NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

jprykiel · Post by **jprykiel** » 25 Feb 2018, 15:40

Hi there,
just a saw tooth chord into a low-pass filter modulated by an LFO. When using an LFO waveform with edges, such as square, sample and hold, or even down saw tooth, the edges don't seem to be as sharp as in the NS 2. That rounded edge would be nice if it was an option, but if it's not, I would rather have the sharp version.
Just check out my two examples below and tell me what you think. ,https://www.dropbox.com/s/4b25425zw5vin ... erLFOs.zip
Cheers,
JPR

anotherscott · Post by **anotherscott** » 25 Feb 2018, 16:38

Really interesting. Is it possible that the attack on the filter envelope is slightly different on the two patches, and the LFO is using that parameter to alter its behavior?

jprykiel · Post by **jprykiel** » 25 Feb 2018, 18:11

I don't believe so, as you could be using the envelope and the LFO for two different things on the patch.
JP

baekgaard · Post by **baekgaard** » 26 Feb 2018, 23:59

Yes, it looks like the filter is not reacting "instantaneously" to the change. Maybe there will be less artefacts when the filter opens and closes slightly slower on the flanks?

Did you try to see what happens if the LFO modulates something else than the filter (envelope, ...)?

jprykiel · Post by **jprykiel** » 27 Feb 2018, 02:02

Yes I did. Osc control is faster, and pitch is super fast. So you are right it is between the LFO and the filter. Hope they can fix it.
Cheers,
JPR

anotherscott · Post by **anotherscott** » 27 Feb 2018, 02:22

jprykiel wrote:Yes I did. Osc control is faster, and pitch is super fast. So you are right it is between the LFO and the filter. Hope they can fix it.

Were you able to confirm that the filter envelope settings were identical on your NS2 and NS3? On the NS3, can you confirm that you get this "softer" ("rounder") LFO effect even when he filter's attack is set for as fast as possible?

baekgaard · Post by **baekgaard** » 27 Feb 2018, 09:44

jprykiel wrote:Hope they can fix it.

I would not rule out it could be intentional. The NS2 filter opening seems to be inconsistent between each instance (both open and close -- they are very different comparing one event to the next similar), and it generates a large amount of high-frequency content which is not there in the original waveform. This may be unintended artefacts that happen if the filter settings change "too fast" (instantaneously) -- something related to the (assumed) filter model used.

Maybe the NS3 filter is using a "better" model with more detail on the transition, to avoid sudden jumps that causes these spikes in the HF domain (sometimes). I would say that the NS2 inconsistencies between otherwise similar instances looks more like a "bug" to me, since it apparently is random and may be related to the phase of the underlying waveform.

Did you check that the filter settings are completely identical -- or could there be a minimal amount of resonance at a high frequency on the NS2 which is not there on the NS3? This could maybe also make it look/sound different.

jprykiel · Post by **jprykiel** » 27 Feb 2018, 10:35

Hi.
anotherscott,
I assure you envelope settings have nothing to do with the LFO's behaviour. Even though I was surprised by your statement, I tried moving all three settings while the LFO was running, and really, it didn't have the slightest influence.

baekgaard,
Wow, , I never noticed this on the NS two which I still have for the moment. Anyway, on the NS three, I have tried different filter types and resonant settings, but the LFO still behaves the same. What makes me wonder is that the envelope to its fastest settings, i.e. everything at minimum, is pretty quick. So I do not think the filter response to fast frequency changes has been smoothed or lagged or anything like that in general.
The best thing would be if you had time to try it for yourself.
Cheers,
JPR

anotherscott · Post by **anotherscott** » 27 Feb 2018, 19:12

jprykiel wrote:anotherscott,
I assure you envelope settings have nothing to do with the LFO's behaviour. Even though I was surprised by your statement, I tried moving all three settings while the LFO was running, and really, it didn't have the slightest influence.

Good to know. To explain my thinking so it might not sound so surprising, there are synths where the LFO can be used to retrigger an envelope. In that case, a square wave LFO would cause the note to repeat, but each repetition could have either a soft or hard attack depending on the envelope's attack parameter, and I wondered maybe Nord could have implemented their "edged" LFO waveforms that way (which would not necessarily be undesirable, even if it were different from what they had done previously, or different from your expectations).

jprykiel · Post by **jprykiel** » 28 Feb 2018, 10:50

Okay, here is an example of a similar, square wave like effect produced with an envelope applyed to the filter.(Minimum attack, maximum decay, minimum release.
You will see how the filter reacts as quickly as a dream to this one.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/22try0nafv2ks ... e.mp3?dl=0
Enjoy,
JPR

Nord User Forum

NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO

Re: NS 3 synth, something not quite right about the LFO