[REQUEST] improvments to the GPE LFO

hopefully, JJ can include these in OS 3.

1. request new LFO type: FREE

currently, LFOs in GPE are re-triggered every time the pad is struck.
I would like to add a new type of LFO that is only triggered when PLAY START is pressed to start the sequence.
then they will keep running continuously until STOP or PLAY START is pressed again.

current type = RTRIG (re-triggered)
new type = FREE (free-running)

this option can be set on a per-pad basis.



2. request more things to be controlled by the LFO.
it would be useful to be able to control a few more things with the LFO in GPE:

1. LFO -> CHOP
2. LFO -> SAMPLE START
3. LFO -> ATTACK (in the AMP page)
4. LFO -> RELEASE (in the AMP page)
5. LFO -> PAD LAYER (can be used for the 'round robin' request some people have had).

These are good, the 1st one I've been missing a bit too! LFO <3

Don't know if LFO trig has to be related to PLAY START or it would just be "free running".

Good ones right there!

Sooty_G wrote:
1. LFO -> CHOP

LFO controlled Round Robin.

I've requested this one before.

+1

ad 1/
i miss a lot this feature, everything for FREE non triggered LFO!!

I cant see why you would use LFO to chop?? yeah round robin meh, what ever.
Yeah i would use maybe LFO for attack or release maybe, not chop. To me thats a waste of time. just my 2 cents. LFO that is free and unrelated to sample hit is a good idea, and useful to i think, so agree with that.

bliprock wrote:I cant see why you would use LFO to chop?? yeah round robin meh, what ever.
Yeah i would use maybe LFO for attack or release maybe, not chop. To me thats a waste of time. just my 2 cents. LFO that is free and unrelated to sample hit is a good idea, and useful to i think, so agree with that.

lfo to chop? it's all about randomization, variety, and making a sequence sound more improvised.

you could have a simple 1 bar sequence. with a few lfo to chop samples going you could have it play a different way every time it loops. it wouldn't sound like a repetitive sequence anymore but more like a few live players jamming & improvising a lot. depends on how crazy you want to get with it.

+1 cosign free running LFOs for sure, and LFO for chop and sample start would be great!

Sooty_G wrote:lfo to chop? it's all about randomization, variety, and making a sequence sound more improvised.

you could have a simple 1 bar sequence. with a few lfo to chop samples going you could have it play a different way every time it loops. it wouldn't sound like a repetitive sequence anymore but more like a few live players jamming & improvising a lot. depends on how crazy you want to get with it.

I feel ya man, but we have cycle play now dont we and a heap of other ways to trigger a sample. and a sequencer, ect ect.
I was kicking my self later, because there is one other parameter to consider, and that is LFO to PAN.
I cant believe no one else mentioned it.

bliprock wrote:I feel ya man, but we have cycle play now dont we and a heap of other ways to trigger a sample. and a sequencer, ect ect.

Cycle play wouldn't replace this. If you chopped up a synth stab or a bowed violin, or something with a long, slow textural/harmonic change, you could use the LFO to cycle through up to 32 segments of this, steadily synchronized with the pattern. If you did this with pad cycle, the movement would always be linked with the pad hits, making it feel more static and mechanical. With the LFOs would be steady, cyclical, and flowing, which is more pleasing in many situations.

There's plenty of rhythmic applications for this as well that you couldn't achieve with pad cycle. Holding down note repeat while you tweak LFO speed with a Q-link would let you auto-chop loops. That would be a fun thing to have!

It would be a cool and unique feature, even if it doesn't fit into everyone's workflow.

license wrote:

bliprock wrote:I feel ya man, but we have cycle play now dont we and a heap of other ways to trigger a sample. and a sequencer, ect ect.

Cycle play wouldn't replace this. If you chopped up a synth stab or a bowed violin, or something with a long, slow textural/harmonic change, you could use the LFO to cycle through up to 32 segments of this, steadily synchronized with the pattern. If you did this with pad cycle, the movement would always be linked with the pad hits, making it feel more static and mechanical. With the LFOs would be steady, cyclical, and flowing, which is more pleasing in many situations.

There's plenty of rhythmic applications for this as well that you couldn't achieve with pad cycle. Holding down note repeat while you tweak LFO speed with a Q-link would let you auto-chop loops. That would be a fun thing to have!

