrote Friday, December 04, 2015 10:59 AM > >> Am 04.12.2015 um 11:54 schrieb Trevor Daniels: >>> \once ] \override Arpeggio.minimum-X-extent =#'(-1 . 0) >> This creates additional space by moving the Arpeggio to the right. But I >> want the fourth note e' to move to the left because the intention is to >> keep the regularity of the left hand intact. > Ah, sorry, I should have also said leave optical spacing on > and slightly increase the same-direction-correction from the > default value of 0.25: > > \once \override NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction = 0.5 > > seems a reasonable compromise. Larger values make the notes > of the left hand more regular in this example (but that may > depend on the note pitches). No, that doesn't work at all in my actual score. It seems unifrom-stretching as the global setting is the only way to get the score in a usable state, and what I need is an option to really move that fouth semiquaver to the left. In a way LilyPond should perform the optical spacing to the semiquavers three and four but then don't start the next group earlier. Indeed this is what my hand-engraved model score does. It is surprising that LilyPond makes it that hard to move a single note that doesn't have any dependencies ... Urs > Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Abraham Lee tisi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:39 AM, James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Something I've been wondering about for awhile... lilypond.org boasts of
optical spacing for notes with alternating up and down stems, but it
seems this feature has been lost somewhere (or disabled by default). In
this example, it's quite plain to my eyes that the stems are not equally
spaced within the bars. \version 2.18.2 \relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e,
a' f, } Which is correct -- the website, or LP's behavior? hjh
___ lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
James,
I would have to disagree with you. I think the notes look very nicely
spaced. I think you are misunderstanding what optical spacing implies. It
doesn't mean that the stems will be placed equidistant from each other.
That would look awful because of how far that would push the noteheads out
of place!
Equally spaced stems do look nice with groupings that change staff
constantly, however. I remember that SCORE had a feature that enabled
this. I've often thought that LilyPond should have this option, but
haven't studied the problem enough to know how it could be implemented.
--David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:09 AM, David Nalesnik
david.nales...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Abraham Lee tisi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:39 AM, James Harkins
jamshar...@gmail.com wrote:
Something I've been wondering about for awhile... lilypond.org
boasts of optical spacing for notes with alternating up and down
stems, but it seems this feature has been lost somewhere (or
disabled by default). In this example, it's quite plain to my eyes
that the stems are not equally spaced within the bars.
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Which is correct -- the website, or LP's behavior?
hjh
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
James,
I would have to disagree with you. I think the notes look very
nicely spaced. I think you are misunderstanding what optical
spacing implies. It doesn't mean that the stems will be placed
equidistant from each other. That would look awful because of how
far that would push the noteheads out of place!
Equally spaced stems do look nice with groupings that change staff
constantly, however. I remember that SCORE had a feature that
enabled this. I've often thought that LilyPond should have this
option, but haven't studied the problem enough to know how it could
be implemented.
--David
That's fair. I can imagine what that looks like, but do you happen to
have an example score that shows this? Not important if you don't.
-Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Abraham Lee tisi...@gmail.com writes:
Equally spaced stems do look nice with groupings that change staff
constantly, however. I remember that SCORE had a feature that
enabled this. I've often thought that LilyPond should have this
option, but haven't studied the problem enough to know how it could
be implemented.
--David
That's fair. I can imagine what that looks like, but do you happen to
have an example score that shows this? Not important if you don't.
