Relating to Bitwig Studio, the reason you don’t see offset on any of the modulations is because there’s a utility called “DC Offset” allowing the user to apply offset to any incoming signal.
The 2 main purpose for applying offset is to convert bipolar signals to unipolar (and vice versa), or to shift the waveform from the “zero-crossing”. So taking an LFO as an example which by default is always 50% above ZC and 50% below ZC, you could shift it to be 80% above and 20% below.
No, DC Offset has nothing to do with modulation. It is applied only to audio signal.
If you want an LFO to work in range from M to N, just set parameter value to (M + N) / 2 and LFO amount to N - M.
Let’s say you have WT position set to 30 and you want the WT Pos LFO to move from 30 to 70 (positive unipolar), just set wavetable position to 50 in the instrument parameters. It has exactly the same effect.
It would be good to have bipolar/unipolar positive/unipolar negative setting (Bitwig has that too) but only as a convenience as it would not bring new functionality. I’d rather like to see some other essential features to be implemented, like LFO phase offset (there is no way to make Panning LFO to start at center) and smoothing (we can’t even smooth out Random).
It’s again the exact same thing but from another perspective. You can already achieve it the way I decribed earlier. In you particular example, set the parameter value to 80 and the LFO waveform will be shifted up (as seen from you original parameter value, because it’s all relative).
Well, unless you meant the LFO to ‘hard clip’ at 100 and zero, so you practically get other shapes in the end. That is not feasible curently, yes. Looking at the picture provided, I can conclude the wish doesn’t cover that either. The modulation range is shifted up, but the waveform stays the same.
My bad. I find it hard to believe that there is no way to offset any modulation in Bitwig but I’m not a user and assumed that there had to be some way to offset an LFO. perhaps it’s not the best modulation system in the universe
This is not at all the exact same effect . You’re only taking the range into consideration but not the actual modulation travel itself. In one scenario you’re modulating from 30 to 70 whereas in the other scenario you start at 50 and then go down to 30 and then up to 70. Very different results in the end.
As described above, you’re only considering the range. As I explained in my original post, it’s about shifting the waveform above/below the zero crossing which will greatly impact the modulation.
Modulation goes from the minimum (30) to the maximum (70) in both cases either modulation is bipolar or unipolar. To start at different initial point, you need adjustable LFO phase offset, but this wish isn’t about LFO phase, it’s about volume offset. I agree that adjustable LFO phase would be great to have. We just need another wish for that.
By the way, the particular modulation route you’ve described (50 to 30, then 30 to 70, then 70 to 30) can’t be achieved even with phase offset, as there isn’t Reverse Triangle LFO waveform availalble.
If you mean this (see the picture), the wish again is not about that. You can’t achive that with volume offset as clearly seen in the picture provided by the OP where the waveform stays the same even with high offset applied.
Looks like you’ve mixed up three different things here: volume offset (the only thing the wish actually addresses), phase offset (i.e. waveform horizontal shift) and waveform vertical shift.
You can of course do phase offset there. You can even modulate phase with another modulator. And you can draw any waveform by hand or use wavetables as LFO waveforms. There isn’t volume offsets as modualtion doesn’t take absolute control over the target parameter.
Still the best. I encourage you to try it yourself when you have spare time.
