well, yes, if this is about the "Formant" filter, then again yes, modulation (or automation) isn't really a feature you can take good advantage of, sorry to tell :)
as previously stated, modulating (or automating) the "cutoff" or "reso" of the "Formant" filter is not cheap in cpu usage anyway; and add to that that those parameters are not quite true to their labels or names: cutoff just maps to a discrete "vowel" frequency peak (a=1 to u=5 in range as also though human vocal range as tenor, soprano, etc.) and "reso" maps to peak bandwidth (or Q factor if you prefer); continuously changing those parameters do make more arm (high cpu load) than good, if any an audible effect at all.
so yes. again. please don't touch LFO Cutoff or Reso when the DCF is set to "Formant" type: you better off keeping those at 0.0 ;)
well, yes, if this is about the "Formant" filter, then again yes, modulation (or automation) isn't really a feature you can take good advantage of, sorry to tell :)
as previously stated, modulating (or automating) the "cutoff" or "reso" of the "Formant" filter is not cheap in cpu usage anyway; and add to that that those parameters are not quite true to their labels or names: cutoff just maps to a discrete "vowel" frequency peak (a=1 to u=5 in range as also though human vocal range as tenor, soprano, etc.) and "reso" maps to peak bandwidth (or Q factor if you prefer); continuously changing those parameters do make more arm (high cpu load) than good, if any an audible effect at all.
so yes. again. please don't touch LFO Cutoff or Reso when the DCF is set to "Formant" type: you better off keeping those at 0.0 ;)
hth.
cheers