Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Jim Keepnews wrote:
>First, Kim Flint writes:
>
>> yeah, yeah, yeah... we're workin' on it!
>>
>> dreaming up completely new loop functions, then trying to figure out how
to
>> make them work elegantly with all the other loop functions is no simple
>> thing....more like wine making than engineering....but we're getting
there.
>> Believe me, we want to be finished working on the new Loop software
>> generation just as badly as you want to begin using it!
>
>Then, as if to slip into a pair of slyboots, Kim Flint goes ahead and
writes:
>
>> Once again, THERE IS NO NEW ECHOPLEX BEING PRODUCED. No new designing,
>no
>> new schematics, no long engineering cycles, etc. Its the SAME echoplex,
>> with just a delay in production while they figure out some byzantine
>> business organizational issues.
>
Now may I suggest that these statements were made in reverse order? I
believe KF first said "There is no new EP yadayada...", THEN said, "We're
pouring wine on our cheese'n'chips, etc."
Still confusing, and I hope it gets addressed, but fractionally more
understandable, even tho' it may be an irrational fraction, like 6 divided
by 71, and how about these newfangled computers that don't even have basic
math symbols like a division symbol? maybe Kim and Jim could get together
on
that one, and I won't even start on the "where's-the-off-switch?" computer
problem.
>Well, er, uh, please to forgive me for prying, KF -- your time is your
>own,
as far as
>I'm concerned, and provided it's consensual and not within the Great State
of Georgia,
>what you do with codes and diodes is your own charming affair -- but, em,
er, if, as
>you remark with such dramatic elan, "THERE IS NO NEW ECHOPLEX BEING
PRODUCED...Its
>(sic) the SAME echoplex, with just a delay in production," I, ep, umm,
well, what in
>tarnation are you spending all this time "dreaming up completely new loop
functions,
>then trying to figure out how to make them work elegantly with all the
other loop
>functions..." if it's to be the same, without these dreamy new functions
and suchnot
>added? Why not go out dancing? Or stock up on Fresca before the End Times
hit? You take
>my meaning?
>
>Some clarification, please, on this old EDP/new EDP rollout -- are they
going to make
>the old right up to the point that there is a new? Will your software be
>an
upgrade to
>what already exists or will us loopies need to shell out for a whole new
bundle of
>hardware? I seek to know "when" only in relation to "what". Thank you.
>
>However, as if the aforementioned weren't enough, Kim Flint goes on and
writes:
>
>> We're always open to feedback and suggestions!
>
>Well, since you brought it up...here's suggestions:
>
>1. The capability of dividing any loop length by any integer..."but, but,
Jamie,
>th-that would mean, I don't know, dividing a six-second loop by, goodness,
one of those
>loathsome prime numbers, like seventy-one, w-wouldn't it?"
You see, I had to go dig up my pocket calculator to do this stupid problem!
But 6 divided by 71 equals a neat lil' granule of .084507th of a second. Is
that what you were driving at, Jimbo?
>You bet your g-dd-mn f-cking
>-ss it would, you craven little girlboy (sorry...talking to myself
again...). Perhaps
>each of these irreducible fractions treatable as a "virtual" loop, to be
taken apart,
>conceivably, out of sequence or treated separately in the series they were
divvied up
>in. Along these lines:
>
>2. A loop "sequencer" -- needn't be much more than ye olde analogue fteppf
fequencerf
>of yore, just something that says to the EDP "play loop 1 twice, play loop
2 once, 3 is
>straight out, then play loop 4 backwards, then 1 on a ramp from quarter
speed to full
>speed again within the length of the loop; repeat. Serve hot." with
multiple "songs" to
>be stored. Along these lines:
>
>3. More speed flexibility, including ramping functions like the one
discussed above --
>if we can no longer spin a knob to speed things up and slow them down, let
them crunch
>numbers. Similarly, like my first suggestion, the possibility of coming up
with your
>own sick, sick ratios, like 16/97, or 2/1, and the ability to ramp between
the two
>within a given time frame. While we're dreaming:
>
>4. Back-uping EDP "macros" (i.e., the loop, the speeds, the "songs," etc.)
onto Zip
>drives or other SCSI-enabled storage devices. Also, the ability to read
these in, and
>other file formats as well (e.g. AIFF, WAV, QuickTime, AKAI, SDMI
>(psych!),
etc.) -- if
>it's a sampler we loop with at the turn of the century, the dad-blamed
contraption
>ought to behave like one. Along these final wishfully-thinking lines:
>
>5. Digital I/O, yo.
>
>Not one of these may be implemented by the EDP but I bring them up
>because,
with
>patience and the urge, MAX/MSP can do these today. Five years, gang, and
we'll all be
>bringing PowerBooks (or their 2004 equivalents) on the gigs. Now, if
someone will
>create a USB-to-1/4" converter...
Excellent, Excellent! But a couple of considerations: guys like me hate
keypads. I don't even know why I'm sitting here tapping away at this
confounded Satan-inspired beige pseudo-TV typewriter cheap excuse for a CD
player thing... So me for zero PowerBooks, me for many knobs and LED
readouts. Perhaps, Kim, whydoncha stick some kind of USB port onto the side
of the EP so our PC's can perform advanced trig on our loops if we so
desire, as Jim so desires? And Jim IS one of us, just a slob like one of
us,
just a stranger on the buss...
And Jim, what was that free software offer you made me? ) Private
email,
please.
And Jim, why doncha plug the gig with Holland up in Patakiville?
Douglas Baldwin, Alpha male Coyote, the Trickster
dbaldwin@suffolk.lib.ny.us