Hello there,
please, have a look.
Thanks
Thanks Sergio for these detailed Moog One videos…well worth the modest fee of 20 Euro.
I hope we can use this thread for questions and comments about Moog One sound design tips…
Rick
Good to hear that 
Thanks
Sergio - I jumped ahead to video #8 where you cover CV outs to control another synth, a Model D in your example. You showed a Moog One LFO modulating the Model D filter cutoff, and mentioned that really any Moog One modulation source (and there are many!) could be used. Pretty powerful.
The finale was using the Moog One sequencer to trigger notes on the Model D. What I didn’t understand is how the Model D keyboard caused the sequence to be transposed.
I’m not familiar with the Model D, can you clarify how that works.
Thanks,
Rick
1 Like
Yes, and you can combine these modulations and they can be in case of LFOs or Env Gen, tempo synced. ( the model D has a free running Lfo, and an oscillator that can be used like an Lfo, but anyway not tempo synced )
About the transposition, is automatic. It is working with the Voyager too. You have to send the cv gate out, to the gate input, and the pitch ( in this case the “sequence pitch (B)” to the pitch cv input and you are done.
Thanks for explaining.
1 Like
I just watched #3 (envelopes and LFOs). I never paid attention to LFO fade out or smoothing yet, so thanks for demonstrating. The number of possibilities with this synth seem endless and overwhelming sometimes.
Rick
1 Like
Hi Rick,
yes… There are so many things on this machine I think you will still see something new in the remaining videos. By the way, happy you appreciated.
Hi Sergio. Maybe a few others are reading this thread, so I’ll offer my thoughts about video #4 Mod Matrix.
I’m only halfway through, but I want to get this out before I forget. You were showing the squared transform and demonstrated that the source value is decreased when you thought it should be increased by squaring it. Then I happened to think that source = 40% is really source = 0.40
When you square .4 you get .16 which might explain why the filter cut off gets less in your demonstration.
I may have more questions and observations after I finish the video. So far though, I’m really appreciating the work you put into this.
Rick
1 Like
Hi Rick,
thank you for your message. I really don’t know, because it is behaving in a strange way. If you will go further in the video, when the squared modifier should modify the amount of the Lfo, is modifying the rate. You will see in the video… and yes, you are right about the %. I did not consider this.
I haven’t finished the video today, got pulled into another project. But I’ll look further at what you mentioned…squared function modulating LFO rate.
I really appreciate you making these videos Sergio! It’s getting me to look deeper at things that I have not fully understood before.
I finished the #4 mod matrix video this morning and I heard that the squared transform seemed to affect the lfo rate. Until watching your video I had never used or appreciated the SQUARED and CUBED transforms. I had to do a lot of experimenting to convince myself that I understood, but now I think I can explain.
When you square a number less than one, the number gets smaller. When you cube the same number it gets even smaller.
Also, when you square a negative number you get a positive number. I think this is why it seemed like your LFO was speeding up. When the LFO waveform goes negative, the squared transform turns it positive so you get twice as many peaks on a triangle wave.
But when you cube a negative number you get another negative number. I didn’t observe any speeding up using the CUBED transform.
I used your idea of modulating the ladder cutoff to setup some experiments. I’ll share what I did that helped me understand how these transforms are working. I hope it’s clear.
Experiment 1 - Squared and Cubed transforms with mod wheel
SAW waveform, ladder filter cutoff=20Hz (lowest possible)
Set 3 modulations in Mod Matrix with source=Mod Wheel and different transforms for each modulation:
1 - CUBED
2 - SQUARED
3 - none
Set Mod Wheel modulation amount to 75% and turn the mod wheel all the way up. Then Enable each modulation one at a time and listen to how far the filter opens:
1 - CUBED - 42% open (.75 x .75 x .75)
2 - SQUARED - 56% open (.75 x .75)
3 - none - 75% open
To understand this more, try setting the mod wheel modulation amount to 20% on the modulation #3 (the one with no transform) and listen to the sound. Then enable just modulation #2 (squared) and reduce the modulation amount until get the same sound. Do the same with the cubed transform. This is what I got:
1 - CUBED - 58% open (cube root of 0.2)
2 - SQUARED - 45% open (square root of 0.2)
3 - none - 20% open (this is the test tone)
Using negative modulation amounts gives even more insight. Set the modulation amount on all three modulations to -100% and turn the mod wheel all the way up. Then Enable each modulation one at a time and listen to how far the filter opens:
1 - CUBED - filter remains closed (the cube of a negative number is negative)
2 - SQUARED - filter opens 100% (the square of a negative number is positive)
3 - none - filter remains closed (negative modulation on a filter that is already closed)
Experiment 2 - Squared and Cubed transforms with LFOs
The squared transform will double the frequency of a triangle LFO because the negative side gets made positive.
