# Feature request: allow double notehead unison instead of "a 2" when condensing **URL:** \ **Category:** Dorico\ **Tags:** feature-request, dorico-6\ **Created:** [October 29, 2026, 4:21am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552 "2026-10-29T04:21:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Serioso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Serioso](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/Serioso)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 4:21am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/1 "2026-10-29T04:21:30Z")
Alternatively: allow condensing to prevent amalgamated notes. Yes, I know that that may sound awkward… I’m finding myself in a situation similar to that here: [Double notehead unisons in condensing scores - Dorico - Steinberg Forums](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/double-notehead-unisons-in-condensing-scores/730831) Specifically, I have two wind parts that, when condensed, produce a unison once per measure but dyads otherwise. I really don’t want an “a 2” every measure, and I don’t want to simply hide the “a 2” labels since then it’s not clear that both parts are playing the note. Surely there must be a way around this without resorting to down-stem voice? Hence my request for a double notehead unison option; the previous thread has some examples where this would be nice. Unfortunately, there’s apparently no way to do this. I recently discovered a workaround to produce double slurs that would otherwise be amalgamated—simply repeat the slurs in the parts first. I checked, and that does not work for notes. (That in itself is an unpleasant surprise; if that had worked, I would have just accepted the workaround.) So, I am writing to make this a feature request. ---
**Author:** ![jesele](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/jesele/32/1542_2.png) [@jesele](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/jesele)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 4:57am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/2 "2026-10-29T04:57:59Z")
Doesn’t any of these Notation Options help? Jesper ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/4X/f/e/7/fe7dd7a392b4281c1122e3ac78841c601f95665d.png) ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/4X/8/9/2/89232551d2c715bb0c4df99a4acbaed7df75bfce.png) ---
**Author:** ![Serioso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Serioso](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/Serioso)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 5:21am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/3 "2026-10-29T05:21:06Z")
I should have analyzed those options as part of my initial post. I didn’t change the Notation Options directly, but I did experiment with both of those settings (including at the same time) via condensing changes. Unfortunately, they don’t really help in the way I’m looking for. Some of the options do get rid of the “a 2”, but at the expense of adding a down-stem voice. ---
**Author:** ![Derrek](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/derrek/32/92034_2.png) [@Derrek](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/Derrek)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 10:19am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/4 "2026-10-29T10:19:02Z")
I think @Serioso is looking for an automated way for condensing to note unisons as follows. ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/4X/7/1/8/718e42bd5f525e84bb1880cc19c1e0338af99b76.png) ---
**Author:** ![Serioso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Serioso](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/Serioso)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2026, 3:49am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/5 "2026-10-30T03:49:59Z")
Thank you; yes, that is exactly what I am asking for. Since Dorico evidently doesn’t offer an automated way to do this for now (hopefully, that will change soon), a workaround/manual solution would also be nice. I tried one as mentioned above, but it didn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![johnkprice](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/johnkprice/32/119850_2.png) [@johnkprice](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/johnkprice)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2026, 6:41am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/6 "2026-10-30T06:41:29Z")
> [@Serioso](#): > > a workaround/manual solution would also be nice Here is a workaround for the example given by @Derrek. In **Notation Options \> Condensing \> Unisons** , set the **Mid-phrase unison approach** to **Prevent mid-phrase unisons** to obtain the first condensed bar below. Select the notehead with two stems in engrave mode and set its **Voice column index** property to 1. If the result looks like the second bar below, select the down-stem notehead and set its **Voice column index** property to 2 to obtain the third bar. In **Engraving Options \> Notes \> Voices** , set the **Gap between adjacent noteheads in different voices** to -1/8 so the two stems are aligned horizontally. Finally, select the up-stem notehead and activate its **Hide stem** property to obtain the last bar: ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/optimized/4X/8/6/a/86a5f7c53220d78b65bda7cdc7ae5c6ee4a26994_2_690x76.png) ---
