Discrepancies Between Between LFO CHOP and Audio Oscillator CHOP

Wishlist and RFEs
1

the octave control input behaves differently in the LFO CHOP than it does in the audio oscillator CHOP.

The way it behaves in the audio oscillator CHOP, that is, creates a new channel per input channel, is much preferable. Could the LFO CHOP behave the same?

Meanwhile, at first you might think to just use the audio oscillator CHOP as an LFO for that reason but the ramp waveform differs from that of the LFO CHOP. It has these two samples in between the peak of the waveform and the start of the cycle which makes it unsuitable for indexing a lookup CHOP.

image
image2783×1807 99.6 KB

Thank-you,

Owen

2

After giving it a bit more thought, I think the problem can be solved by changing the cycle start of the ramp waveform.

The extra sample from the audio oscillator CHOP comes from the fact that its waveform has a range from -1 to 1 and resets its cycle at a 0 point. The problem is that this 0 point should be in the middle of the slope from -1 to 1 rather than the sudden drop where no values should exist.

The LFO CHOP is more costly to use as well so it’s generally preferable to use the audio oscillator CHOP for both the octave input reason mentioned above and the cook times.

image
image2425×1702 70.5 KB

LFO CHOP start sample and cook time.3.toe (13.5 KB)

3

Hi @owenkirby,

thanks for this investigation. We’ll have a look at the three things:

  • should the octave input of the LFO generate channels as the Audio Oscillator does
  • the Audio Oscillator Ramp cycle starting point should be at the rising edge zero crossing
  • investigate why the LFO is more costly compared to the Audio Oscillator CHOP

cheers
Markus

1 Like