LFO Depth Question

Elektron Gear
#12

Oh wow! You are of course correct. From the monomachine manual:

DPTH (depth) is the amount of the LFO output level that is applied to the target parameter.
Setting DPTH to 127 allows for modulating a parameter to and from any extreme value. For
example, if the target parameter is set to 64 a DPTH setting of 64 is sufficient for modulating
the target value to its minimum (0) and maximum (127).

So, setting depth to 127 on a triangle wave, with target parameter at 0, would sweep through the entire range up to 127, back down again and clip at 0 for the below zero range, until the cycle starts again… it’s quite odd that the depth can go so high, but makes sense in terms of being able to use ONE/HALF mode LFOs of, for example, the EXP/RMP waves as envelopes. And it also explains why my PWM has been temperamental!

4 Likes
#13

Just found a very similar description in the Octatrack manual, its weird that I have been using the LFO’s incorrectly but still getting pretty good results :blush:

Maybe its because we are talking specifically about pitch modulation which I rarely ever use. I’m going to have to test/figure this out now! It certainly explains why i get ‘dead space’ when sending LFO’s to the XY pad in Waldorf Nave.

#14

The Octatrack LFO depth parameter really confuses me when it comes to values it’s affecting that don’t go up to 127.

1 Like
#15

Thanks for all the insight! This helps me a lot!

1 Like
#16

Some of you understanding all lfo depth param for the OT ?
Is it eachtime dividing 127 per the number of param possibilities ?

1 Like
#17

Ok , I really need some clarification on this!

I’m using random wave LFO’s on the OT, for example, to trigger 16 slices randomly. According to the manual and also the replies on this thread, if I lock at slice number 8 and have an LFO depth of 8, that should be sufficient to hit all 16 slices randomly (8 in either direction from the locked value of 8).

Well this just isn’t working properly for me, if I go into the sample editor and view the sliced waveform, I can see that the random triggering is only happening on the central 8 slices (4 either side of locked slice 8).

Its only since I started reading this thread that I’ve come to question the way this works, but neither explanation seems to fit.

Are there any OT ninjas that can clarify this for me? The manual description is a direct copy from the mono machine manual so its possible its incorrect or incomplete. Also, maybe some of the waveforms behave differently, its not clear and is undocumented

#18

Hi all,

First off, i’m long time lurker here… but decided to join finally - primarily to get first-hand support on this damn octatrack Mk1! So complex, so promising, so infuriating!

After a few months of owning the octatrack, I still don’t get the polarity of the LFOs. I’m trying to using LFOs to affect the slice ‘strt’ parameters. I’ve been wanting to use random, but it seems there is a tendency for the ‘random’ waveform to congregate around the slice start area (as shown in the slice menu).
e.g. I have ‘trig’ on the LFO menu set to hold, depth at 128. There are 64 slices. If I press play and watch the ‘slice’ menu screen, I see that that LFO modulates to a fair degree of randomness each side of the start point (which is roughly in the middle of the sample). However, there is a strong likelihood that the slice at the start [marked with a square with an ‘s’ in it) will repeat in a very non-random way.

To be more clear, the ‘s’ marker on the slice menu seems to repeat much more often (and mostly in groups of 2, 3 or 4 etc.) - and then the slice go random again.

What in the name of holy damn cripes is going on?! I’ve tried changing speeds, multiplying waveforms, freeing up the LFO, - but I always get these damn repeats!

It’s the same if I use other wave forms… that start point seems to repeat…

thoughts?

#19

From the sound of things, you’re having a similar challenge to that which I am/was. Some answers for you here:

1 Like
#20

I guess so - I saw that before in my research, and it’s not quite working. I have a 64 slices, but only 32 are placed across 4 bars.

trying LFO at both 64 and 32 depth, the first slice is still very over-represented in the otherwise very random results…

#21

If you have 32 slices set depth at 16 if using a bipolar lfo, or set slice 16 to be the default slice…

Obviously if you have slice one default the lfo cannot go below 1 so anything lower from the bipolar lfo will always trigger slice 1.

2 Likes
#22

Thanks rotallytuined,

What about the settings in the slice and trim pages - do they need to be marked at anything?

#23

No just as long as you have your slices actually sliced!

1 Like
#24

Thats a great diagrame, thanks!

I take up the topic because I am digging in the LFO on the Analog Four MKI, and I am wondering about the effect of depth on non numerical parameters.

Let’s say I want to apply LFO 1 to OSC1 waveform selection, and want to oscilate between the first 3 parameters, do I use depth of 2, or depth of 127/(number of parameter in dst)?

I hope it makes sense to you :smiley:

#25

What happens when you try both methods?

#26

That is an excelent question! I have been experimenting with it but haven’t reached a clear conclusion. A depth of 1 does change the destination value by 1 step, but I haven’t pushed on the subject yet.

1 Like
#27

This is one of 2 things I have found in the manual that are incorrect. The other being the delay time subdivisions :stuck_out_tongue:

#28

What is incorrect?
Slice values have to be multiplied by 2. Maybe not in the manual.

Yes, seems incorrect.
Both should be reported in the Documentation thread.

#29

Sorry if I missed it but did we get an answer to this?

So for example the ARP Speed: Is it 127/96 = 1.323 of depth for each Speed increment??

#30

128/96=4/3=1.33333 would make more sense.

1 Like
#31

From the Digitone manual :

12.7.8 DEP
Depth sets the depth and polarity of the LFO modulation. Both negative (inverted) and positive modulation depth is possible. A center setting, 0.00, equals no modulation depth. (-64.00–63.00).

Why isn’t it more detailed?