] [Thread Prev
Re: difference harmonix 45000 and boomerang 3?
I so so so wish that there could be a pedal board version of the EDP!
Or at least a smaller version that would not need a rack.
Rather than have this turn into a 'what is my ultimate looper' thread, ;)
I'll just say that though I really find the feature sets of 'larger'
loopers way more liberating creatively, I too, very much agree that
smaller / lighter footprints are where it's at.
iOS design and development - LookTel.com
View my Online Portfolio at:
Follow me on Twitter!
On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Steve U <email@example.com> wrote:
The LP1 does rule as far as the features, it's amazing! Like an 8 track
recording studio at your feet! And so easy to use!!
But...the Rang III has a smaller footprint and is self contained (unless
you get the side car). Also, the LP1 needs a foot controller for hands
free operation increasing its size even more. It's really nice to have
those 8 tracks and I know once you get a smaller looper the features start
peeling away. I've pretty much exclusively used an LP1 and *LOVE* it, I
really do-happiness shaped into a singe rack space unit.
But lately I've been thinking about downsizing (following this post has
been awesome in helping weigh the options). I think the Boomerang III is
the perfect balance of features and size. I've been really wanting to
have a loop rig that is small enough to just bring with me on any "normal"
I play upright, electric, & resophonic basses and play different styles
with different folks as an accompanist and also do a solo thing too.
Sometimes I'll do a solo looping tune or two with folks I accompany and my
full rig is just a bit too big and just a little too inconvenient to
always bring along. Often I'll throw in my old RC2 to use in these
situations but it's so limiting musically it's a drag, all the while the
LP1 sits at home! This post has got me fired up, I'm going compact!!
So...does anyone want to buy my LP1!? I'll throw in the midi-buddy foot
controller too. I had Bob modify the midi in port to provide phantom
power to the foot controller so no wall wart needed. It's in perfect
condition, I'd take $875 and pay for shipping as well (within reason).
Contact me off list if you're interested:
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Andrrew Owens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Wow with these 45000 and rang comparisons, actually the LP1 DOES rule I
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Rusty Perez <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sergio, I don't know if you have gotten a response, but I have been
>> thinking about this question in the past few days because I am looking
>> for a new looper.
>> Based on my research, I do not own either of these yet.
>> As I understand, the 2880 and 45000 have four "tracks" and a master
>> which are refered to as one "loop." These tracks are syncd together,
>> and they must all be the same length. They can play together, or
>> separately, but they CANNOT play one after the other. So, for example,
>> you cannot record a verse on track 1 and a chorus on track 2 and then
>> play them one after the other.
>> You can do this if you use the 45000 and record one "loop" for the
>> verse--which can contain four tracks--and one loop for the
>> chorus--which contains four more tracks.
>> Then, using the foot controller, you can switch back and forth between
>> your first loop for the verse, and your second loop for the chorus.
>> In contrast, the boomerang III has four possible loops at the same
>> time. These loops can be played together, or one at a time one after
>> the other depending on what mode you're in on the rang. Each loop can
>> contain any number of layers which are similar to the "tracks" on the
>> 45000. You can stack on your loops, but the individual layers cannot
>> be panned like the individual tracks can be on the 45000.
>> One advantage of the rang is that you can use the sereal sync mode
>> which allows you to have one master loop which can be played at the
>> same time as the other two or three sereal loops. This is called
>> parallel loops.
>> Depending on the mode you're set in, the rang can play parallel loops
>> of different lengths and they don't have to be syncd.
>> This is, in my opinion, the most important difference between the rang
>> and the 45000. On the 45000 each of the 4 tracks in a "loop" must be
>> the same length. Your "loops" can be different lengths, but they
>> cannot be played at the same time or "parallel."
>> So, with the rang, you can create your master loop, maybe a percussion
>> track, and it will play while you switch from loop to loop to loop
>> verse, chorus, verse style.
>> Now, granted, you don't have the same flexibility of mixing your
>> various layers in one loop like you can with the 45000, but that's not
>> important to this loopmaker at this time. Another big difference to
>> many is tha tyou can't save loops with the rang, but this loopmaker
>> doesn't care right now.
>>> On 5/21/13, Sergio Girardi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Hello everybody,
>>> I was trying to sell my Boomerang 3 to a friend who is now interested
>>> in the
>>> am pretty sure the Rang 3 is more versatile as a looper and that the
>>> 45000 cannot handle the 4 tracks in many different ways as the Rang can
>>> handle its 3 or 4 separate loops.
>>> But this of the 4 tracks vs 4 loops had already confused me at the
>>> times of
>>> the 2880.
>>> My friend for example insists that the 45000 has got 4 separate loops.
>>> Could anybody help me in understanding the differences and advantages
>>> these two loopers?