Vote: 2nd LFO for

Impressed by other manufacturers opening voting platforms for feature requests, I think it’d be interesting to gauge the desire for a 2nd LFO.

As Elektron has stated the AR CPU is already maxed, something then has got to go to make room for 12 more LFOs. Granted I don’t know how much space everything takes up so let’s say what has to go is “negligible”: aftertouch, velocity modulation etc.

So the candidates:

A. 2nd LFO in exchange for (x feature)
B. Leave as is

My vote: A. For Legacy FX

Edit: As the official talking point is Elektron ignores this board wrt feature requests, hit them up at the official email: feature-request@elektron.se

1 Like

My vote: B, leave as is

3 Likes

I would prefer the possibility to link unused LFO´s to specific tracks.

But no idea if thats possible or will also exhaust the cpu.

6 Likes

A : No exchange

C : 1 lfo per track, having the possibility to modulate other tracks parameters, including lfo parameters. Choose track number with a knob pressure.
Make Accent destination sensible to Velocity Mod parameters > modulate 4/5 parameters at once.

2 Likes

This is the other option. You can do it with the MD. It should be possible with the AR!

4 Likes

I don’t think that Elektron will refuse some features, and I don’t think it will be convenient for developers to apply LFO to other tracks (like on MD), from the point of view of sounds and kits architecture.
This contradicts Elektron feature design concept and development methods.
The only way to get second LFO is just adding it (like on A4), if it possible.

Remember the situation with adding a randomizer to DN/DT. It was added only after the @Dataline personally “sold” this feature to the developer in the bar. And it was implemented in about half an hour the next day.

I think Elektron should try to implement this feature (it does not take much time, as it is implemented in A4, which has a similar architecture) and test CPU usage.

1 Like

that’s really not the case though … if you’ve ever looked at the way e.g. the sysex dumps are packaged and reshuffled every time a feature is added you’d appreciate there’s often a lot of consequential work beyond what may seem simple conceptually - this applies on so many layers

it’s disingenuous to believe it took about half an hour to do the randomizer although that’s significantly simpler - we shouldn’t trivialise how much time/effort/resources it would really take to implement a second LFO or other feature … also it may be best not to overlook whether it would just go against their philosophy for the instrument - i.e. keeping it 1 layer deep (distinct from the A4 with its greater complexity) (note also that the AR eschews much of the resolution available on the A4 for fine tuning lots of stuff - it’s a lot simpler)

Having said all that a second lfo (or even just a second ‘destination’ ) would open up so much more - but it won’t happen at the cost of anything - the fx levels ‘fix’ shows that !

but then again, changing the sample start/end paradigm and offering start/len or offering a new modulation destination of start&len would improve things too … there’s a tonne of feature requests that will never happen including some with no ‘cost’ - like binning the terrible default attribution of +18 to filter freq for pad pressure :thdw: - to me this seems like it’s a no brainer, takes no time, but I’m probably under-thinking the consequence to suit my preferred outcome

2 Likes

I didn’t say that it would take half an hour, I just pointed out that situation as an example, I understand that adding LFO is more difficult.

I guess one day will be enough. the only question is why Elektron will spend the developers time on such nonsense as updating features for a synthesizer which is already selling well, despite the freezes and other problems.

1 Like

D : 3 lfos per track, like Octatrack

5 Likes

We’re trying to be reasonable.

(But after they give us a 2nd…)

1 Like

B: The priorities are other imo

Totally agree that I’d prefer more modulation over legacy fx

1 Like