Moog, while trimming the fat you took some Phatty meat

[Benjamin AM]

It is in my opinion that the last few updates have been a great improvement to the Little Phatty software. With this said, my LP has been sitting by the sidelines for the last year. This is because the LFO arpeggiator sync function was removed. Now, one can do this via tap tempo but lets be honest it's sort of a pain in the ass, also the divisions cannot be instantaneously changed(like with the Midi clock sync). SO why not use a Midi clock? Well, my answer would be that I shouldn't have to. The feature could easily be (re)implemented in the firmware. I feel that this is an issue that should be readdressed and not abandoned. Does anyone else feel similar?
-Benjamin AM

[EMwhite]

Are you saying it's missing entirely, or that it doesn't work? (I have an earlier version of 3.1T so mine is likely different but could you explain what you mean? That you want the Arp to run at the same rate as the LFO?)

I've been playing my LP plenty but have been sitting on the sidelines as far as using anything but the basic performance functions and I realize I should get later code in; just not sure what version (being a Tribute owner, the package I need isn't posted so I'll need to bug Amos for a build).

Thanks.

[Benjamin AM]

That you want the Arp to run at the same rate as the LFO?)
Thanks.

Yes for the most part. It would also be nice for the LFO to have the capability to modulate at different rates or subdivisions of the Arpeggiator clock and visa versa.
The 3.1v update for the Stage II completely removed the option to choose the LFO as a clock source for the arpeggiator. Amos stated that the reason why it was removed was because the function never worked that well. I find it quite unfortunate that this option was removed rather than improved upon. In my opinion, a synced LFO/arp can sound really cool. Especially if the clock for both parameters can be subdivided individually as well as on the fly. One could do this with an external midi clock since the Midi sync functions work very well, but I feel should be no need for extra equipment.

[Sir Nose]

I do not believe there is room left to put it back it. If Moog was very serious about further development, I think it would require different OS versions. Performance, Studio, ect. Many folks would give up the alternate tunings for other features. If you need it you can load up a different OS type thing.

I did enjoy noodling around with Arp-LFO sync. It provided some easy satisfaction without going through as much as is needed now for the same result. Thinking sometimes gets in the way of inspiration.

One way to implement it would be to have the rate button in the LFO section controls the "Internal clock." The subdivisions for the LFO that apply to midi clock would apply to the internal clock. One of the LFO clock division would be the same as the current LFO range, 1/4 note or whole note or something. Functionality as is now would be the same when set to that subdivision. The Arp could them be clocked from the same internal clock with its own subdivisions, a dialed in BPM, or midi clock.

[EMwhite]

I'd give up alternate tunings for anything (fixed or new). But I suppose Moog has reached out to a new demographic or a new region, anyway in supporting the feature.

One of the frequent posters detailed an absolutely brilliant adaptation of a 16 step sequencer; I'd like to see that instead; it could re-use some of the note stack functionality and other bits of the ARP.

By the way, I did some menu diving and fooling around with Arp settings and LFO settings. I found that with both set 'INTERNAL', an initial patch brought up matches the LFO to 120 on the ARP and they sync perfectly (at least on the few patches I tried). But obviously, change either and you are screwed.

I've got an Oberheim Cyclone, the big daddy of Arpeggiators so the Phatty's ARP is just a novelty to quickly dial in a short sequence. I do see your point, however. Should be easy enough to do what you want and I do see use in it. But I think Sir Nose is right, there is NOTHING left form a memory footprint perspective. I never got into the gory details of Slim vs. Stage II memory footprint but I think at least the upgraded Tributes and Stages are at maximum memory footprint.

[Benjamin AM]

One way to implement it would be to have the rate button in the LFO section controls the "Internal clock." The subdivisions for the LFO that apply to midi clock would apply to the internal clock. One of the LFO clock division would be the same as the current LFO range, 1/4 note or whole note or something. Functionality as is now would be the same when set to that subdivision. The Arp could them be clocked from the same internal clock with its own subdivisions, a dialed in BPM, or midi clock.

That's pretty much how I imagined it to work.