On 08/01/2015 09:58, Ulrike Fischer wrote: > When loading fix-cm less optical sizes are used and so huge size are > much bolder than without it: > > \documentclass{article} > \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} > \pagestyle{empty} > \begin{document} > \Huge\bfseries > % without fix-cm > % ecbx2488 > % sfbx2488.pfb > > % with fix-cm > % ecbx1200 at 24.88pt > % sfbx1200.pfb > %\fontname\font > > \sffamily > % without fix-cm > % ecsx2488 > % sfsx2488.pfb > > % with fix-cm > % ecsx1000 at 24.88pt > % sfsx1000.pfb > \fontname\font > \end{document} > > The documentation says > > "Only those design sizes of the fonts will be used, that are > normally available in Type1 format, too. You need not load the > extra package cmmib57 for this purpose." > > I do find the reference to an old (and now obsolete) package like > cmmib57 (http://mirrors.ctan.org/fonts/amsfonts/doc/cmmib57.pdf) > quite dubious. And with the cm-super fonts there are certainly more > design sizes available than used by the sty. > > I do understand that is could be problematic to change fix-cm as it > could change existing definitions. But couldn't one create a > new-fix-cm.sty with better font definitions? Isn't the point of fix-cm to address the difference between OT1 and T1? The docs say > The appearance of the T1 and TS1 encoded CM fonts (aka ‘EC’) is made > as similar as possible to the traditional (OT1 encoded) ones. although it does also say > In contrast to what you may expect, fix-cm does not ensure that line > and page breaks stay the same ... If I run your demo without loading any packages at all I get cmbx12 at 24.88pt cmbx12.pfb cmbss10 at 24.88pt cmssbx10.pfb which is as close as the EC fonts can get to the original CM ones, I think. Certainly there is a lot more visual difference between OT1 and T1 when fix-cm is not loaded than when it is. -- Joseph Wright