Unverified - these are predictions out of the regression model.
Note
Hz
AMF
Fine
B-4
1.93
0
10
C-3
2.04
1
16
C#-3
2.17
2
23
D-3
2.29
3
29
D#-3
2.43
4
35
E-3
2.58
5
42
F-3
2.73
6
48
F#-3
2.89
7
54
G-3
3.06
8
61
G#-3
3.24
9
67
A-3
3.44
10
74
A#-3
3.64
11
80
B-3
3.86
12
86
C-2
4.09
13
93
C#-2
4.33
14
99
D-2
4.59
15
105
D#-2
4.86
16
112
E-2
5.15
17
118
F-2
5.46
18
124
F#-2
5.78
20
4
G-2
6.12
21
10
G#-2
6.49
22
16
A-2
6.88
23
23
A#-2
7.28
24
29
B-2
7.72
25
36
C-1
8.18
26
42
C#-1
8.66
27
48
D-1
9.18
28
55
D#-1
9.72
29
61
E-1
10.30
30
67
F-1
10.91
31
74
F#-1
11.56
32
80
G-1
12.25
33
86
G#-1
12.98
34
93
A-1
13.75
35
99
A#-1
14.57
36
105
B-1
15.43
37
112
C0
16.35
38
118
C#0
17.32
39
124
D0
18.35
41
4
D#0
19.45
42
10
E0
20.60
43
17
F0
21.83
44
23
F#0
23.12
45
29
G0
24.50
46
36
G#0
25.96
47
42
A0
27.50
48
48
Bryan_T:
I didnāt do any lower
I want to control it from C-1 with midi processor. As lfo fine tune values seem to follow the same cycled values I think I can apply these values for lower notes.
Instead of a tuner I can compare with an lfo on Vol (tempo tuning !).
Ah so lower fine tune values are slightly different?
Iāve spent no time debugging those. What looks different about them?
1 Like
With the tremolo sounds I do think the AMD depth control needs to be at 127 to get the frequency you want. IIRC, the character of the tremolo changes with AMD.
EDIT - I think 64 is right, not 127.
1 Like
This is probably a rounding issue. Not sure if it is on the target frequency side or on the FINE value side.
1 Like
Not very different in fact. Just rounded differently I guessā¦
Note
Hz
AMF
Fine
B-4
1.93
0
10
C-3
2.04
1
16
C#-3
2.17
2
23
D-3
2.29
3
29
D#-3
2.43
4
35
E-3
2.58
5
42
F-3
2.73
6
48
F#-3
2.89
7
54
G-3
3.06
8
61
G#-3
3.24
9
67
A-3
3.44
10
74
A#-3
3.64
11
80
B-3
3.86
12
86
C-2
4.09
13
93
C#-2
4.33
14
99
D-2
4.59
15
105
D#-2
4.86
16
112
E-2
5.15
17
118
F-2
5.46
18
124
F#-2
5.78
20
4
G-2
6.12
21
10
G#-2
6.49
22
16
A-2
6.88
23
23
A#-2
7.28
24
29
B-2
7.72
25
36
C-1
8.18
26
42
C#-1
8.66
27
48
D-1
9.18
28
55
D#-1
9.72
29
61
E-1
10.30
30
67
F-1
10.91
31
74
F#-1
11.56
32
80
G-1
12.25
33
86
G#-1
12.98
34
93
A-1
13.75
35
99
A#-1
14.57
36
105
B-1
15.43
37
112
C0
16.35
38
118
C#0
17.32
39
124
D0
18.35
41
4
D#0
19.45
42
10
E0
20.60
43
17
F0
21.83
44
23
F#0
23.12
45
29
G0
24.50
46
36
G#0
25.96
47
42
A0
27.50
48
48
A#0
29.1
49
55
B0
30.9
50
61
C1
32.7
51
67
C#1
34.6
52
74
D1
36.7
53
80
D#1
38.9
54
86
E1
41.2
55
93
F1
43.7
56
99
F#1
46.2
57
106
G1
49.0
58
112
G#1
51.9
59
118
A1
55.0
60
125
A#1
58.3
62
4
B1
61.7
63
10
C2
65.4
64
17
C#2
69.3
65
23
D2
73.4
66
29
D#2
77.8
67
36
E2
82.4
68
42
F2
87.3
69
48
F#2
92.5
70
55
G2
98.0
71
61
G#2
103.8
72
68
A2
110.0
73
74
A#2
116.5
74
80
B2
123.5
75
87
C3
130.8
76
93
C#3
138.6
77
99
D3
146.8
78
106
D#3
155.6
79
112
E3
164.8
80
118
F3
174.6
81
125
F#3
185.0
83
4
G3
196.0
84
10
G#3
207.7
85
17
A3
220.0
86
23
A#3
233.1
87
30
B3
246.9
88
36
C4
261.6
