LFO speeds to be independent of Tempo

[erik]

To make a nice, big thick droning chord let’s say you load up three of the same oscillator into three Instruments lots. And then let’s say you want to slightly detune each of them with an LFO. If all three LFOs are running on divisions of the tempo - then the detuning falls together and doesn’t produce the effect that you may be going for. However, if the LFOs were independent of the tempo then you could get more fine control and detune them only slightly from each other. Giving you that big, thick detuned chord that you may be looking for.

Bonus functionality: if the LFO can go fast enough (and the current LFO nearly does) you can get into amplitude modulation of your samples.

What is the problem?

The LFO speeds are tied to the tempo - leading to somewhat limited sound design capabilities.

What do you want to achieve?

I’d like to be able to set the LFO speeds independently of the tempo.

Are there any workarounds?

Not that I am aware of.

Any links to related discussions?

This wish may be covered with this wish:

Configurable LFO retrigger in Instrument Parameters

Ability to configure the LFO retrigger behaviour What is the problem? There is no way to define LFO retrigger behaviour. This can lead to confusion about which part of an LFO cycle is expected when, for different instruments. This can be particularly confusing when using an LFO to timestretch, but a sample is triggered on a step number that is not a multiple of the LFO period. What do you want to achieve? On the second Instrument Paramaters screen, choose whether each LFO retriggers at the be…

… that is if LFO rates become truely free-running (as in set in hz or ms) and not synced to any tempo.

Any references to other products?

Not that I am aware of.

[Sandroid]

Hey there @erik , i think this wish already exists:

Configurable LFO retrigger in Instrument Parameters

Ability to configure the LFO retrigger behaviour What is the problem? There is no way to define LFO retrigger behaviour. This can lead to confusion about which part of an LFO cycle is expected when, for different instruments. This can be particularly confusing when using an LFO to timestretch, but a sample is triggered on a step number that is not a multiple of the LFO period. What do you want to achieve? On the second Instrument Paramaters screen, choose whether each LFO retriggers at the be…

The naming is a bit different but it proposes different ways an lfo could function including free-running (independent of tempo).

There is also this wish:

Wavetables of Envelope / LFO functions like XAOC Zadar

XAOC devices Zadar module has revolutionized the way users can use envelopes. Their wavetable envelope system is absolutely brilliant and it could make for a welcome addition to the tracker. Zadar has 256 wavetables of envelopes which can be looped to generate LFO style functions. Each shape can be bent left or right, and it can be bent upwards and downwards. The user can also select any position within the function to serve as a sustain value. In this way the user has far more control over …

Let me know if any of these meet your needs and make sure to vote on them. If so, let me know and i’ll close this one.

[erik]

The first Wishlist item (retriggering) is close, but not quite. Their concern is about when an LFO is re-triggered but the Speeds within the Tracker would still tied to divisions of the Tempo, which is what I’m proposing the ability to be independent from. So instead of how the speeds are currently set, you could set them from sub-Hz speeds (with 1hz taking 1 second in time) upwards into amplitude modulation territory (for example, 440Hz).

[Sandroid]

The way i understand it, is that the other wish will require lfo rates to become truely free-running (as in set in hz or ms) and not synced to any tempo as well.

It’ll be an essential part in order to implement the three retrigger functionalities.

You know what? Let’s do it this way:

• we’ll continue with this wish and see what Polyend has to say about it.
• It will probably make sense to mention said wish in this proposal, to hint at that it may already be covered by the other wish.
• And if it isn’t then nothing is lost

[Hans]

@here Thanks for your wish. It’s now ready for voting