Would make beat frequency detuning possible and fix the pwm trick. Also generally sounds cooler with any waveform adding/subtracting stuff because you can get all kinds of neat wave interactions that work the same way with every note.

It would however always be a relational frequency since you don’t always know what the original (tone-)frequency the sample was recorded in.

If you are saying renoise would have to use a formula to refigure the frequency change per note and someone used for example a c5 for c4, then yes (could work weird in that case). I would still like it.

[Maybe I should instead be asking for formula device type function in mod section which maybe has been suggested before, but seems less handy? Would the formula device need to be aware of the currently played note?]

Scripting wise translating semitones to frequencies is already possible to a certain extent. The dependency is set on how many semitones the pitch range includes (which determines what percentage of -1 to +1 is 1 hz)

Then you need to know what the scaling is of frequencies for each note, assuming some base point (either A-4: 440Hz or C-4: 261.63Hz). Or add your own scaling table to the mix…

I’m not sure how 261.63 can be translated easily into a fitting 0 to 1 figure with three decimals though…

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting tuning in hertz as an alternative to pitch tuning, but linear detuning only. I suppose I thought that was implicit because of the way I assume the modulations interact with the pitch, but now I think that really it sort of looks like I said “May I tune in hz instead of pitch, please.”

What I mean is, the basic pitch scaling would be the same, only the detune value would remain constant frequency-wise no matter what note was being played.

I suppose I thought it was maybe a simple matter of adding a linear detune device that would always add of subtract the same hz or whatever value to/from the normal key pitching. But maybe it is more complicated than that. Whether that value is displayed in hz or % or 0-1 values is not truly critical but only a matter of convenience.

Ah, you mean because adding one to 110 hz makes a more significant difference than adding one to 1720hz?

But, what would the difference then be between using, say an Operand set to multiply, and then this proposed “linear pitch device”?

I mean, no matter the base frequency, multiplying by 2 will always result in pitches being an octave higher…

But, if musical pitching is based around equal divisions of octaves (each note is a fraction of an octave, of course you know that), and octaves are doubling of frequency, then pitch and frequency would have to coincide at those points. But all the points in between are different frequency-wise, depending on the octave.

I think I also failed to be clear that it is the difference between two (or more) oscillators that is important, because I can’t think of a case where this would be of much use alone except to make different (mostly bad) intonations.

So, if had 2 oscillators and detuned one by a semitone at c2 you get a hz difference of 3.75 or so. But at c5 you have a difference of 29.37 hz. How to achieve a 3.75 hz difference between two sounds in both octaves?

Maybe I am just not seeing this, how to “undo” the logarithmic behavior of pitching with the modulators?

If you can do this, then phase relationships will be the same on every note keeping a constant perceived beat frequency from the detuning (like the old Moog Taurus or some other synths)and the same ‘speed’ of harmonic adding and subtracting between the two waveforms (hence, fixing the PWM trick?).

[maybe that made no sense at all]

OK, I think I understand. Something that could make the “beating” between two oscillators (beating=when they meet, overlap and produce a peak) occur at a fixed rate, regardless of the pitch being played?

This is rather tricky, since each modulation device is operating on a number without knowing it’s absolute value. It simply processes the number and then passes it on.

In order to achieve something that would add exactly 3.75 Hz to any given value, you would first need to convert the incoming value to an absolute value. In our case, that absolute value would then be the frequency in Hz - but it could might as well be a different measurement unit, such as cents?.

IMHO, this sounds like a job for a “proper” math/formula device, instead of a rather niche device like the one you suggest?