Thanks. I’ve been ‘getting used to it’ for 40 years. I actually find it easier to sight-sing directly from 16th-century partbooks than from Mensurstriche, because my mind is making different assumptions about the two notational styles.
Only if he wrote in imperfect proportion and time, otherwise you have to start compromising your ‘closeness’ with augmentation dots that were never there, and translating colouration. And you still have to tie notes over system breaks. And ligatures are not expressed verbatim, but broken up into modern conventional noteforms.
Its advantages are over-stated, and don’t outweigh the disadvantages.
As John Caldwell writes in his book “Editing Early Music”, no one is going to misunderstand the use of a tied note to convey what was originally intended.
There’s also an argument that ‘semibreves do not mean to me what they meant to Palestrina’. Any modern score is a translation, even if the symbols look broadly similar in appearance.
However, I am occasionally demanded to produce it, and there are also other uses for the same notational techniques in other areas. So thanks to Florian for the link.