Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Travis is posting very serios contributions:
>This reminds me of the "alternate synth controller" thread that pops up
>in the keyboard world every now and then. It usually starts with someone
>bemoaning the fact that the Most Powerful Sound Generating Device Known
>To Man is triggered by roughly the same interface that Mozart used on a
>harpsichord.
Its growing, as you say below, and slow growth it an interesting way.
>it took forever for aftertouch to become fairly common. And there was
>one keyboard which would would read wiggling the keys from side to side,
>so that you could apply vibrato with a guitaristic motion.
phantastic! which one? I would like to try...
>As far as making looping device interfaces more ergonomic, I'd rather
>that money be spent on fixing the feature set, rather then devising some
>sort of cuddly accordian-style interface. Every dollar spent on, say, a
>large-LCD display on the front of the unit or physical dials to control
>parameters is a dollar less spent on developing the software/hardware.
-----> I think the developpment of the processor and the controller will be
more and more separate.
The processor has a strong hardware and can run the software the user
likes. The controller has to fit to the use and ability of the player. So
the processor should be simple, with a port for any kind of controllers.
MIDI is good enough for LOOP processors, I think. We can keep developping
parameters that some users will connect to some trick with their
controllers.
The controller can be cheap or sophisticated, customized or chines. It can
be a simple field of keys or a monkeys futuristic rig. It can make use of
all parameters or just a few.
Some is real now: We do offer a separate Overdubb socket on the Plex, so
you can put your key where you want. You can have as many as you want (all
without MIDI) and in all forms. Mine is mounted on the volume pedal and
reacts on a pressure to the left with the big toe - no complicated
installation.
SF singer Jim Mahoney built his little box with all the keys he needs and
hides it in hand while singing. He knows the fingering and does not need to
look at it, nor to stop his walk over the stage - simple, efficient and
cheaper than the original pedal!
>In addition, I think that looping rigs tend to be more esoteric than the
>average musician, who only sends audio in one direction. I remember a
>long-lived thread on MIDI foot-controller implementation for the Big Two,
>and there didn't seem to be a consensus on what people wanted out of it.
>If Lexicon or Oberheim has to try and second guess all the unusual,
>one-of-a-kind rigs that the next generation of loopers are going to be
>installed into (whoops--scratch Lex, they already decided that looping
>was too much work for not enough payback), we'll never see anything.
True, gessing is hard. Collecting the information is easyer, but still does
not allow to follow every wish. But its the only way to grow, I think.
>think that any improvements on the interface front are going to come from
>specific solutions to specific problems, not from saying "I wish
>everything were more flexible and easier to use!".
Very true. A big part of inventing is taking decisions and selecting
smartly from infinite options.
Think of something
>like the Parson's-White B-bender or the Floyd Rose tailpiece, they were
>solutions to clearly identified problems ("How can I play this
>three-handed lick with two hands?" and "How can I yank on my vibrato bar
>all night without going out of tune?"). Granted, they don't represent a
>change in the guitar interface, but as we move out of the realm of
>physical tone generators and into the more hypothetical realm of digital
>audio manipulation, the ground is uncharted.
You name the successful ones, unfortunately there were a lot more good
inventions that for some reason faded unnoticed, but thats another chapter.
Yes, the digital manipulations leaves so many options and makes it very
hard to decide. So we will try to individualize more. Thats what the
computer is about. If you want to really profit of the flexibility of a
digital machine, you allways end up with a general computer with individual
software and preference parameters.
The probem is, that there is no handy computers for stage, and the
controllers need to be improved.
Matthias