Assignable LFO(s)

Kai_NI
Kai_NI Product Team Posts: 60 mod
in Automation & Modulation

As a user, I would like to be able to use LFOs (low frequency oscillators) in Maschine, that I can freely assign to modulate any existing parameter in order to create dynamic modulation. The LFOs should offer common wave shapes (Sine, Triangle, Ramp, Square, Random, etc.) and be able to be set to free running or tempo synced.

62
Up
62 votes

Collecting Upvotes · Last Updated

Comments

  • thronechild
    thronechild Member Posts: 14 Member
    edited June 30

    why limit to common shapes, earlier suggestion allows drawing or creating automation segments, we should be able to draw/drop any shape of segments then set to looping, not just basic common lfo shapes. Also be able to modulate LFOs with LFOs or other modulation, including amount, rate, and even shape. Don’t forget sample and hold of an input either.

  • Uwe303
    Uwe303 Moderator Posts: 3,762 mod

    For me it's the same as macros, or it could be similar in a way, you add a parameter to a macro or to an lfo output, so both use the same connection procedure - I hope it's understandable what I mean

  • NitroDublin
    NitroDublin Member Posts: 12 Member
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/162584#Comment_162584

    +1, fully agree!

  • Kai_NI
    Kai_NI Product Team Posts: 60 mod
    edited July 1

    @NitroDublin @thronechild
    Some people have requested a assignable LFOs. This is what this particular feature ide represents.
    There is a different feature listed for freely drawing or applying automation shapes manually.

    The use cases are similar yet different, depending on what you are trying to do.
    Anything drawn or "written" could be understood as scripted, whilst an LFO is for an ongoing oscillating shape. The two don't exclude each other, but are represented separately for the voting.

    It doesn't mean that we only do one or the other eventually. It just helps us to understand rough dimensions of amounts of people interested, so that we can take this information into account when we plan for new features and make sure we have a good understanding of what is more or less desirable in the eyes of most people. When it comes to the details of implementation and depth of the feature itself (sample & hold, drop shapes, LFO into LFO, etc.) we will go into more detail once we get there.

    Also comments like yours help us to further understand details and desires, so thanks for that!

  • thronechild
    thronechild Member Posts: 14 Member
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/162642#Comment_162642

    Ok thanks for the reply, maybe some clarification is needed from NI, the way these features are presented implies only the top voted ones make the cut and the others don’t. So far in both sequencer and modulation rounds, I’m voting everything since it’s all generally needed which doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

    Also my comment on the lock state thread speaks to the greater process used to identify these options, unfortunately there’s not a general thread to comment on the overall process or results but people would probably like to comment.

  • OhulahanBass
    OhulahanBass Member Posts: 164 Pro

    Envelopes or looping envelopes assignable to any parameter would also be a great addition!

  • Kai_NI
    Kai_NI Product Team Posts: 60 mod

    @thronechild This voting is just a means for us to gauge interest for certain features at scale and doing this in an accessible and transparent way. It does not mean that the highest voted feature will be built necessarily or when. It also doesn't mean that the lower voted ones would not be. It just helps us to understand how certain improvements compare to each other in regards to desirability from a user perspective. And it is just one of many data points we consider when selecting what to build next.
    There are realistic scenarios where we would for example implement the second and fourth most voted idea (random numbers without hinting at a concrete feature) if we found that these represent the best overlap of what people are asking for and what fits the product area we work on, the capacity we have available or makes sense from work sequencing perspective. Hope this helps.

  • ozon
    ozon Member Posts: 1,605 Expert

    Yes, please! Additional freely assignable LFOs (with features like the one's in the Sampler Module) would be very useful in sound design.

    Looping Envelopes would be incredible.

  • Lipo.exe
    Lipo.exe Member Posts: 5 Member

    we neee more updated lfo in sampler as well as assignable LFO to attach any parameter and modulate it . maschine for electronic music Edm techno is very limited cause of this features . we need assignable lfo to do more sound desgin and not use only samples .

  • Tom Auger
    Tom Auger Member Posts: 31 Member

    Couldn't agree more with this feature idea - in fact I found this thread looking to see whether Maschine has anything like this for generative composition or slow evolution of sound parameters. At this point, I'm sticking with Ableton for their massive amount of options for real-time, automated parameter modulation - especially useful in long ambient compositions.

    I'd like to see this possible in the Maschine hardware - so drawing waveforms is not very practical. However, allowing one LFO to control a parameter (such as rate) on a second LFO gives you lots of options to work with.

    One consideration, if implementing this feature is to find a way to visualize the oscillator in real-time - if only just the output value changing (if you can't draw the whole waveform). It's frustrating to have to debug an LFO using just your ears.

    Another consideration is to make sure you can go extremely slow in terms of Hz. 0.1 is not slow enough in many cases

Back To Top

Categories