I’d like to create an End/Start repeat and End repeat here (beginning of the where the multiple time signatures start and where they end 4 bars later)
Or actually; delete 1 bar before the multiple time signatures start and join the End/Start repeat with the previous bar (that has end repeat already).
However I don’t know my way around this.
Does anyone know?
Hello @steinfeld ,
So, if I understood correctly your request, is this the result you want to achieve?
In that case, just press Shift + B and write :|:, then press enter. You will obtain the end start repeat. Just do the same for the end repeat but write :| on the bar tool.
In case you want to delete the empty bar before the time changes, you can do that by clicking the trash can on the trackbar, once you highlight the bar. It will not affect the repeat.
Thanks so much @AndreLorenzatti for taking the time to do this 
However I must create the time signatures in the wrong way somehow, because the proofreader throws all kinds of errors. I worked with it several hours yesterday trying all over many times and in one version I even cannot start play back. Multiple repeats are deleted or will not play, even in one version where the proofreader doesn’t show any errors (the version shown in the screenshot).
The score is supposed to have a series of repeated sections with multiple time divisions (see screenshot)
What is best practice - creating several sections of what you did in your screenshot, each with end/start repeats without ending up with a score that I just need to trash?
I tried to create the time signatures and then the end/start repeats = proofreader problems
I tried to create the end/start repeats (e.g. a series of 4 bar repeated sections) and then the time signatures - everything breaks with proofreader problems
I tried creating all these sections from scratch in a new flow - proofreader problems
What does it mean when the time signatures turn blue? And why are not all of them blue even though all barlines are selected? Can I select both treble and bassclef when creating one of the time signatures (holding down the alt key)
Why does the proofreader say “invalid repeat structure”? Why does a flag show “4/4…” when the time signature is 8/8?
Error galore.dorico (1.3 MB)
This example demonstrates that having end/start repeat barlines with two or more different time signatures can cause trouble:
The first flow has one player and all time signatures and barlines are global. The playback sequence is bars 1-4, 2-7, 5-8 as expected. The second flow is a duplicate of the first flow with a duplicate of the first player and with a different local time signature at the end/start repeat barline for the second player. The very unexpected playback sequence is bars 1-4, 2-4, 1-4, 2-7, 5-8. The third flow is a duplicate of the second flow with a duplicate of the second player and with a third local time signature at the start/end repeat barline for the third player. This time the proofreading panel reports the following issue for the third flow: “Invalid repeat structure. The range between bars 1 and end of 4 would cycle endlessly.”
Here is the Dorico project:
Trouble with end-start repeat barlines and multiple time signatures.dorico (1.3 MB)
Thanks so much for chiming in on this one @johnkprice
In your example the time signatures don’t match up which causes strange behavior which makes sense to me, what are your thoughts?
When playing back the 2nd flow, Dorico actually seems quite forgiving with the different lengths of bars 5-7 that all have different lengths.
However - if I’m not mistaken it’s simply not possible to use end/repeat with multiple time signatures for multiple instruments at the same time in Dorico. Even though they add up to the same length. Unless there’s a “best practice” for doing this that I haven’t used?
I’ve added a few flows in the document you uploaded, all add up to the same length:
Flow 4: multiple time signatures without repeat signs - plays back without problems
Flow 4a: multiple time signatures without repeat signs where I copied and pasted them to repeat them 2x - plays back without problems
Flow 5: multiple time signatures with repeat signs - plays back without problems
Flow 6: multiple time signatures with end/repeat signs - shows no proofreader problems but does not repeat.
So the workaround could be stop using repeat signs and copy/paste those sections as needed. I’ll investigate further if I see problems with that approach. I guess no musicians would accept a score done in such a way.
Trouble with end-start repeat barlines and multiple time signatures_2.dorico (1.2 MB)
Here is a workaround to get Flow 6 in the previous post to play the repeats. Instead of having an end/start repeat barline, have separate end and start repeat barlines separated by a bar with the shortest possible duration:
Hide the time signature and remove the rests in the short bar, then move the start repeat barline after that bar to the left in note spacing mode.
Hi @johnkprice thanks for providing another workaround
In is indeed a viable option as well as the one I suggested (avoiding repeats). But only for scores for my own use. Handing out a score like that to musicians won’t work I guess.
When comparing to other notation software I really think Dorico has set the bar high when allowing for multiple time signatures but unless I’m mistaken there’s a bug here.
@Ulf if you have the time, would you care to comment on this matter?
Hi @steinfeld , unfortunately I have nothing to say on this. I’m the audio engine specialist and the repeats are all handled and calculated by Dorico, so the audio engine does know nothing about repeat markers, where they are or which cycle currently is. It just receives a continuous stream of MIDI data.
Hi @Ulf thanks so much for your comment
I guess I asked the wrong person here - sorry! Who would be able to comment on this matter?
Thanks
I expect @dspreadbury would be most likely to know where to send this request.
thanks @Derrek I would love to have @dspreadbury comment on this.
Also a while ago I started another thread about another possible bug which I’d also love to have commented:
