Erratic beam spacing
32nds and 16ths beams are erratic.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| eratic beam spacing .png | 140.68 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
32nds and 16ths beams are erratic.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| eratic beam spacing .png | 140.68 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Attached is the mscz file and a picture showing the version I am using.
In reply to Attached is the mscz file… by petercompo1
Did you know that the little document-on-top-of-a-document icon in your picture copies your version and OS details to the Clipboard and then you can paste it as text in your post?
Anyways, re your problem. What do you mean by "erratic"? MuseSCore attempts to group notes to avoid beamed blocks of notes over the middle of a measure, say and so that they fit into the Time Signature used. Also, if you entered the notes, isn't it you that made them erratic?
In reply to Did you that the little… by underquark
Thanks for responding. The problem is the vertical spacing of the beams, not horizontal spacing.
From what I can tell, users have no control over the vertical spacing of the beams.
Thanks for the tip on pasting as text
That picture does not seem to correspond to the score you attached. I do not see a system starting with measure 40.
However, I think I see what you mean. The beams look thicker when they are horizontal than when they have a slant. It seems that the staff line thickness is merged into the beam. You can try playing with the beam thickness in the Format>Style>Beams dialogue.
I seem to recall quite a lot of work on beaming which tried to avoid problems like this. I am not sure if that is in this release or is intended to go in the next or a later release and I can't find what I think I remember in GitHub, so perhaps I am misremembering.
In reply to That picture does not seem… by SteveBlower
Thanks for responding, Steve. I checked...the png and the score both show the same music at measure 40. Am I missing something? But yes, you see the problem I am talking about with bean thickness and vertical spacing.
I tried playing with the format menu you suggested. There are two files:
1.Wide spacing...solved the problem but it does not look professional
2. Changed beam thickness from 0.5 to 0.4: helped quite a bit, but still has variation that does not look sensible (see measures 46 and 63)
Any thoughts?
To confirm, here's the version:
OS: Windows 10 Version 2009, Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.0.2-230651553, revision: dbe7c6d
In reply to Thanks for responding, Steve… by petercompo1
I still can't find the issue on Github that I seem to have misremembered. Please go there (https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore) report this with your examples.
In reply to That picture does not seem… by SteveBlower
> It seems that the staff line thickness is merged into the beam.
The thickness is greater when they are horizontal, yes. But look closely at measure 40, for example: There are beams in the middle of a note line that are as thick as those touching the note line, and there are also some that are thinner (first notes in voice 2).
By the way: interestingly, this looks quite normal in 3.6.2. Although MuS4 is supposed to have a better engraving ...
In reply to > It seems that the staff… by HildeK
In addition to this beam problem, I find that playback is also very problematic in v4. Specifically ornaments and grace notes.
In reply to In addition to this beam… by petercompo1
Better to start a new thread with the additional problem. People with playback expertise are not likely to look in a thread about beaming in the first instance.
Also having multiple topics in a thread makes it difficult to keep track of who is replying to what.
There are several topics already in the forum with advice on improving playback. You may find following that advice helps you also.