Yes, that's how I understood the original FB message.Verzonden vanaf mijn Huawei mobiele telefoon Oorspronkelijk bericht Onderwerp: Re: LilyPond comparedVan: Andrew Bernard Aan: lilypond-user@gnu.orgCc: So maybe I misunderstand the point of this. Perhaps it is rather that it is
So maybe I misunderstand the point of this. Perhaps it is rather that it
is specifically a comparison of unmodified out of the box engraving, and
not supposed to be a competition level grand final play off showing the
maximum capabilities of each program. Is that what the OP on FB is
trying to
>> Attached is an image from the Urtext edition of Schumann's
>> 'Humoreske', typeset around 2009.
>
> This image would seem to show that Henle's accidentals have diverged
> quite a lot from LP's. In this Schumann example the sharp's
> vertical lines are considerably longer and the glyph is
As for the supposed objectivity of 'out of the box with no tweaking',
only casual users would do no setting adjustments in any of these
programs - the whole point is they are all very flexible.
I disagree with that claim. I'm typesetting new pieces for practical
choir use almost on a weekly
The person who set this cannot even get the E flats all having flats.
Comparisons such as this are odious, for a start because Dorico uses
SmuFL fonts and apart from Bravura there are now about 20 SMuFL fonts
available, all quite different in terms of accidental shape and such
details, so what
At 07:50 on 16 Sep 2022, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Attached is an image from the Urtext edition of Schumann's
> 'Humoreske', typeset around 2009.
This image would seem to show that Henle's accidentals have diverged
quite a lot from LP's. In this Schumann example the sharp's vertical
lines are
At 09:05 on 16 Sep 2022, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
> The comparison also shows something that looks a bit ugly (according
> to some people, and I tend to agree): the design of the natural sign.
> Are there more people here who think the hole in the middle of the
> natural sign is too large and
