Re: Xfade vs. zeroX / HW vs SW (was: dream box)

[Matthias Grob <matthias@grob.org>]

Title: Re: Xfade vs. zeroX / HW vs SW (was: dream box)

>
> I think both Kyma and
> MAX/MSP provide solutions.  This is cool!  [Sometimes I
> feel that, if I'm into this "looper religion" thing, then
> Kyma is like my denomination. :)  That makes the MAX/MSP folks
> (and Orville users, etc.) like a different denomination; same
> religion, they just use different words to mean about the same
> thing!]

please let me be member of such denomination!

>  >>Ah yes, this is a tricky
> one, because when you stop looping the sub-loop an d go back to a
> longer loop, you >>might end up with clicks at the edges of the
> sub-loop. I have been trying to solve that problem with little
> >>crossfades at either end of the sub-loop, but I want to be
> able to keep playing the larger loop while recording >>into the
> sub-loop also, and haven't quite figured out how to keep the
> crossfades perfect at all times. I was >>ready to bail on this
> feature but it's cool to hear that someone else has thought it would
> be useful, so I'll try >>and get back into it.
>  
> >        Hmm.. any ideas folks?
> (Brainstorming here,
> haven't completely thought this out) Seems like the trick might be to
> record it initially without clicks. In other words, clean
> it up on the way into the loop memory instead of on the way out
> (at playback).  Sort of like a "smart
> overdub".  It would delay the recording by a few sample
> points until an appropriate zero-crossing, then delay the
> "punch-out" until it saw a matching zero-crossing
> (indicated by the first derivative).  You might need do
> double-buffer the baby.  I.e., put the overdub into a working
> buffer, trim it neatly, then shuflle it into the main loop
> memory.

Even EDP does fading at the input AND the output, depending on function.

In this case, your "smart overdub" idea makes sense to me!

>  Of course, if you
> put it into a trim/clean-up buffer, you could trim it via fades
> (appearing as cross-fades in the loop) instead of
> zero-crossings.  In general, I prefer the zero-crossing idea
> because I think it can be less audible (less artifacts), but it
> is more work.

Doesnt the audibility depend on the sound material?

Roughly: For percussive sound, the zero crossing is great but for sustained sound, cross fade is necessary, otherwhise you hear a new attack which can be about as annoying as a click.

In a future HW solution such fades will be available and probably controllable.

The sound material could be analyzed to define characteristic.

>  >I think the hardware products
> are great for what they do, and they do a lot, but I do not know of
> any that let you >overdub simultaneously into multiple backwards
> varispeed loops, while playing complex sequences of >subsegments
> of other loops, in 5.1 surround, and that's the sort of sonic mess I
> like to make.
> Yes!  The hardware
> products are the best for that "out of the box" experience,
> but for ultimate flexibility/customizability, I think a software
> solution (I include Kyma here) is necessary.

Shure, HW is for the road and SW for the studio.

I might try to use a notebook for a show, but then again, clicks are less audible there, so we really need more parameters and quality in the studio and therefore a bigger display and time to operate - it fits together.

All I am concerned with is that the HW and SW systems are not too different so the user can use the same foot pedal with the same basic functions to create the same music.

         ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org