89
42
C#4
277.2
90
49
D4
293.7
91
55
D#4
311.1
92
61
E4
329.6
93
68
F4
349.2
94
74
F#4
370.0
95
80
G4
392.0
96
87
G#4
415.3
97
93
A4
440.0
98
99
A#4
466.2
99
106
B4
493.9
100
112
C5
523.3
101
119
C#5
554.4
102
125
D5
587.3
104
4
D#5
622.3
105
11
E5
659.3
106
17
F5
698.5
107
23
F#5
740.0
108
30
G5
784.0
109
36
G#5
830.6
110
42
A5
880.0
111
49
A#5
932.3
112
55
B5
987.8
113
61
C6
1046.5
114
68
C#6
1108.7
115
74
D6
1174.7
116
81
D#6
1244.5
117
87
E6
1318.5
118
93
F6
1396.9
119
100
F#6
1480.0
120
106
G6
1568.0
121
112
G#6
1661.2
122
119
A6
1760.0
123
125
A#6
1864.7
125
4
B6
1975.5
126
11
C7
2093.0
127
17
This might be helpful for testing:
Target Hz
AMF
Fine
2
0
93
4
13
42
8
25
119
16
38
68
32
51
17
64
63
94
If your tempo is 60 or 120 bpm, the 2, 4, 8, and 16 Hz values should synchronize.
1 Like
Other point: I had a weird result with a stereo white noise thru comb filter + AMF : the RM note was fully on the right !!!
As comb filter induce a strong DC offset I think it changes AMF behavior. Doesnāt explain why it is fully on the right with that particalr stereo white noise sample. I had to use Spatializer fx to make it monoā¦
Will resample mono.
For lfo tuning my reference tempo is 103.1 (103.125 actually), perfectly correspond to 440 hz tuning !
For other pitches I multiply tempo by 2^(X/12), were X is semitone value.
Exemple to get C tempo, 3 semitones above A :
103.125 x 2^(3/12) = 122,637 bpm.
3 Likes
In the past Iāve noticed some oddities with the Lo-Fi effect on stereo images. It is almost like there is a sample delay between the left and right speaker. I think I noticed it the most with the SRR while modulating it.
I want my lo-fi to be hi-fi.
1 Like
I think you want AMD at 64 for the frequencies to line up on tremolo sounds. 127 will be at double the rate.
Moog ā sequenced ring mod ā wet-only delay. Just exploring the space.
3 Likes
I was playing around with the tremolo sounds. On my OT the slowest tremolo with the ring modulator is when AMF = 8. There is a jump in rate when I reduce AMF to 7.
Ah I noticed something weird in that concern when assigning it to crossfaderā¦
Bryan_T:
tremolo
Do you mean slow ring mod ?
I wonder if the table it references has some typos! It is really kind of strange.
Not tremolo, definitely a subsonic ring mod.
Sequencing the ring mod, looping the Moog:
Fun!
2 Likes
Showing four different octaves of tuned ring mod with four different octaves of source signal. The second half is more musically interesting (marginally!).
4 Likes
Nice !
Bryan_T:
source signal
Is it a tri waveform?
I found a way to get pure sine from AMF using @Veets trick. The principle is to get a flat waveform from a square or a dedicated sample :
VIDEO
Without lfo on vol, with the flat signal, ring modulation gives a pure sine. Additionally you can use an lfo on vol and draw a waveform.
Using comb filter on the flat signal also gives a new timbreā¦
4 Likes
