Incorrect Note Names For Scales in Key Editor

I’m not sure any DAW gets this right but the display of notes names is broken in the Key Editor.

If I set the pitch visibility options to Show Pitch Names From the Scale Assistant dropdown and then select a scale in the Scale Assistant my expectation is that the display will reflect the notes in the scale but it does not.

For example, if I do this for the scale of C# Major the scale reads: C#,D#,F,F#, G#, A#,C, C# etc. The F should be an E and the C a D.

Is there any way to correct this display or, if not, can this please be fixed?


Enable the Enharmonics from Chord Track option in the Preferences … Event Display > Chords & Pitches > Pitch Notation, please.

Are you sure?
I get it that F should be E# (not E), but C should be a D seems a bit odd to me. Maybe a B# instead?
I assume some typos…

Yes, thanks, that’s a typo. It should say B# instead of C. See why I need this feature?

Hi Martin,

I should have mentioned that I do have this option checked (it is slightly hidden in the interface) but it does not appear to work with any of the sharp keys.

If you create a chord in the chord track for a flat key it will show the correct notes on the midi note itself but the list in the roll at left will still be incorrect. For sharps neither works.

Screen Shot 2024-01-11 at 11.04.39 AM

The vertical keyboard on the left does not display flats ever as far as I know. (Option Pitch Visibility = On)

On some scales/chords some notes are just “undefined” and will usually be displayed as sharp. Try F major to see what I mean. You’ll have some notes sharp, some notes flat. That doesn’t make too much sense musically.

Additionally we still can only chose sharps from these kind of menus…
This one is for selecting the key of a scale event and if I want it to be Ab I have to select G# and then manually do an enharmonic shift. Cumbersome.

Totally reminds of an old topic of mine.

It’s a classic Steinberg thing: We have some great stuff in there but it is only 80-90% done. The rest? The user just has to live with it.
Or better: person A developed the first part, person B the second part some time later. Both parts are individual pieces of code that do not perfectly fit together. Just “almost, kind of”.

1 Like

Thanks for the reply. Yes, the feature is so close to being excellent.