I’m curious from anyone who might have a better idea of what processor the RYTM uses, and how taxing something like an additional LFO per track would be.
Is it possible that this highly desired feature hasn’t occurred yet because the RYTM doesn’t have the processing power? Would the ability to assign multiple destinations to the envelopes and LFOs (like the A4) require much more processing power? Would multiple envelope types (like the A4) require too much processing power?
After nearly two years without any improvement to the envelopes or addition of more modulation options, I’m really staring to think maybe the RYTM’s processor is already maxed out or close to being maxed out.
dunno, possible.
adding more things to run in parallel, such as a 2nd LFO would definitely amount to some amount of extra calculations… 8voices+fx = 9 extra LFOs. Not sure how intense these computations are internally.
however, switching e.g. the amp envelope to a different mode would probably not be more computationally expensive.
also, the LEDs for the param pages are dual color, on the A4 this is used to indicate different levels of pages. Not used on the AR (yet?)
But, besides CPU stuff, there is also memory constraints - do not underestimate that.
everything that’s added needs some memory somewhere, and things do add up.
I think that, now with Overbridge, Elektron won’t lose the sleep on not having implemented a second LFO , since you can have almost infinte LFO’s (all with multiple destinations) managed from your DAW or some plugin like Midishaper.
Overbridge has taken huge amounts of time to be developed, and in this kind of situations it’s kind of freeing AR FPGA/CPU from doing extra calculations. The good thing is obviously this virtual infinte number of LFOs you can have. The bad thing is for the guys who doesn’t use Overbridge, they will be limited to the machine itself in LFO therms.
It might be implemented in future updates? Yeah, that’s possible, but I don’t think they have it on their priority list.
There is a limit how much control data you can send to the AR, eventually it jams up. You can send about one cc message each ms. Not sure about automating OB directly, but it’s got a limited bandwidth. Also doing lfos like this can cause stepping on some parameters. It’s a hack though.
Yeah I was refering to automating OB plugin, I didn’t realise about the CC option now that you mention it. I’m curious about how many mapped parameters it could handle, might try it forcing it to “crash”, to see its limit. But you’re right that there’s a limitation over USB. Now we should see if a second LFO on AR would have enough processing headroom to work flawless, or OB is more than enough to handle multiple parameters, or the CC messages limit. Maybe a mix of USB-OB signals (mapped parameters) and CC throught MIDI IN port could expand this limitation?
Good point - I wouldn’t even mind having an assignable envelope instead of an extra LFO. I also find myself using the LFO mainly as a 1-shot. I’m curious if that would take less overhead than an LFO?
Sure would be lovely, and make the Rytm an ultimate production tool.
IIRC, there is a 2nd color of indicator lights for the LFO section as well.
In the meantime, I do long LFO stuff via realtime record parameter locks with slide. And save the short LFO automation for the LFO section itself. Or clone tracks and mix them together for pseudo dual LFO, but it ain’t exactly the same.
I can’t jive with the Overbridge excuse because i don’t use a computer on stage.