Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
(I thought it best to split this away from the CF conversation) >>Good point... Especially with the back panel showing direct out's for >1-4, >>unless they're stereo jacks. :) >> >>I was doing some hopeful thinking, then factoring in that the unit >>obviously sees L&R in and then pondering as to why in this day and age of >>inexpensive DSP power would someone make a 4 track mono/2 track stereo >>recorder? :) > >it is more than DSP power. >(most loop functions do not really use dsp at all.) True. But, from my day work, I can say though that folks are starting to realize that the low cost of DSP is making folks realize that there is more to be done with DSP than things like effects algorithms and time stretching. DSP is (of course) _wonderful_ for moving a large chunk of data around quickly in a larger buffer space, so why not look at moving the more traditional housekeeping roles off of the host processor and put it into straight into the DSP code. I would suspect that many maintenance tasks such as manipulating end points and loop timing, as well as more traditional functions such as pitch, scale and time stretching are all being handled in DSP. >For every track you need in and out jacks, panel space, buffer amps, >ADC's and DAC's, i/o channels to the convertors, etc. You need knobs and >buttons and displays to allow the user to control each channel in >performance. All of that costs money. Yeup, this is true. It all does cost cash, but not as much as it used to. I know that I'm preaching to the choir, but SMT/VLSI has done a great deal to keep costs like these under control. The high cost of a new machine can usually be traced back to trying to recoup the tooling costs of the design. I suspect that Electrix is using parts in Repeater who's design costs are well on their way to being absorbed by other products. We've seen the physical UI of the Repeater, so we know that the machine isn't a 12 space monster with a high external parts count. >Beyond that is the question of how to design a useable and intuitive >interface for multitrack looping. That can be quite complicated if you >want >any interesting featues for interacting between loops, and the problem >multiplies as you add channels. You can easily end up with an >incomprehensible array of knobs and switches on your 12 rack space front >panel. It can do anything but nobody can remember how to use it... :) Or, you can spend the money on letting a coder go nuts and designing a MIDI CC/SysEx implementation such that you can run any kind of human interaction UI that you want to. :) It's the same concept as looking at a rack synth. Just because the new single space Virus (or the rack Q) has very few knobs doesn't mean that you can't interact with the machine. You just have to "think outside of the box" to steal a phrase. :) Mark _______________________________________________________ |_) _ _||\/| _ _ ._ evolutionary electronica | \(/_(_|| |(_)(_)| | www.redmoon-music.com _______________________________________________________