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { \override NoteSpacing.stem-spacing-correction = #1.8 e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:00 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Abraham Lee tisi...@gmail.com writes: Equally spaced stems do look nice with groupings that change staff constantly, however. I remember that SCORE had a feature that enabled this. I've often thought that LilyPond should have this option, but haven't studied the problem enough to know how it could be implemented. --David That's fair. I can imagine what that looks like, but do you happen to have an example score that shows this? Not important if you don't. -- David Kastrup Hmmm... Maybe just me, but I don't really like the look of that. I see the stems are equidistant, but, at least to me, I feel like it's not balanced and it makes the notehead spacing a little awkward... I'd still rather see the default behavior. But we all can have our preferences :) Not sure if either is correct. Maybe to a professional musician that sight-reads music all the time (i.e., not me), it might make more sense. No problem with that! -Abraham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
At 16:07 11/07/2014 +0006, Abraham Lee wrote: Maybe just me, but I don't really like the look of that. I see the stems are equidistant, but, at least to me, I feel like it's not balanced and it makes the notehead spacing a little awkward... I'd still rather see the default behavior. But we all can have our preferences :) Not sure if either is correct. For what it's worth, Elaine Gould agrees, saying (on p. 41); In certain cases, spacing should be adjusted to create an illusion of evenness. Adjacent stems 'back to back' can otherwise look too close together. Notes with stems away from each other can look too far apart. Brian Barker ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Brian Barker b.m.bar...@btinternet.com
wrote:
At 16:07 11/07/2014 +0006, Abraham Lee wrote:
Maybe just me, but I don't really like the look of that. I see the stems
are equidistant, but, at least to me, I feel like it's not balanced and it
makes the notehead spacing a little awkward... I'd still rather see the
default behavior. But we all can have our preferences :) Not sure if either
is correct.
For what it's worth, Elaine Gould agrees, saying (on p. 41);
In certain cases, spacing should be adjusted to create an illusion of
evenness. Adjacent stems 'back to back' can otherwise look too close
together. Notes with stems away from each other can look too far apart.
Brian Barker
In the attached example, the unevenness of stem placement is very apparent.
As I remember it (have to dig up an old manual), the SCORE option was a
correction for this sort of situation.
--David
\version 2.18.2
\paper {
tagline = ##f
}
up = \change Staff = up
down = \change Staff = down
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff = up {
\time 2/4
s2
}
\new Staff = down {
\clef bass
\override Beam.auto-knee-gap = 1
c32[
\up
c''
cis'' dis''
\down
c
\up
c''
\down
c cis dis
\up
c'']
r4
}
}___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:18 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Brian Barker b.m.bar...@btinternet.com
wrote:
At 16:07 11/07/2014 +0006, Abraham Lee wrote:
Maybe just me, but I don't really like the look of that. I see the stems
are equidistant, but, at least to me, I feel like it's not balanced and it
makes the notehead spacing a little awkward... I'd still rather see the
default behavior. But we all can have our preferences :) Not sure if either
is correct.
For what it's worth, Elaine Gould agrees, saying (on p. 41);
In certain cases, spacing should be adjusted to create an illusion of
evenness. Adjacent stems 'back to back' can otherwise look too close
together. Notes with stems away from each other can look too far apart.
Brian Barker
In the attached example, the unevenness of stem placement is very
apparent. As I remember it (have to dig up an old manual), the SCORE
option was a correction for this sort of situation.
Found the manual. The STUD command. It mentions that engravers
typically make stems equidistant in cross-staff beaming situations because
the eye tends to notice the uneveness at the beam in the middle.
The attached illustrates what happens with equidistant notes.
--David
\version 2.18.2
\paper {
tagline = ##f
}
up = \change Staff = up
down = \change Staff = down
\score {
\new Staff {
\relative c' {
c16[ c c c c c c c]
}
}
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff = up {
\time 2/4
s2
}
\new Staff = down {
\clef bass
\override Beam.auto-knee-gap = 1
c16[
\up
c''
g'''
\down
c
\up
c''
\down
c c
\up
c'']
}
\layout {
\context {
\Score
proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/16)
\override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t
}
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Optical spacing -- no more?
Something I've been wondering about for awhile... lilypond.org boasts of
optical spacing for notes with alternating up and down stems, but it
seems this feature has been lost somewhere (or disabled by default). In
this example, it's quite plain to my eyes that the stems are not equally
spaced within the bars.
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Which is correct -- the website, or LP's behavior?
hjh
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Am 10.07.2014 11:39, schrieb James Harkins:
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Hm, there have been quite significant improvements in the horizontal
spacing engine recently. Can it be that this is a side-effect of this?
--
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Am 10.07.2014 11:42, schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 10.07.2014 11:39, schrieb James Harkins:
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Hm, there have been quite significant improvements in the horizontal
spacing engine recently. Can it be that this is a side-effect of this?
It seems like this disappeared before 2.16.2. Since then I can see no
difference. But I agree, the current spacing does not look like the
optical spacing to me.
Cheers,
Joram
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de writes:
Am 10.07.2014 11:42, schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 10.07.2014 11:39, schrieb James Harkins:
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Hm, there have been quite significant improvements in the horizontal
spacing engine recently. Can it be that this is a side-effect of this?
