Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 8:57 PM -0700 8/6/98, The Unit Circle wrote: >About why I think the EDP is too complicated for a performance setting (at >least in my case). Like many people on the list, I've got a ton of pedals >sitting around my feet when I perform. The less I have to concentrate on >any one, the better. Once I've got my loop into the boomerang, I pretty >much only use one button, the overdub one. Sometimes I'll hit the >reverse. I like the simplicity of the 'rang. Well, you can do these exact same things with the echoplex, in pretty much exactly the same way. The echoplex has 7 buttons on its footpedal, which is only one more than on the boomerang. So I guess I still don't understand why it is you think the echoplex is too complicated to perform with. Do you have something more specific? What is it that confuses you? That was my question, and you didn't really answer it. >A >friend of mine had two EDP units and sold them both and bought 'rangs >because he got tired of getting confused while trying to play. Like I What was it that your friend found confusing? The reason I ask is that things can always be improved, but you have to be more clear about what the problem is first. Just making a negative criticism with no specifics isn't very useful to anybody. >I imagine that if I spent some serious time >with the EDP, I could probably be as comfortable with it as well. I think you can figure out the basic features in a few minutes and be ready to go. It doesn't take much to be comfortable with those. They are designed to be simple and obvious to use. There's a lot more depth in the echoplex if you want it, but there's no requirement that you learn everything before you can use it comfortably. Most people use just the basic parts of the echoplex for quite a while at first. Just those are pretty satisfying and a lot of fun, same as they are on the boomerang and jamman. And when you're ready to move deeper, the echoplex has plenty more there for you. It's like learning any other instrument, you start off with the basics and then keep learning. You don't have to know everything to get started and have fun with it or perform with it. I've played guitar for over 20 years, and I still feel like there's a lot left to learn. That certainly hasn't kept me from playing it or performing with it over the years, or caused me to give it up because there was too much. The stuff I know how to do so far is satisfying, and the fact that there is more there is a good thing, IMO. I recently got a drum set, and have been trying to learn to play for a couple of weeks. I still really suck at it, and feel I am a long way from being able to successfully and comfortably play drums in a performance, but I'm having fun anyway. In my opinion, drums are a hell of a lot harder to use well than any looper out there! But I haven't relegated the drum set to just being a studio device as a result. I just need to keep learning. Even so, I was able to play basic beats along with my girlfriend on piano last night, and it wasn't a total failure. We had a good time. >Now, when is someone going to create a looper that can have two >(or more) different length loops playing simultaneously fighting with each >other. . So on one hand, you want things to be more simple, but then you want to add features that would make the interface significantly more complex, and certainly require "some serious time" to be comfortable with. Do you think you can have it both ways? kim >> >> At 05:58 PM 7/22/98 -0400, The Unit Circle wrote: >> > It isn't as powerful as the >> >echoplex, but it is much simpler to use in a performance setting. If I >> >had more cash, I would use the echoplex in the studio and the 'rang on >> >stage. >> >> We designed the echoplex specifically to be easy to use in performance, >and >> based that off quite a lot of study of it's predecessors and users. For >> instance the display and LEDs show you what is going on and where you >are, >> and are large enough to see. The functions all operate in ways we found >to >> be most musically intuitive. And if you accidently hit the wrong button >and >> destroy or screw up your loop, you just press Undo and it's back, even >> staying in time. >> >> So I'm sort of curious about your impression that it isn't simple or >useful >> in performance. What specifically do you find complicated about it? If >there >> is something that can be improved, we'd like to hear your opinion. >> >> kim >> ________________________________________________________ >> Kim Flint, MTS 408-752-9284 >> Chromatic Research kflint@chromatic.com >> http://www.chromatic.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@annihilist.com | http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html http://www.annihilist.com/ | Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com