Music symbol tokens - intended behaviour?

First of all, compliments to the Dorico team with version 3 of the program! One of the new features that caught my attention is the possibility to use music symbol tokens. While I was experimenting, I noticed that the token {@flat@} doesn’t generate the same glyph as the token {@U+ED60@}, and the token {@sharp@} doesn’t generate the same glyph as the token {@U+ED62@} (see image). I was wondering if this is intended behaviour?

I could be wrong, but my hunch is that the token is displaying the glyph in Academico, and the Unicode is displaying the glyph in whatever font you had selected.

I experience this same sort of behavior on my project. I use Minion Pro for all my text font, but its flat glyph is pretty bad. The new token renders the flat as Academico, which looks much better.

…although your text font already looks a lot like Academico…

There are different variants of the standard accidentals. U+ED60 and U+ED62 are for chord symbols.

The codepoints for the “normal versions” can be found here:

Hi Dan, thanks for your reply. It’s the default font, Academico. Greetings, Stefaan

Florian is right, the unicodes for flat, sharp and natural are U+ED60 (or U+266D) and following :wink:
I suppose {@flat@} and {@266D@} should be equivalent.

Hi Florian, you’re right, U+ED60 and U+ED62 are for chord symbols, I wasn’t aware of that. But U+E260 and U+E262 generate a third variant (see image). I’m a bit puzzled… But I’ll continue experimenting :wink: .
flat en sharp tokens 02.jpg

Hi Marc, U+ED60 is what I used, and U+466D generates a Chinese character…

Marc, can U+466D be found somewhere on the smufl-pages?

Sorry, I meant U+266D :wink:

I see. But it’s also true that the Unicode uses the existing font, whatever it is, and the token uses Academico. I tried it several different ways and always got the same result. That’s a helpful distinction.

PS: I’m elated for this new functionality. You can see how lame the Minion Pro flat glyph is…

Thanks Marc, U+266D is indeed the equivalent of {@flat@}.

Dan, is the flat sign generated with {@flat@} a standard size for engravers? I must say I prefer the chord symbol flat sign {@U+ED60@}, to me it looks more elegant…

It does look too big to me, though not by much. And it’s a little close to the letter before it.

I used a brace code in one of my projects, and if I used the code as a token, it wouldn’t properly scale, but if I copied the glyph itself and changed the style to ‘music text’ I could scale it fine. Anyone else experience this? (It was in a small project completely created in 3.0.)