Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Nice sermon but, the original Boomerang sucks more than the RC-50. The sound was so bad, I sent it back to the vendor in a day or so (when I bought one years ago). The RC-50 is much more usable than the Booms as currently exist. Also, the new 'rang appears to be missing a lot. Why not rag on that? -- Paul ---- BreachinThePeace@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/27/2007 3:31:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > benoitruelle@yahoo.fr writes: > > Why is everyone complaining about the RC50? Because they want to access >some > functionality with midi and that part is not working properly. It can >be to > synchronise a flanger to a loop, to start an external drum machine >(archaic > or not) or just to sync with other musicians. > > I can understand you point about musical instruments. > So much people, so much ways to make music. That's the interest of it. > > Ben. > > > > Thanks for the reply Ben. I really like the quality of the RC50, I just > don't care for it's immensly premature release. I think that was >unforgivable > from a consumer's perspective. Maybe that seems harsh but when you >consider the > number of years that floor loopers have been on the market, you would >think > that a 600.00 mass produced pedal board that is a "take" on several >existing > devices would be far more bug free. > > How about the fact that you simply cannot make an initial uninterrupted > loop? Is it just me or is that simply pathetic? Sure, as long as you >are using > the looper device to forward or continue a pre existing loop, you won't >hear > the gap. But as a musician playing an actual instrument that is looking >to > harmoniously accompany oneself, it SUCKS and is simply unacceptable. > > I am not sure how anyone can honestly be satisfied with the RC50. To me >all > this justification of the RC50 seems like a grand effort to polish a >turd. I > guess you could say in this instance that I am "coming from" an almost > polarized perspective as far as applied expansion is concerned. My point >is this. > In my mind, if a floor controlled looper unit meets it's unique design > efficiency quota, you should not need to expand upon it. You also should >not have to > download "fixes" in an effort to eliminate poor design or out and >outright > design flaws. > > I FULLY realize and acknowledge the Boomerang 1's faults and >limitations. (I > never purchased the 2nd generation so I can't comment) But when you >consider > it's release date with respect to where we are today it was beyond > magnificent. Sure, it's noisy as hell unless you really "play" with it >and it's > quantitative capabilities were archaic at best. One has to understand >however that > the Boomerang was the vision of two men that worked literally out of a >garage > where these first units were made and assembled. The thing I really like > > about Boomerang is their obvious personal devotion to releasing a >product that > reflected an efficient human element within it's design. It was truly >built by > musicians for musicians. It just seems like the more bells and whistles >a > device like this has the greater the risk becomes of loosing that >efficiency > and screwing up the mix so to speak. I guess in hind sight the RC50 is >one more > example of somebody trying to reinvent the wheel. ;-) > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at >http://www.aol.com.