Problems adding an LFO to harmonicity ratio, or modulation Index.
I know that this seems like an obvious thing to do and I have been through the tutorials, but I just can't get it to work. The attached patch works fine if I send the harmonicity and modulation straight into the amplifier. But I want to add another LFO and I can't get it to work.
Can anyone tell me what i'm getting wrong?
Many thanks
Erm
you don't actually say what the problem is; your post, rather than your patch, should clearly describe what you intend and what the existing problem is . . . and neither do so.
Help us to help you
this is how I would LFO-mod the FM index, HTH:
Brendan
Apologies for not being clear enough. If you look at the patch I attached to the post, you will see that neither the Harmonicity ratio or the modulation idex have any effect on the carrier. If you plug the harm and mod straight into the *~ amp then they work. My question was: why is this so? I must have made an error with the LFO on the harm and mod.
The harmonicity part of the patch looks like this:
But in conjunction with the rest of the patch it doesn't work. Do you have any idea why? I am fairly new to this and am obviously missing something, thanks for your help so far.
Will
This appears to be working fine:
the only error I can see is your use of the [set $1] message to [cycle~]; I don't believe that you can dynamically alter the shape of the cycle~ object in this way - you need to use different waveform generators or buffers for this.
Thanks for having a look at it, I don't know whats wrong. Like you say the harmonicity LFO works but it has no effect on the rest of the patch? Sending the set $1 message to cycle~ works as long as you have the waveforms in buffers in the patch and as files in the files patch. I included them with in the zip folder.
I have another patch very much like this but is for midi input that works, but as soon as I convert it to be bang based, the LFO part of the patch stops working. I just can't figure out why!
Many thanks
Will
The problem appears to be that the numbers~ are actually 'changing' what you expect to be output from them. Bypassing them appears to remedy the situation - Not sure if that is a bug or just not understanding the doc, or...
I got there in the end, it was an MSP number box being set to the wrong mode.