Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: [...]
Yes, of course. So have I. It's just that Marnen asserts: off the charts---which is not true---upon which conclusions seem to be drawn, without further investigation.
What do you mean by "further investigation"? My conclusion was based on careful examination of the evidence available to me at the time. I'm glad to know about other data points, and I will be looking at more stuff in my own collection as well.
I am not sure where his measurement of 250% comes from, because we put 190% in, where baerenreiter (occasionally?) uses 220%.
250% came from an imprecise 300 dpi image. The 1200 dpi scan of Lilypond's output indeed produced 190% (ok, 191%).
Jan.
Best, _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
