Cytomic "The Drop" Resonant Filter

[andy-cytomic]

One possible solution: right+click the LFO on/off LED to bring up a menu that allows you to change the waveform.

That's not ideal since then there is a jump in the shape, and a hidden control where just looking at the interface you can't work out what is going on. The design goal is to have a "morphing" LFO with completely smooth control over the shape.

A right+click menu would also be helpful for selecting filter type. This would be in addition to the knob that's currently used. It would be great for jumping from one type to another for quick A/B'ing of how a given filter's tone effects the audio.

I completely agree here, in fact not even a right click, I meant to add a left click of the name of the filter circuit to popup a list.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here. Like I said, it's not a must have, but it would allow me to do basic sine sweeps from within The Drop's GUI.

Thanks for contributing! I'm still not convinced on the Sine shape front, but you also said that it's not a deal breaker for you anyway.

[ChiTown24]

hi andy,
would you consider adding Sine to the LFO if it was requested enough ? Sine waves & ambient music go well together

Yes I did consider adding a Sine shape to the LFO before it was even requested. I decided against it.

But, I'm always happy and open to talk about design decisions, and if you can convince not only me but everyone else of a better choice then I'll go with it. Can you please suggest which of the current LFO knobs you would prefer to remove so a "Sine" knob could be added?

yes, evidently you decided against it. I suppose I should have said would you reconsider adding a sine wave shape to an LFO {hard to believe this is a feature that needs requesting. needs convincing even!}

"Can you please suggest which of the current LFO knobs you would prefer to remove so a "Sine" knob could be added?"

That is what is called a loaded question. Textbook example. Hard to believe you'll even allow yourself to be convinced if that's how you put it. Makes it hard to convince others, too, when you frame it like that. Then again, this is why loaded questions exist. They are quite effective.

But OK, I'll bite. I don't think anything should be removed to make 'space' for an sine shape in the LFO. Funkybot's Evil Twin suggestion was a reasonable one. Something, ANYTHING, along those lines.

One possible solution: right+click the LFO on/off LED to bring up a menu that allows you to change the waveform.

That's not ideal since then there is a jump in the shape, and a hidden control where just looking at the interface you can't work out what is going on. The design goal is to have a "morphing" LFO with completely smooth control over the shape.

You seem to be prioritising Form over Function. Nothing wrong with honing your GUI, for that form/function synergy, sure. But at the cost of putting a sine {SINE!} in an LFO ? Really ? It certainly is nice to be able to see the exact signal routing at a glance, but you don't need a knob to indicate what waveshape is being used in the LFO - or worse - replace one { }. Do you ? AND - we're talking about a pretty simple audio device here, in terms of architecture. I can handle a hidden/partially hidden/not-as-obvious-as-everything-else parameter or two in the name of having something sensible like a sine shape in the LFO.

the idea that, for the sake of a perfectly symmetrical GUI, you would have me & others deal with awkward, clunky, problematic workarounds just to get some nice & smooth & slow sine movement in our filter... is pretty strange {bad strange, not good strange}. it is a filter after all. it's raison d'être is sound. and you are making it quote difficult to achieve a common, dare i say industry-standard-as-old-as-electronic-music-itself, modulation shape.

As for the sidechain work around. No thanks. in a typical project i can have 4, 5, 6 filters... all morphing at a nice slow pace, creating nice evolving movement {practically polyrhythmic} by choosing differing tempo divisions for each sine, conflicting polarities. You get the idea of course. Now lets try this with the sidechain work around. Now I need to manage at least one extra track per modulation. Using audio will be problematic as I change the tempo of the project frequently, the pitching up & down + aliasing of stretching the audio will probably need further attention, no ? Also because I will cycle through lfo tempo divisions across all the filters until I find a combination that sounds great. That would be a nuisance to do with an separate audio track modulating each filter. I also like to write & render at vastly different project sample rates, I assume that will further effect my ad-hoc audiofile LFOS.
Not interested in using a synth or midi plugin solution either. Just as much of a nuisance, but for different reasons. Think CPU & midi stepping, or awkward host dependent automation scenarios when it comes to writing VS rendering.

All of which, not impossible to overcome, but certainly time consuming. certainly a nuisance, and certainly quite annoying when it has to be done just to get a SINE shape in an LFO, which wasn't put there in the first place because of some asinine GUI priorities.

My demo time on The Drop has run out, so I can't physically & analytically test why adding a sine to the LFO is so incomprehensible to you. So do forgive me if I'm missing something obvious in my rejection of your POV on this.

What I'd like to see is, without any sly loaded questions that might shape the response, a simple question put forth: "Would you like a sine shape in the LFO ?"
And then add it {or not} based on the interest. But I guess the horse has bolted, you've made it clear you don't really want to add it {are there ulterior motives I wonder ?} even if it's wanted and given the Steve Jobs level of adulation you personally receive for the sound of your dsp I find it hard to believe the fans will go to the trouble of debating {which is what you are demanding} the issue with you. And that's a pity. A pity for me personally at least. Because even if I own the plug I'll find myself using another, possibly inferior, filter for my ambient needs simply because your proposed workarounds for simulating a sine shape are just too much of a PITA to use in a dynamic, ever changing project.

