Testing tempo conditions in expression maps

Have had a lot of back an forth with programming different base switches to fit different note lengths. So I created a new ExMap and loaded it in a totally new project, and here is what I found in 120 bpm. .

Half notes are interpreted as longer than " Long"
Quarter notes are interpreted as shorter than “Long” and longer than “Medium”
Eight notes are interpreted as shorter than “Medium” and longer than “Short”
16th notes are interpreted as shorter than “Short” and longer than “Very Short”
… so is 32nds and 64ths.
This mean that no notes can be shorter than “Very Short”, right?

But I still can’t see that it matches with this table found here (https://download.steinberg.net/downloads_software/Dorico_3.5/3.5.12/Dorico_3.5.12_Version_History.pdf):

  • Very short: dotted 16th at 120bpm (0.1875 seconds)
  • Short: dotted eighth at 120bpm (0.375 seconds)
  • Medium: dotted quarter at 120bpm (0.75 seconds)
  • Long: dotted minim at 120bpm (1.5 seconds)
  • Very long: any longer duration

So, I try with some simple logic;

  • A dotted quarter note at 120 is exactly Medium (from the document above)
  • A quarter. note is shorter than a dotted quarter note, yes?
  • Still a quarter note is longer than Medium?

Am I missing something?

Here is a screenshot of the ExMap used. It’s loaded into an empty lead sheet, with a new playback template. I also attach the ExMap it self.


Tempotest.doricolib.zip (2.0 KB)

Someone posted this a while back:

Maybe that will shed some light.

1 Like

Yes, cool. And, as my findings its also contrarian to the documentation.
(Also, good job finding it!!)

But I still wonder why I dont get 16ths to be read as «very short» in 120, tough :wink:

That I can’t help with without the expression map at least. By the way, I ran into this exact same confusion this morning. As a general rule, when I start an expression map for a new VST, I immediate create 5 Natural entries with == very, ==short etc. My quarters were “Very Long”. It took me a good 15 minutes but I found I mis-configured one of the entries. Fixed it and things were normal.

Double check the > AND >= etc. so there is absolutely no overlap. Dorico gets. confused with overlaps.

EDIT: Sorry,I see you posted the doricolib. If you haven’t figured it out, I’ll give it a look in the morning.

I had another look.

… but they are (unless I misunderstand what you are saying). They are >= Very Short AND < Short. For clarity, I would rewrite those conditions as simply:

==Very short
==Short
==Medium
>=Long

That will make the playback technique lane easier to read.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, David! Excellent :blush:

Here I have made a little test, where I actually used “Note Length == Very Long” (and not “>=” as you proposed):

It never occurred to me to try “==”, as my logic tells me that
“Note length == Medium”
should apply only, and only if, the note is a dotted 4th at exactly 120 bpm.

(Trust me, I have fumbled around with the “<” and “<=”, back and forth for hours on end!!!
Says something about the importance of good documentation (old technical writer here :wink:))

Also the Dorico file and Playback template/Exmap, if anyone wants to test more:
Tempotesting.zip (598.7 KB)

I guess it would be awesome to have " > Very Long" and “< Very Short” to also work, expanding the possibilities further, but one shouldn’t wish for too much :wink:

Back in my Notion days, they had a very rich set of conditions available (is-under-slur, velocity=x, is-playing-technique=y (Pizz, e.g.), duration=s (s=seconds), dynamic=d (pp, e.g.). The list is pretty exhaustive and I do miss that flexibility. Unfortunately, the scores were nowhere near as elegant as Dorico can produce.

1 Like