I don´t like how the new score editor tries to “improve” the score against my own ideas…and then it´s most of the time impossible to change it to what I expected to see in the first place. huge disappointment in C14, after using the old score editor since the 90s…
How come Cubase “invents” a 16th rest here? This makes no sense at all! A 16th note should be tied on.
What is the length of the 3rd eighth note?
I was able to reproduce this by shortening that note by 14 ticks.
see looping gif here
a 16th note has a length of 119 ticks. it should not be shortened by losing 14 ticks. By losing 60 ticks a descision must be made, everything else is simply wrong.
PS: when adding ticks to a 16th note on the 1 of a measure it changes at 76 additional ticks not to a 8th note, which is to be expected, but to a quarter note! This is even more wrong…
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your reply.
I asked
I figured the note in question is shorter than the value of a dotted 8th note. Now I’m suggesting you set the length of the note in question to 0.0.3.0, the value of a dotted 8th note. There are no 16th notes here, they are dotted 8ths, right?
I´m talking just about the 16th note on beat 3, that is (or better: should be) tied to the 8th note on beat 2+. A 16th note is 120 ticks long, so it should not be shortened before it loses 60 ticks. You showed, that it disappears already by losing just 14 ticks.
The answer to your question, what the length of the 3rd note is: 360 ticks, which are 3x 120 ticks, or three 16th notes. Ticks come into play with 16th notes, 8th notes are on step-positions, that´s why I´m talking just about the last 16th note, where the strange behaviour happens.
Got it? 
the error is the displayed length of the note, in any case the devs are working out these various display transcription issues as we speak.
no, I don´t think so.
In the key editor pic you can see the 4 notes, which all have approximately the same length, a dotted 8th note, or three 16th notes, or 360 ticks.
To display those 4 notes in a measure of 3/4 you have to use ties. When a tied note disappears after you shortened it just a tiny bit, the behaviour of the editor is wrong. A rest should never appear in this scenario.
And of course you know the note gets shortened at the end, which you did in your video, so you have to view this tied 16th note, which is displayed correctly as a tied on note, because that are the good old rules of notation. Therefore I´m talking about shortening this 16th note, and wheather there´s a 8th note, or a quarter, a half note in front doesn´t play any role here. At least it shouldn´t. If it really does, I need an explaination…
Sorry, we are talking at cross purposes.
- your score is displayed wrong. There is a rest where there should be a an 8th tied to a 16th.
- I asked if the midi note was actually the the exact length of a dotted 8th.
- if it is, then it’s part of what the devs are working on to improve.
(I am very well versed in proper music notation rules)
This is a very specific bug that only happens at the position of the 3rd dotted eighth (if you shorten the first two notes then it doesn’t happen at those positions). In my test project the note gets shortened (adding the rest) if the length goes below 107 ticks. I have logged this in our database.
1 Like
thanks!
another find:
creating an 8th note on the 1 of a bar shows in the inspector line
0.0.2.0
shortening this note by editing this value with the mousewheel to
0.0.1.0
the result is a staccato 8th note, not the 16th note which is to be expected. Who comes up with automatically created staccato notes? Somewhat intrusive…
creating a 16th note and editing its value 0.0.1.0 to 0.0.2.0 (8th note) and back, the correct notes are displayed.
and another very strange one:
lowering the ticks of a 16th note, nothing happens until 0.0.0.75 - then it becomes an 8th note!
and by increasing the ticks, at 0.0.1.76 the 16th note becomes a quarter note, leaving out the 8th note as the next higher value!!!