NOTATIO

Hi Knut -- Thanks for the mention and kind words. I know I haven't updated the blog for years and it is way past due. I have some thoughts on beaming that deserve an article I haven't been aware of notat.io before; I'll start jumping in here as well.

You guys have largely explored the issue: optical spacing of notes makes single lines and independent rhythms more beautiful, but when rhythms have to coincide with others, metric spacing should prevail. I'd be happy to offer my thoughts if you'd like to discuss further.

tisimst wrote:Just thought I'd test the waters a little bit more with LilyPond's algorithms.
...

Absolutely amazing. I love LP output and Latex fonts.
What I can notice, and it is clear in 3.b., this reminds me of kerning in the typography. Simple said, it is kerning of note-heads, correct?

For what it's worth, our new application also performs automatic optical adjustment of notes on opposite sides of a beam between staves. The results look more or less the same as Lilypond's defaults.

matthew_maslanka wrote:Hi Knut -- Thanks for the mention and kind words. I know I haven't updated the blog for years and it is way past due. I have some thoughts on beaming that deserve an article I haven't been aware of notat.io before; I'll start jumping in here as well.

You guys have largely explored the issue: optical spacing of notes makes single lines and independent rhythms more beautiful, but when rhythms have to coincide with others, metric spacing should prevail. I'd be happy to offer my thoughts if you'd like to discuss further.

Welcome to the forum, Matthew.
I'm really looking forward to reading your thoughts on beams and all other topics discussed here, so please chime in whenever you feel inclined.

I agree with your premise for optical spacing in situations of multiple voices, as long as the rhythms are parallel, like in OCTO's double staff problem above. With multiple simultaneous rhythms, however, there are many situations – one of which has been pointed out earlier by tisimst – where optical spacing can and should be achieved with minimal disruption to other voices.

tisimst wrote:Just thought I'd test the waters a little bit more with LilyPond's algorithms. Here are all the samples on Maslanka's website we've been referring to, shown with/without optical corrections:

Thank you for putting together this showcase of Lilypond's optical spacing capabilities.
To my eyes it looks as though only case number 1, 3 and 5 is handled correctly, though. There is a slight difference in the spacing between adjacent stems in 2, first figure, but I see no difference in the spacing after the quarter rest, which is the main culprit of the case. In case number 2, second figure, and case number 4, I see no difference between mathematical and an optical spacing at all.

Personally, I have liked seeing when the engraver takes the liberty of fudging the lines a bit by giving the top staff more of the optical correction while maintaining the exact spacing of the lower staff. Seems like there are better candidate situations for this than others (and this isn't one, I think). For anyone interested, here's a discussion about this very thing:
http://lilypondblog.org/2015/12/optical ... an-part-2/

[/quote]

This is an excellent point and a reminder that optical spacing can and should be achieved in situations where the disruption to the metrical spacing of other staves would be minimal.

dspreadbury wrote:For what it's worth, our new application also performs automatic optical adjustment of notes on opposite sides of a beam between staves. The results look more or less the same as Lilypond's defaults.

Great to hear, and of course I am really looking forward to see it in vivo.

dspreadbury wrote:

The results look more or less the same as Lilypond's defaults.

But if the new application looks like the present LilyPond default, it would be incorrect for situations like the one presented in the original post without the tweaking mentioned by tisimst.

John Ruggero wrote:dspreadbury wrote:

The results look more or less the same as Lilypond's defaults.

But if the new application looks like the present LilyPond default, it would be incorrect for situations like the one presented in the original post without the tweaking mentioned by tisimst.

I think the optically adjusted results in tisimst's post are actually LilyPond's default output. You'll probably need to disable optical spacing to get the results in the left columns.

However, seeing as LilyPond doesn't seem to handle all the cases in tisimst showcase, I'm hoping the Sternberg application will do an even better job.

I was referring to tisimst's first example.

John Ruggero wrote:I was referring to tisimst's first example.

Of course.
Sorry about that.