Re: [yoshimi-user] *slowly* introduce a delayed LFO
- From: cal <cal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: yoshimi-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:34:02 +1100
On 23/11/10 23:11, Will J Godfrey wrote:
[ ... ]
One that immediately springs to mind is that if we have full control of LFO
depth (which I'd very much like) couldn't we use that in place of delay? It's
only on really long notes that this is significant and noticeable (shorter notes
have been and gone before a delayed LFO comes in), and actually I would much
prefer to be able to *slowly* introduce a delayed LFO - or indeed fade it out -
rather than have it suddenly chop in. Also if that is done, LFO start phase
becomes irrelevant.
I'm intrigued by the "*slowly* introduce a delayed LFO - or indeed fade it out"
part - sounds highly technical! So far I've no idea how it might be implemented,
which is not to say it can't or shouldn't be attempted.
In case you haven't noticed already, I don't have a solid understanding of all
this, so I'm totally dependent on the "instrument makers" among us to spell
out their needs. I am learning ever so slowly though, which is kinda nice.
cheers.
Other related posts: