New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
LFO: document some things that trip up users #9197
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will also await @kevinjwalters' comments.
shared-bindings/synthio/LFO.c
Outdated
//| | ||
//| An LFO's output is not updated in any other way than when its associated | ||
//| synthesizer updates it. For instance, if an LFO is created and its "first" | ||
//| output is non-zero, its output is 0 until it is updated by its associated synthesizer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm confused. did you mean if its first output is zero?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this is unclear.
A reasonable expectation is that for offset=0, gain=1, the LFO would start with its "value" property equal to waveform[0]. But it doesn't, the its .value property is 0 until it is updated by actually generating samples for some synthesizer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll re-word this but probably not tonight.
Co-authored-by: Dan Halbert <halbert@adafruit.com>
(& re-wrap some paragraphs, sorry)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is clear to me now, thanks!
changed sawtooth -> triangle in description of LFO once=False |
@kevinjwalters How is this for you? Will merge if you find it fixes the explication. |
Merging this now to get the clarifications in. |
I've been away. Yes, just read through and it's clear, I like the use of an illustrated example. I'd say the LFO in its current state isn't usable for certain cases. If this was analogue electronics it might be glitchy in an interesting way but it creates harsh transitions from value spurious value of |
Closes: #9073
Closes: #9063
ping @kevinjwalters