**Author:** ![johnkprice](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/johnkprice/32/119850_2.png) [@johnkprice](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/johnkprice)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2026, 3:08pm UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/7 "2026-10-31T15:08:58Z")
OT: I began to wonder if the word “horizontally” in the previous post should be “vertically”, so I asked two search engines the following question: > If I move an object horizontally to align it with another object above it, am I aligning the objects horizontally or vertically? The reply from Bing search began with: > If you move an object horizontally to match the position of another object above it, you are aligning the objects horizontally And the reply from Google search began with: > You are aligning them vertically If the search engines cannot agree on the answer, no wonder I’m confused. 🤷‍♂️ ---
**Author:** ![jaskarbong](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/jaskarbong/32/403432_2.png) [@jaskarbong](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/jaskarbong)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2026, 10:45am UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/8 "2026-11-01T10:45:57Z")
> [@johnkprice](#): > > If I move an object horizontally to align it with another object above it, am I aligning the objects horizontally or vertically? Actually, the answer is inherent in the question! If you rephrase it as: “If I move an object to align it with an object above it…”, you are _aligning_ them vertically — despite moving it _horizontally_ to achieve this. (Conversely, to align them on the horizontal plane you move them on the vertical axis.) The confusion comes from which way the item is moved rather than the desired alignment. — Jim ---
**Author:** ![johnkprice](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/johnkprice/32/119850_2.png) [@johnkprice](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/johnkprice)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2026, 3:07pm UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/9 "2026-11-01T15:07:37Z")
But when I asked Bing search the following question… > If I move an object vertically to align it with another object above it, am I aligning the objects horizontally or vertically? …its reply began with: > Vertical Movement and Alignment Direction > > If you move an object vertically so that it lines up with another object above it, you are aligning the objects vertically, not horizontally. > > Why? > In alignment terminology, the axis of movement and the axis of alignment are the same: > > Vertical alignment means the objects share the same vertical position — their top edges, bottom edges, or centers are at the same height. > > Horizontal alignment means the objects share the same horizontal position — their left edges, right edges, or centers are at the same horizontal coordinate. This contradicts what @jaskarbong said. Edit: I think it is fair to say that not all people agree on the answers to these alignment questions, so the search engines may give different answers based on what material was used to train their AI models. ---
**Author:** ![asherber](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/asherber/32/277014_2.png) [@asherber](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/asherber)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2026, 4:21pm UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/10 "2026-11-01T16:21:05Z")
> [@johnkprice](#): > > Edit: I think it is fair to say that not all people agree on the answers to these alignment questions Absolutely! And I think answers may change if you consider other types of vertical/horizontal alignment. ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/original/4X/d/0/1/d0134371ba1aa506285efd5730b767dd01078ad6.png) These all indicate ways in which you might move an object horizontally to align them along a vertical axis. FWIW, Affinity Studio, which is where this particular graphic comes from, calls it horizontal alignment. My ancient InDesign CS5.5 (perpetual license!) uses different terminology to avoid the issue: align left edges, align horizontal centers, align right edges. ---
**Author:** ![jaskarbong](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/steinberg/user_avatar/forums.steinberg.net/jaskarbong/32/403432_2.png) [@jaskarbong](https://forums.steinberg.net/u/jaskarbong)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2026, 9:14pm UTC](https://forums.steinberg.net/t/feature-request-allow-double-notehead-unison-instead-of-a-2-when-condensing/1044552/11 "2026-11-02T21:14:26Z")
> [@johnkprice](#): > > the search engines may give different answers based on what material was used to train their AI models. AI, in its current state of infancy, needs to get far more advanced before I would accept it as an authority! As you pointed out, it’s only as good as the data it devours — “garbage in, garbage out.” There’s a matter of perspective as well. I remember studying an ancient language where a particular verb could be translated as “coming” or “going”! It depended on the context to determine how to render it in English. When we justify margins, we move text horizontally in order to line them up vertically. One might say that we justify the text horizontally and another might say vertically. We often use language in ways that can be confusing. (E.g.: When a fire alarm sounds, has the alarm “gone off” or “come on”?) 🤔😉