Great questions Atom,
1) no, the problem is that the LFO's and EG's and the display are
clocked by interrupt 6.5 on the 8085 CPU. This clock runs at about
2400 - 3600 Hz. This means that the CPU is interrupted to run the EG
and MG code up to 3600 times per second. Obviously then, there is only
a finite amount of time for that routine to complete. As I've added
more and more features to the HAWK-800, so to the code has become
longer and it takes more time for the CPU to execute. Now I've hit up
against a wall where the code is now beginning to take more time to
execute than there is time available. This causes the EG's to slow
down (and we already know the Poly-800 wasn't that fast on the EG side
to begin with). So the only way to improve the situation is to slow
something down. I am now doing this by executing different functions
each time the interrupt service routine is called.
2) no, see above.
3) yes, this is possible but I don't propose to do this in the near
term because it would require a second rewrite of the rewrite of the
LFO's and there are other things I'd like to move on to such as the
arpeggiator. Also, I find that the new waveforms and modulations that
you get from four (4) LFO's makes them really quite flexible and the
MIDI control is quite versatile too. But I do like the idea of
increasing the resolution.
Mike.
--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, korgpolyex800 wrote:
>
> > How many of you would be bothered if I was to slow the LFO's down a
> > little bit? I personally never use the LFO at it highest speed
settings.
> > In fact, it's rather difficult to tell the difference between say
about
> > 12 - 15 settings because the rate is so high.
> >
> > If I slowed the LFO down then I would be able to set up the second
> > modulators to use LFO1 or LFO2 instead of just SLFO3 and SLFO4.
> >
> > Any comments or suggestions will be much appreciated.
> ====================
>
> 1) can you just change the rate of speed increase? ie; make it more
of a
> log curve, so that the new 15 == the old 15, but maybe the new 12 ==
the
> old 11.
>
> 2) can an extra parameter be added for the range? low/high/ohmygod?
>
> 3) can the LFO speed (among other parameters) be made to respond to 6-7
> bits of incoming controller data, even if it only saves 4 bits to
memory?
> i think this option would be the best (for most parameters that seem
> limited to 4 bit), because it would allow a very fluid (non zipper)
> control via midi, but still conserve memory usage.
>
>
>
> --
> ...atom
>
> ________________________
> http://atom.smasher.org/
> 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "A people that values its privileges above its principles
> soon loses both."
> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
>