Re: Barline scans

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

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,