You mean that in 3.0 there is a D instead of a G?
Or are you complaining about the notes being more evenly spaced, at the cost of more evenly spaced chord symbols?
I took the D/G to be typo. The same can be seen in any sequence of chords.
Good eye catching the different in the note spacing. The lesson here is that there is tradeoff between getitng the *notes* evenly spaced and getting the *chord symbols* evenly spaced. The old algorithm handled chord symbols using a whole separate spacing sub-system that would strive to space the chord symbols evenly but could indeed also create inconsistent note spacing. The new algorithm, from what I understand, handles chord symbols more as part of the same overall process. What this example shows is that it succeeds in getting better note spacing - a win! - but at the cost of less consistent chord symbol spacing.
In real life usage, note spacing is going to be more important - plus it's easier to manually adjust the chord symbols as you see fit. So I think this is the right tradeoff if we have to make a tradeoff as well. It is probably not impossible to add more special casing to get the chord symbols more consistent even with the consistent note spacing. So I'd consider this worth keeping track of.
In any case, my previous comment stands. Sure, the chord symbols are more evenly spaced in 2.x, but at the expense of even note spacing. 3.0 is achieving better note spacing. In this highly contrived example, it comes at the expense of chord symbols, but in real life usage it would be rare to this many chord symbols placed this close together. So given the choice between the two, I would take the 3.0 behavior.
On the other hand, if it is possible to tweak the algorithms to improve chord symbol spacing as well without messing with note spacing, I'm all in favor of that. Near as I can tell the difference in inherent in the widths fo the characters themselves. A & C are wider than the others, whereas B & D are thinner. Simply centering the chords over the notehead instead of left aligning them would probably improve things for this contrived example, so if someone has a special need to use chord symbols that way, they can always try that. Or choose a more monospaced font.
Comments
You mean that in 3.0 there is a D instead of a G?
Or are you complaining about the notes being more evenly spaced, at the cost of more evenly spaced chord symbols?
I took the D/G to be typo. The same can be seen in any sequence of chords.
Good eye catching the different in the note spacing. The lesson here is that there is tradeoff between getitng the *notes* evenly spaced and getting the *chord symbols* evenly spaced. The old algorithm handled chord symbols using a whole separate spacing sub-system that would strive to space the chord symbols evenly but could indeed also create inconsistent note spacing. The new algorithm, from what I understand, handles chord symbols more as part of the same overall process. What this example shows is that it succeeds in getting better note spacing - a win! - but at the cost of less consistent chord symbol spacing.
In real life usage, note spacing is going to be more important - plus it's easier to manually adjust the chord symbols as you see fit. So I think this is the right tradeoff if we have to make a tradeoff as well. It is probably not impossible to add more special casing to get the chord symbols more consistent even with the consistent note spacing. So I'd consider this worth keeping track of.
I cannot reproduce the Jazz style on master since the chords cannot be switched to Jazz style now.
I can switch chord style to Jazz, are you on the latest build? There have been changes just today
In reply to I can switch chord style to… by Jojo-Schmitz
Cool, I have the early morning build :) What about the spacing between the symbols?
In any case, my previous comment stands. Sure, the chord symbols are more evenly spaced in 2.x, but at the expense of even note spacing. 3.0 is achieving better note spacing. In this highly contrived example, it comes at the expense of chord symbols, but in real life usage it would be rare to this many chord symbols placed this close together. So given the choice between the two, I would take the 3.0 behavior.
On the other hand, if it is possible to tweak the algorithms to improve chord symbol spacing as well without messing with note spacing, I'm all in favor of that. Near as I can tell the difference in inherent in the widths fo the characters themselves. A & C are wider than the others, whereas B & D are thinner. Simply centering the chords over the notehead instead of left aligning them would probably improve things for this contrived example, so if someone has a special need to use chord symbols that way, they can always try that. Or choose a more monospaced font.
The child of #271331: [EPIC] Positioning, symbols, notation related issues