Arturia Forums
Hardware Instruments => MicroFreak => MicroFreak - Feature Requests => Topic started by: Moho on May 02, 2019, 07:24:40 pm
-
Hi loving the Freak but a LFO per voice would make it perfect 8)
-
Hi Moho,
thanks for this one.
I logged it in our feature request database, but don't know what will be done here.
cheers,
-
I agree that one more per voice modulator would be good, but my preference would be for the Cycling Envelope since it would give a choice of LFO or envelope. Then the LFO could remain global for things like vibrato. Whichever modulator would become per voice might require a Preset menu globalvoice setting in order to not affect existing patches.
-
I agree that one more per voice modulator would be good, but my preference would be for the Cycling Envelope since it would give a choice of LFO or envelope.
+1 !
A cycling envelope per voice would unleash much more of the oscs potential!
-
I guess the cycling envelope is after the filter So probably not possible to add per voice.
-
I guess the cycling envelope is after the filter So probably not possible to add per voice.
It's not tied down to anywhere in particular. It's just a modulation resource like the rest and could potentially be per voice.
-
Well it not a polyphony synth so you need the voices to go through the one filter right? I believe they arrange the digital Amp on each voice before the filter to allow a poly like playing. But maybe you are right and it is possible. If so I agree , I want this feature.
-
Well it not a polyphony synth so you need the voices to go through the one filter right? I believe they arrange the digital Amp on each voice before the filter to allow a poly like playing. But maybe you are right and it is possible. If so I agree , I want this feature.
Yes, all the voices goes through the one filter, but the modulators and the matrix is in software, so there are no hard ties to anywhere. Thus the LFO or the cycling envelope could potentially be per voice, just as the "main" envelope is. It's definitely technically possible if there's enough CPU power available.
-
Mmmm interesting! Definitely an area to improve this little synth then 🙂
-
I still think the LFO would be better, it would be easier to implement as it has less modulatable parts to calculate just speed and depth and offers more shapes.
Imagine 4 oscillators with their pitches modulated by 4 sample and holds each doing their own thing, truly freaky ;D
-
Well... freaky yeah, but imagine having envelope control, cycling if you want, over all those timbre changing oscillator parameters. I think there's a lot more mileage in that, if there had to be a choice.
-
I agree with moho, LFO would be easier to implement and also the LFO can sync to host BPM.
Would be cool to have the cycling ENV to sync to BPM.
-
Cycling Env sync'ed to bpm would be great and make it easy to get rhythmic interactions with the lfo.
The trouble is if you have a lfo per voice you would then need a cycling env per voice to keep those interactions :(
TBH I kind of like the way it is now, syncing the lfo and then experimenting with the cycling env times till you get something funky, a case of Sync Off Ears On,
it results in timings and interactions that are more alive and interesting than just syncing everything up, though it would be nice to have that option.
-
I agree that one more per voice modulator would be good, but my preference would be for the Cycling Envelope since it would give a choice of LFO or envelope.
+1 !
A cycling envelope per voice would unleash much more of the oscs potential!
+1 !