1 Like
I also wanted to mention the end of the video where you demonstrated the use of Variables in the mod matrix. Very powerful! I haven’t watched the sequencer video yet, but I hope you cover using Variables in the sequencer too…
Rick
thank you for your feedback. Yes the MOOG ONE deserves time and study!
I understood your point and it is correct. But about the LFO, the modifier, in this case squared, should modify the amount and not the rate. Keep in mind that in the example I did, the % that is under the LFO is about the amount and not the rate. This is why it is weird. By the way, about the sequencer section, I don’t remember exactly what I was showing, but some interesting things for sure 
Good discussion! But let me suggest an experiment that will convince you that the squared transform is not affecting the LFO rate.
Setup two modulations so you can quickly disable/enable only one:
LFO2 (80%) → Ladder Filter cutoff
LFO2 (80%) → Transform: SQUARED → Ladder Filter cutoff
Set ladder filter cutoff to 20Hz (minimum)
Set LF02 = 0.5Hz, SAW/RAMP waveform, bipolar, variation=0%
Now turn on hold and let a note play.
Switch between the two modulations to verify they are both moving the filter cutoff at the same rate. The modulation with the SQUARED transform should move the cutoff a bit less than the other modulation, but at the same rate. (And now I’m noticing that the shape of the movement is more like an exponential curve than a sharp saw wave, similar to a looping envelope. I didn’t notice this before! The deeper I dig, the deeper the hole gets.)
Now for the real magic. Enable the SQUARED transform only, go back to LFO2 and slowly increase the variation from 0% to 50% and listen closely. As soon as you increase past 0% you start hearing a long pulse followed by a shorter pulse. The closer you get to 50% the more identical the two pulses become until at 50% they are equal and it sounds like the rate is doubled.
I think this behavior is caused by the fact that half of the bipolar LFO2 waveform is negative. When you square a negative number you get a positive number, so rather than one peak you get two.
I hope this helps.
1 Like
yes, you are right.
But I tried in a different way, using the LFO in unipolar mode, so no risk to square the negative phase and consequently doubling the speed. And it is very interesting what happens with the variation. For example, with an LFO with a square wave shape, using the squared mod, you will have no up and down, because it will be a continuous positive line.
bipolar LFO with a square wave shape, using the squared mod…not so interesting sounding. No modulation at all, but good demonstration of what the SQUARED mod does to a bipolar waveform.
1 Like
yes, indeed. As I told you was just another evidence about what you were telling. By the way, besides of all these powerful tools of the Moog One, the most important thing is to shape nice sounds;)
cheers
Shaping nice sounds with this synth takes patience and practice I think. I’ve read comments somewhere (can’t remember where) that the Moog One doesn’t have a “sweet spot” like some other synths. I’ve made a lot of unusual sounds so I can relate. But in terms of “sweet spots” I think maybe the Moog One (in the right hands) is capable of many “sweet spots”…you just search.
By the way, I just finished the #5 Sequencer video. I will comment later.
Rick
Yes. I also think that the Moog one has not a big sweet spot. I don’t know if you tried the prophet 5/10 or the Obx8 or the Model D. They have a huge sweet spot. It is very hard to make bad sounds with them. Of course the Moog one wins on many other features. The possibilities are so big. But to make a nice polysynth sound on these synths that I mentioned before, is very fast and easy. On the Moog one you have to find some very precise actions. I am telling you this, cause I own the P10, the Obx8 and the model d. So I can make a comparison without being a fanboy of this or that machine
1 Like