Support |
i believe the repeater will be my main love when i finally get one into my grubbie hands- i am using 2 dl4s on my aux sends at the moment-which can be good and bad- i do tend to overload the dl4 input way to often-repeater come to me! c On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:28:57 -0700 Andre LaFosse <altruist@altruistmusic.com> wrote: > Pardon my non-dt commentary... > > > Anyway, after a little experimentation, I'm just > wondering, d/t, surely you > > have the EDP in the signal chain after the Repeater > right? That's the way > > that offers the most possibilities, or at least, so it > seems to me. > > Really?! > > I don't have a repeater, but my presumption is that the > natural signal > chain would be to have the EDP BEFORE the Repeater. Why? > > Repeater works in stereo, with different pan and output > for each > individual track. If you send that into an EDP, > everything gets summed > to mono and output as the same, and the possibilities for > discrete > signal routing are lost. > > The whole issue of simultaneous, discreet loops, with > individual editing > tweakability, seems to be at the core of the Repeater's > design > "identity," just as I would suggest that the idea of > editing/cutting-and-pasting a loop "cycle" is one of the > signature > traits of an EDP. It would seem to me that running the > Repeater into a > mono in/out unit (such as an EDP) would be sacrificing a > lot of its > strong points... but of course that's just hypothetical > speculation on > my part. > > I do seem to recall Mr. Torn saying that his EDP was > indeed before the > Repeater, but I'll certainly defer to the man himself on > that one. > > It is really interesting to see that the emerging > consensus is largely > of the Repeater as an alternate looper with a new and > different design > slant, as opposed to something that utterly and > completely supplants the > previously existing units. Considering that the EDP > dates back seven > years or so, that's saying a lot... > > Anyway. > > --A >