I have a general question about Elektron LFOs, and if someone can verify my assumption that would be great.
If the LFO destination value is 5, and I set the LFO depth to 10, will the LFO destination values range from -5 to +5? Or will the range be 5 and 15? I’m guessing it’s -5 and +5.
If someone can confirm this, I’d appreciate it.
The last question: does this “math” apply to all Elektron LFOs?
Thanks for the insight!
For example, with say an Oscillator pitch in semitones, if you target a value currently set at 5 with a depth of 10 it will vary from -5 to 15 (i.e. not one of your suggestions, at least not for the ‘normal’ bipolar shapes … so it varies by 10 each side of the present value ) there are mono polar shapes so it’ll only be an additional process … I think most LFO behaviour works on this basis, but the meaningfulness of the depth value will vary with the targeted parameter
The LFO depths are much finer in resolution on the analog instruments
This would be better understood if you chose a present value that doesn’t cause the modulation to pass through zero.
Present value 10, depth 10, gives you 5 and 15.
Present value 20, depth 10, gives you 15 and 25.
Etc.
I drew some diagrams because I wanted to add an explanation of what happens when you have an LFO that goes outside of the range of the parameter…
As @avantronica and @Housecliche described:
Additionally, if you set the original parameter in such a way that half the LFO depth is greater than the difference between the maximum/minimum setting and the original setting, it’ll clip:
Extreme example:
I think this is the same for all LFO shapes; see the diagrams in the manual for clarification.
Nice work - and I believe that on for example the MnM SID machine, that has its own LFO for PWM, there is a switch that will prevent such clipping - so you can choose to always modulate within a range that won’t yield extreme ends of the duty cycle. There may be other machines with a similar option, can’t remember.
Ive always thought that the LFO depth value accounts for half the depth value in either direction from the centre point of the LFO, e.g… a value of 5 and a ramp LFO with depth of 10 will sweep between 0 and 10. It always seems to work this way for me so its strange to read that it doesn’t work that way. Maybe the Octatrack LFO’s are different, theres no negative depth for starters.
You learn something new every day! 
Hmm, I’m not sure about this one… I think it works the same way as the other LFOs… the switch is so the LFO resets at each incoming note.
Your first assumption was correct! LFO depth is the total bipolar range, so 10 equals 5 on either side of the parameter value, as you mentioned.
Also, there’s no negative depth for LFOs on the monomachine either. It’d only make sense if an inverted wave was required, and on the monomachine there are inverted versions of all LFO waves anyway…
Yeah you right of course
This is something I’ve studied extensively… the LFO clipping actually annoys me greatly, especially on PWM. For some reason it takes me a long time to find a sweet spot for PWM on the SID machine.
Not for the A4 (&OT) … This may well be the case for the Monomachine (can’t test), and this distinction may answer the OPs second query about consistency between devices
On the A4 (testing on verifiable semi-tone intervals) a depth of e.g. 12 will give a range of 24, i.e. the depth is the mono polar value, so 12 is added, then subtracted (or not subtracted if you use an A4 ‘ramp’, which is only positive (although depth can be negative))
I wondered if the OT worked in the way you describe the MNM seems to (as they share shapes), but wrt pitch again on the MIDI side, if you specify 12 you get a range of 24 (bipolar shape e.g. square), so it’s not 6 either side
On the OT audio side, there is a limited range of modulation directly in semitones, +/- 12 max, so to get 12 each way (24 range) you have to go full scale on depth (i.e. 127)
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!
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 
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.
The Octatrack LFO depth parameter really confuses me when it comes to values it’s affecting that don’t go up to 127.
Thanks for all the insight! This helps me a lot!
Some of you understanding all lfo depth param for the OT ?
Is it eachtime dividing 127 per the number of param possibilities ?
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
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?
From the sound of things, you’re having a similar challenge to that which I am/was. Some answers for you here:
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…