Double sharps in the User Manual

@Lillie_Harris

You did ask for perceived user-manual problems, so here is one for you.

Disclaimer: I may have misspelled something, or missed something obvious, but…

I don’t think the User Manual for 3.5 returns any useful results for “Double Sharp” or “Input Double Sharp”. There is an article about Respelling Notes, which I am not sure I understand.
The correct answer is in this forum post from the ever-helpful @Stephen_Taylor, which I naturally found through my old friend Google.

Best wishes

Fergus

Thanks for sharing this - are you definitely using the 3.5 manual and typing “double sharp” correctly? Here’s what I get when I search “double sharp” - the top result is “inputting accidentals”.

There’s a tip in the 2nd step for where to find double accidentals, as there aren’t default key commands for those.

The in-built search on steinberg.help does require correct spellings for your search terms, it’s not as nuanced at deciphering what you probably meant as e.g. Google because (as I’m becoming fond of saying!) ‘to have search results as sophisticated as Google, you need the resources of Google’.

Yes. I am in the 3.5 manual, and I got this article. I stand corrected. I thought it did not tell me how to add a double sharp, but it does in the tip.

My apologies.

I obviously read it over-hastily. However, Stephen was clearer for me.

Best wishes

Fergus

I can understand that, as Stephen was replying to a question specifically about double sharps whereas the manual has to cover any and all accidentals, and both selecting them prior to inputting notes during note input and adding them to existing notes.

Fwiw, I just had the 3.5 manual open, and when I searched “double sharp” the first result is “inputting accidentals”. When I click on it, I see this:

@Romanos401 . Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond. I see that - now. I honestly did look through that page, and I didn’t see the “Tip”. Perhaps I was looking for a key command, or perhaps my eyes glazed over at the words “in the Accidentals section of the Key Signatures, Tonality Systems, and Accidentals panel on the right of the window.”

My fault. Thanks again.

Sorry to be super picky, here, but…I would suggest that the manual use the term “less common,” rather than the “uncommon” that is used now. “Uncommon” suggests something out of the ordinary, or non-standard, while “less common” is simply that: normal notational practice that one simply doesn’t encounter as frequently. Given that there are a lot of questions on the forum about “why can’t I notate it this way?” (often unconventional), it would be a shame if someone, consulting the manual, was given the wrong impression.

Please take this in spirit it is offered - a suggestion to improve what is an extraordinary document. If I need to be told to jump in a lake, perhaps a suitable body of water might be suggested, as well? ;>)

I probably used “uncommon” to remain consistent with the established patterns in the app, e.g. in the Clefs panel where there are “common” and “uncommon” clefs. I’m not averse to changing it, but I hope you can understand that that’s not immediately at the top of my priority list :slight_smile:

Understood - and I hadn’t really noticed that it is in the app, itself.

And yes, you have bigger things to concern yourself with!

Fwiw, I would welcome both terms, but I wouldn’t expunge “uncommon”. Statistically speaking, they are uncommon (in the common-parlance sense of the word).