Issues : 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

 in A1

 in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL

..

The  time signature present in A1 seems to be more accurate for the melody written with minims and the quaver accompaniment. However, later in the piece, with numerous changes of time signature, it always returns as . Therefore, it seems that Chopin eventually opted for , which is confirmed by the copies based on [A2] – CJ and CK, in which this time signature was present from the beginning of the piece.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

in A (→FE,FCGE)

in EE

..

Nothing indicates that the change of metre introduced in EE could be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 14, Prelude in E♭ minor

 in A (→FCGE)

 in FE (→EE)

..

The change of time signature from  to  is a frequent inaccuracy of French editions – cf., e.g. the Etude in C, Op. 10 No. 1, b. 1. In the second book of Preludes, in all three provided with  in A, i.e. E Minor, No. 14, B Minor, No. 16 and F Minor, No. 18, it was reproduced as

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

 in A (→FCGE)

 in FE (→EE)

..

The change of time signature in FE probably resulted from the engraver's inattention. In Chopin's pieces, it was common that engravers did not differentiate between  and , see the Prelude No. 14 in E Minor.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1

composition: Op. 28 No. 18, Prelude in F minor

 in A (→FCGE)

 in FE (→EE)

..

The  marking present in FE (→EE) instead of the authentic  indication must have resulted from the engraver's carelessness – see the Prelude in E minor no. 14.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , 4/4 or 2/2