And all, supposedly, because of some weird GUI motivation.

[djshire]

So let me get this straight:

A two-person company, one of those people being the person that does all the coding, testing, etc, offers an amazing, full-featured analogue modeling effect plug-in for less than $100 (and even less that if you own The Glue), and you're complaining because it doesn't have every feature that you want?

Get off my lawn.

[andy-cytomic]

"Can you please suggest which of the current LFO knobs you would prefer to remove so a "Sine" knob could be added?"

That is what is called a loaded question. Textbook example. Hard to believe you'll even allow yourself to be convinced if that's how you put it. Makes it hard to convince others, too, when you frame it like that. Then again, this is why loaded questions exist. They are quite effective.

But OK, I'll bite. I don't think anything should be removed to make 'space' for an sine shape in the LFO. Funkybot's Evil Twin suggestion was a reasonable one. Something, ANYTHING, along those lines.

It's not a loaded question at all, it's exactly the question I asked myself. Adding an extra knob is easy, deciding which knobs are essential and limiting the design to deliver the most functionality with the cleanest interface is a hard tradeoff. My Moog Prodigy does just fine with only a tri and sqr LFO, and when I added a sine knob it really wasn't all that different in overall tone to that of a triangle.

One possible solution: right+click the LFO on/off LED to bring up a menu that allows you to change the waveform.

That's not ideal since then there is a jump in the shape, and a hidden control where just looking at the interface you can't work out what is going on. The design goal is to have a "morphing" LFO with completely smooth control over the shape.

You seem to be prioritising Form over Function. Nothing wrong with honing your GUI, for that form/function synergy, sure. But at the cost of putting a sine {SINE!} in an LFO ? Really ? It certainly is nice to be able to see the exact signal routing at a glance, but you don't need a knob to indicate what waveshape is being used in the LFO - or worse - replace one { }. Do you ? AND - we're talking about a pretty simple audio device here, in terms of architecture. I can handle a hidden/partially hidden/not-as-obvious-as-everything-else parameter or two in the name of having something sensible like a sine shape in the LFO.

It is about clarity and simplicity in a limited space while still retaining enough power to get the job done. Adding extra knobs and sub pages with tabs, and popup menus with loads of options is easy, but it stifles inspiration and ease of use.

the idea that, for the sake of a perfectly symmetrical GUI, you would have me & others deal with awkward, clunky, problematic workarounds just to get some nice & smooth & slow sine movement in our filter... is pretty strange {bad strange, not good strange}. it is a filter after all. it's raison d'être is sound. and you are making it quote difficult to achieve a common, dare i say industry-standard-as-old-as-electronic-music-itself, modulation shape.

I didn't want to go for a common LFO, the one in The Drop offers features not available in any other LFO - but one of the things that got sacrificed along the way was a sine shape. Lots of analog kit doesn't have a sine shape, and this gives the modulation a certain sound. I think certain limitations like this drive the tone of a device in a certain direction, and I embrace that.

[ChiTown24]

So let me get this straight

Yes, please do get it straight.
I'm not 'complaining' , I'm 'convincing'. Something that "the person that does all the coding, testing, etc, offers an amazing, full-featured analogue modeling effect plug-in for less than $100" asked me to do. In fact, it was an open invitation, so don't be surprised if at least one or two more pedestrians end up standing on your proverbial lawn.

My personal preference would have been if he just noted the interested, and offered to do it if there was enough. But he needs 'convincing', so, you know, I'm not going to apologise for trying.

Thanks for the blinkered, fanatical response though. It illustrates exactly why Andy throwing the gauntlet down, so to speak, demanding he be convinced & framing the idea of adding a sine wave as inherently removing something else is a pretty sly way of ensuring people won't try 'convincing' him to add the Sine. Because when you do, you get replies like yours.

Cheers

[kingtubby]

I think certain limitations like this drive the tone of a device in a certain direction, and I embrace that.

I heartily agree with that

[andy-cytomic]

...why Andy throwing the gauntlet down, so to speak, demanding he be convinced & framing the idea of adding a sine wave as inherently removing something else is a pretty sly way of ensuring people won't try 'convincing' him to add the Sine....

There is no slyness going on, this is a straight up design decision that I am trying to discuss openly here which if anything is the oposite of slyness. I already wrestled with this myself, and talked to my good friend Magnus Lidström about it too. I would love to somehow justify a sine shape, but couldn't manage it in the context of the entire design of the LFO given the small difference in tone offered by rounding the corners off a triangle shape. The discussion thus far has not shed any new light on the decision to sway me away from keeping things like they are.

