I've got two gated user lfo's at the same sync value, each modulating one of two panned filters, whose rate is modulated by an envelope in the modmatrix.
for some reason the lfo's become out of sync despite the same modulation values.
here's a link to the patch - http://www.bobbybeats.co.uk/HugeFlaps.fxp
have a I made a schoolboy error? or is it something more sinister?..
Lfo sync problem in zebra
-
- KVRAF
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
-
- KVRist
- 370 posts since 13 Jul, 2003 from Berlin
Are you triggering them at the same time?
LFOs are triggered per voice.
If you want to have them running in sync use the Global LFOs
Cheers
Hans
LFOs are triggered per voice.
If you want to have them running in sync use the Global LFOs
Cheers
Hans
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
hi Hans, - yes they are both triggered at the same time when a key is pressed (set to 'gate' so global LFO's are unsuitable).
the patch I linked to above demonstrates the problem quite well - the LFO's are simply falling out of sync despite starting at the same time and receiving exactly the same modulation settings.
I hope that made sense..
the patch I linked to above demonstrates the problem quite well - the LFO's are simply falling out of sync despite starting at the same time and receiving exactly the same modulation settings.
I hope that made sense..
-
- KVRist
- 370 posts since 13 Jul, 2003 from Berlin
Sorry... yes, I wasn't checking the patch originally. But you're right, this shouldn't be that way.
Sorry for having you post once more.
Cheers
Hans
Sorry for having you post once more.
Cheers
Hans
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
-
- u-he
- 30213 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Looked into it!
It's not a bug per se, but it's a confusing (i.e. non-existing *cough*) user feedback in the gui, or a cosmetic issue respectively.
The ModMatrixes "Via" had no source assigned, but it still has a value (which isn't reflected). Add "ModWheel" as ViaSource, doubleclick the knobs to set them to zero, then unassign the ViaSource. There you go.
For future versions it might be cool to automagically detect "none" and then don't process any Via parameter here...
Cheers,
Urs
It's not a bug per se, but it's a confusing (i.e. non-existing *cough*) user feedback in the gui, or a cosmetic issue respectively.
The ModMatrixes "Via" had no source assigned, but it still has a value (which isn't reflected). Add "ModWheel" as ViaSource, doubleclick the knobs to set them to zero, then unassign the ViaSource. There you go.
For future versions it might be cool to automagically detect "none" and then don't process any Via parameter here...
Cheers,
Urs-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
another LFO related question:
should I expect user lfo's with different lengths and the same rate to take the same amount of time to cycle once? ie. one user lfo with 12 steps, another with 30 steps - the 30 step lfo takes much longer to complete one oscillation. I think I expected the oscillations to complete simultaneously.
in the same breath, I think I expected the phase to shift from 0-100% regardless of the number of steps in the user lfo, but with my 12 step lfo I can't seem to shift it's phase more than about 10% of it's scale.
is this right?
cheers
should I expect user lfo's with different lengths and the same rate to take the same amount of time to cycle once? ie. one user lfo with 12 steps, another with 30 steps - the 30 step lfo takes much longer to complete one oscillation. I think I expected the oscillations to complete simultaneously.
in the same breath, I think I expected the phase to shift from 0-100% regardless of the number of steps in the user lfo, but with my 12 step lfo I can't seem to shift it's phase more than about 10% of it's scale.
is this right?
cheers
-
- KVRian
- 980 posts since 25 Feb, 2003
And while you are at it, please correct it in the Filterscape plugins as well - same problem there about disconnected modulation paths still processing/sending a 'buffered' value.Urs wrote:For future versions it might be cool to automagically detect "none" and then don't process any Via parameter here...
Another thing about modulators being set to retrigger (at least in Filterscape) is that they get retriggered only after the first run through the set period. That is, if for example it is set to retrigger every bar, the sync will happen only after the first bar. Would make more sense if they got reset on song start as well.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
-
- u-he
- 30213 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Oh yeah...
sorry, this may be considered a bug...
In User Wave mode, the duration of each step corresponds to the sync, i.e. each step takes a 16th.
However, the phase control does only shift the starting phase within the first step. But it should possibly range across all steps...
Cheers,
Urs
sorry, this may be considered a bug...
In User Wave mode, the duration of each step corresponds to the sync, i.e. each step takes a 16th.
However, the phase control does only shift the starting phase within the first step. But it should possibly range across all steps...
Cheers,
Urs-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
-
- u-he
- 30213 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Oh... sorry, that was misleading... the duration of a step in user mode is intentionally corresponding to the sync value, in opposition to a whole cycle (i.e. 16 steps, set to 1/16th -> a full cycle in a whole 1/1 note). The only bug therein is, that the phase parameter only works for the single first step, not for all...
This way it's likely easier for most people to get the results they want...
Urs
This way it's likely easier for most people to get the results they want...
Urs-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2734 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
i understand - though would it be impossible to add a feature which allows us to use, for example, two user lfo's of differing length?
i can see why you've implemented it this way, but if i need to sync 2 user lfos of differing length (4 and 5 for example) what percentage should I alter the rate of the 4 step lfo to equal 4 steps of the 5 step cycle?
my terrible maths calculated 20%, so i tried both speeding up the 4 step by 20% to 120% and slowing down the 5 step to 80%, each failing to stay in time.
how would you solve this?
cheers, and sorry for being a pain!
i can see why you've implemented it this way, but if i need to sync 2 user lfos of differing length (4 and 5 for example) what percentage should I alter the rate of the 4 step lfo to equal 4 steps of the 5 step cycle?
my terrible maths calculated 20%, so i tried both speeding up the 4 step by 20% to 120% and slowing down the 5 step to 80%, each failing to stay in time.
how would you solve this?
cheers, and sorry for being a pain!
-
- u-he
- 30213 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Hmmm, for LFO A = 4 vs. LFO B = 5 steps, try this:
Rate of LFO B = 5/4 x 100.00% = 125.00 %
I'll come up with something here... (either a formula or a button)
Urs
Rate of LFO B = 5/4 x 100.00% = 125.00 %
I'll come up with something here... (either a formula or a button)
Urs