It seems like this disappeared before 2.16.2. Since then I can see no
difference. But I agree, the current spacing does not look like the
optical spacing to me.
I think that is an optical illusion, as to be expected from optical
spacing.
If I write
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
% \addlyrics { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! }
I get
And in the lyrics one sees quite well that the middle notes are spaced
further apart than the outer ones.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
If I write
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
% \addlyrics { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! }
Obviously, remove the % character for that experiment...
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Am 10.07.2014 14:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
If I write
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
% \addlyrics { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! }
Obviously, remove the % character for that experiment...
That is quite convincing.
So I guess the default spacing is now a bit thighter compared to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing
which reduces the optical impression but the feature is still there.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
At 15:15 on 10 Jul 2014, Noeck wrote:
Am 10.07.2014 14:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
If I write
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
% \addlyrics { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! }
Obviously, remove the % character for that experiment...
That is quite convincing.
So I guess the default spacing is now a bit thighter compared to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing
which reduces the optical impression but the feature is still there.
For some reason (presumably to slightly exaggerate the effect) the
example in the essay includes:
\override NoteSpacing.stem-spacing-correction = #0.6
as opposed to the default of #0.5. Might it be a good idea for the
feature to be illustrated with the default value?
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Mark Knoop m...@opus11.net writes:
At 15:15 on 10 Jul 2014, Noeck wrote:
Am 10.07.2014 14:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
If I write
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
% \addlyrics { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! }
Obviously, remove the % character for that experiment...
That is quite convincing.
So I guess the default spacing is now a bit thighter compared to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing
which reduces the optical impression but the feature is still there.
For some reason (presumably to slightly exaggerate the effect) the
example in the essay includes:
\override NoteSpacing.stem-spacing-correction = #0.6
as opposed to the default of #0.5. Might it be a good idea for the
feature to be illustrated with the default value?
Well, I don't know whether we are supposed to alter the essay after the
fact... It's conceivable that the defaults changed over time, too.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
Hi,
2014-07-10 15:15 GMT+02:00 Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de:
So I guess the default spacing is now a bit thighter compared to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing
Nope - the difference is because you're comparing different examples.
Example in Essay has both quarters and eights, and this is what makes
the spacing wider there (common shortest duration becomes an eight
instead of quarter). See for yourself:
relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
{ c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 }
% versus
{
c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
\stemDown
b'8[ e'' a' e'']
\stemNeutral
e'8[ e'8 e'8 e'8]
}
So, I don't think there were any significant changes to spacing in this regard.
best,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Optical spacing -- no more?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:39 AM, James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Something I've been wondering about for awhile... lilypond.org boasts
of optical spacing for notes with alternating up and down stems,
but it seems this feature has been lost somewhere (or disabled by
default). In this example, it's quite plain to my eyes that the stems
are not equally spaced within the bars.
\version 2.18.2
\relative c'' { e4 c, f' d, g' e, a' f, }
Which is correct -- the website, or LP's behavior?
hjh
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
James,
I would have to disagree with you. I think the notes look very nicely
spaced. I think you are misunderstanding what optical spacing
implies. It doesn't mean that the stems will be placed equidistant from
each other. That would look awful because of how far that would push
the noteheads out of place! Rather, it's a balancing act of how much
whitespace our eyes perceive due to how close the stems AND noteheads
appear to be when the stems are in opposite directions. An up-stem,
down-stem pair will tend to push each other farther away _a little_
because the eye wants more whitespace between them. A down-stem,
up-stem pair will tend to pull towards each other _a little_ because
the eye wants less whitespace between them.
Attached is a pictogram of the paper columns of your snippet. Notice
the difference in how far a down-stem notehead is from an up-stem
notehead (2.66 staff spaces) and vice-versa (3.30 staff spaces). They
are not equal because of the optical spacing engine. If they were equal
(at 2.98 staff spaces), the up-stem/down-stem pairs would look too
close together and the down-stem/up-stem pairs would look too far
apart, as exemplified in the LilyPond essay:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/essay/engraving-details#optical-spacing
In my opinion, I'd say the optical spacing is alive and kicking!
Hope that helps.
-Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