[digidennis]

OH NOEEs !! never seen an LFO without a SINE! {SINE!}...sine..si..gh

[homunculus]

i honestly didnt even realize there was no sine in the lfo and have been using this every day since it came out, my ears must suck lol

[ChiTown24]

OK, so the answer to my question is "No", you won't add the sine wave if it is requested enough. The whole 'convince' me bit seems quite a bit contrived. You could have saved me some time by giving the straight answer first, or even a "I can't be convinced" disclaimer.

The positive aural effect in using a Sine for slow ambient modulation VS Triangle is subject I suppose, I prefer the swells I get from Sine modulations. Sounds more like breathing whereas the triangle sounds more mechanical. Fluffy descriptions but there you have it. Given your previous statement, it seems you're resolute in stick with your own personal preference VS customer demand. And this whole dog & pony show with the 'convince me' bit is just a way of discouraging customer demand. Sorry if you feel I'm being unduly incredulous, but the philosophy behind your decision is pretty shaky to begin with IMO and also quite incompatible with the whole idea that a dev should respond to customer feedback, if there's enough of it.

Anyway, back to scheduled programming. I've wasted enough time on this. Looking forward to wasting more in the future with those goofy workarounds.

[billcarroll]

So let me get this straight

Yes, please do get it straight.
I'm not 'complaining' , I'm 'convincing'. Something that "the person that does all the coding, testing, etc, offers an amazing, full-featured analogue modeling effect plug-in for less than $100" asked me to do. In fact, it was an open invitation, so don't be surprised if at least one or two more pedestrians end up standing on your proverbial lawn.

My personal preference would have been if he just noted the interested, and offered to do it if there was enough. But he needs 'convincing', so, you know, I'm not going to apologise for trying.

Thanks for the blinkered, fanatical response though. It illustrates exactly why Andy throwing the gauntlet down, so to speak, demanding he be convinced & framing the idea of adding a sine wave as inherently removing something else is a pretty sly way of ensuring people won't try 'convincing' him to add the Sine. Because when you do, you get replies like yours.

Cheers

Maybe it's your tone. We've been here before haven't we? Who was the last developer you blasted like this?

Christmas and New Years are a great time to elevate our tone and spread some good vibes

Best,

--
Bill Carroll

[Bathrobe]

As for the sidechain work around. No thanks. in a typical project i can have 4, 5, 6 filters...

when you use lfotool for sending various sines to these filters, you control them with 1 instance of lfotool instead of having various filterwindows open.
but you are right, this won't add a sine to the drop's gui.


btw. i like dcam's graph screen, seeing the shape of the lfo can help to work faster.
when i play with the lfo shape knobs in the drop i have to wait how it evolves, especially with slow rates.
but i embrace the drop's philosophy. it may take me someplace i haven't thought of before.


in case my question was skipped, what does step freq do? i hear a difference but would like to know more about it. thanks.

[Phase47]

The positive aural effect in using a Sine for slow ambient modulation VS Triangle is subject I suppose, I prefer the swells I get from Sine modulations. Sounds more like breathing whereas the triangle sounds more mechanical. Fluffy descriptions but there you have it.

FXpansion's Etch has a sine wave LFO. Very nice for ambient. I disagree with all of the rest though, and appreciate Andy's design sensibilities and transparency, and will be using The Drop (on ambient music!)

[djshire]

So let me get this straight

Yes, please do get it straight.
I'm not 'complaining' , I'm 'convincing'. Something that "the person that does all the coding, testing, etc, offers an amazing, full-featured analogue modeling effect plug-in for less than $100" asked me to do. In fact, it was an open invitation, so don't be surprised if at least one or two more pedestrians end up standing on your proverbial lawn.

My personal preference would have been if he just noted the interested, and offered to do it if there was enough. But he needs 'convincing', so, you know, I'm not going to apologise for trying.

Thanks for the blinkered, fanatical response though. It illustrates exactly why Andy throwing the gauntlet down, so to speak, demanding he be convinced & framing the idea of adding a sine wave as inherently removing something else is a pretty sly way of ensuring people won't try 'convincing' him to add the Sine. Because when you do, you get replies like yours.

Cheers

Maybe it's your tone.

Which is also my problem with what you said Chi. Text doesn't always transmit tone, but yours did.

[Mogular]

OK, so the answer to my question is "No", you won't add the sine wave if it is requested enough. The whole 'convince' me bit seems quite a bit contrived. You could have saved me some time by giving the straight answer first, or even a "I can't be convinced" disclaimer.


Anyway, back to scheduled programming. I've wasted enough time on this. Looking forward to wasting more in the future with those goofy workarounds.

You seem to be itching for a fight with Andy. Thankfully his tone is even and measured in response. Maybe you could rethink yours to keep everything on an even keel. I wonder how pissed off you would be if Andy tried to match your way of communicating.