It would be a cool and unique feature, even if it doesn't fit into everyone's workflow.

well for the threads sake i wasnt gonna spell out every way to do it was i. you can use qlink slider to go through chops, you can use pads to play chops in real time, you can stepedit chops, you can footswitch, external midi control chops. ect and you example is a bit wanting to me, because if it was that kinda textural sound all you do is assign the LFO to the relative parameter that equates with thats sound. Wow, flutter pitch ect is what LFO does, be it in real instrument or sampler. its low frequency oscillation right ?? so ok maybe you did not pick great example, just for example a snare. Just with say using two with cycle play and velocity layers you have something like 12 samples there. thats a lot of variation. if your hits are mechanical then fix it so its not. try setting qlink to chop and other qlink to lfo speed. Have ya ever tried it?

bliprock wrote:you can use qlink slider to go through chops, you can use pads to play chops in real time, you can stepedit chops, you can footswitch, external midi control chops. ect

If you try to achieve the same result this way, it would take a lot more time and effort. Why not be able to automate and do this easily?

bliprock wrote:you example is a bit wanting to me, because if it was that kinda textural sound all you do is assign the LFO to the relative parameter that equates with thats sound.

Unless there is no parameter available that equates to that sound. How about FM modulation index? How about wavetable? How about synced oscillator frequency? No equivalents in the MPC's architecture.

A sampler's strength is recording whatever you want and being able to play it back however you want: pitch, amplitude, timing, start and loop points. May as well maximize that potential.

bliprock wrote:so ok maybe you did not pick great example, just for example a snare. Just with say using two with cycle play and velocity layers you have something like 12 samples there. thats a lot of variation.

That's a lot of variation but it's a different type of variation.

bliprock wrote:if your hits are mechanical then fix it so its not.

I mean, it sounds inherently more mechanical when the hits themselves are what triggers the chopping. Like ratcheting through a gear one tooth at a time. Random helps a bit but again, it's not the same thing.

bliprock wrote:try setting qlink to chop and other qlink to lfo speed. Have ya ever tried it?

Sure, I've tried that. It's cool. Now I want to try something new.

yeah i am not sold at all by your argument.

license wrote:If you try to achieve the same result this way, it would take a lot more time and effort. Why not be able to automate and do this easily?

whats wrong with that. I cant understand how people want instant gratification for everything. Im pretty sure if i wanted serious wavetable i would use a synth, thats for sure not some sample. each to their own, i guess, and can understand, if you go for that loop pack thing. Though I am pretty sure I could emulate synced oscillator frequency on the MPC. So yeah not sold at all.

bliprock wrote:yeah i am not sold at all by your argument.

license wrote:If you try to achieve the same result this way, it would take a lot more time and effort. Why not be able to automate and do this easily?

whats wrong with that. I cant understand how people want instant gratification for everything. Im pretty sure if i wanted serious wavetable i would use a synth, thats for sure not some sample. each to their own, i guess, and can understand, if you go for that loop pack thing. Though I am pretty sure I could emulate synced oscillator frequency on the MPC. So yeah not sold at all.

Well you don't seem to be sold by a single thing I've said so that's not a huge surprise.

What's wrong with taking more time and effort? You're right, why are we using MPCs anyway, we should be splicing tape like the BBC radiophonic workshop right? Ease of use changes what's possible in the machine, means you can discover new possibilities. I don't understand why you dislike this so much.

Yeah, you could emulate sync oscillators, I've done it before by setting the BMP to 300 and doing note repeat at 32nd triplets while changing pitch with the Q-link. But it sounds crappy and you can't really do much of anything else while that's happening. So it's a whole different sack of potatoes, really.

Dont take it personally sunshine. I treat every one the same ergo if i think its not a good idea, then i think its not a good idea. And you noticed i say it to, sure ok. generally speaking at least i say why, and dont pick a fight. I mean i dont ask if you have OCD or anything. You gloss over my ideas very quickly, no mention, no comment at all. You could be honest with your self and think about it objectively. So what do you think of LFO to PAN then? i you can do with panning or FX like but still. So chill dude if i think any of your ideas are really good i will say. But not so far. to be honest not impressed by anything so far, but then im cynical and jaded innit.

license wrote:What's wrong with taking more time and effort? You're right, why are we using MPCs anyway, we should be splicing tape like the BBC radiophonic workshop right?

juvenile stuff like that does not endear me to your cause. you are takin it out of context and suggesting thats what i want to see, it is not. I am all for improvements in any thing workflow, see my post history.
So yeah again not impressed by this argument and slight at my attitude, but i can let it slide.