Re: A Repeater suggestion

[Mark <sine@zerocrossing.net>]

Yeah! and while your at it, put a wet/dry level in it like every other
professional effect processor ever designed.

thanks.

Mark Sottilaro

Andre LaFosse wrote:

> Hallo loop list,
>
> I want to chime in with a point of view here, in light of the current
> talk about the lack of a wet/dry mix and its supposedly being a design
> flaw.  I also want to address a gear-related issue that's been bugging
> me for a while.
>
> First of all, with respect to the wet/dry issue: I believe it was either
> Jamie or Damon who told me at the NAMM show back in January that one of
> the core concepts for Repeater was to make "a hardware version of ACID."
>
> Based upon the present feedback (no pun intended) from Repeater owners,
> as well as the slant of Electrix's promotion, it seems to me that
> Repeater is clearly coming from more of a multi-track recorder point of
> view.  When was the last time you saw individual track wet/dry mixes on
> an ADAT or a reel-to-reel tape recorder?  I would suggest that the
> absence of same on the Repeater is not a design FLAW -- it's a design
> characteristic.
>
> My perception at this point, which is of course only my opinion, is that
> there's now a bit of a letdown present at the realization that the
> Repeater is not, in fact, the be-all end-all Uber-looper of doom.  Yes,
> there are some things you can do with a Repeater that nothing else on
> the market can do.  There are also some things that have been on the
> market for many years with feature sets which the Repeater doesn't seem
> to share.
>
> There's a reason guitar players might have both a Les Paul and a
> Stratocaster in their rig, and might run them through either a Fender
> Twin or a Marshall stack.  Recording engineers carry a variety of
> microphones with different strenghts and weaknesses.  Drummers will use
> different types of kit components depending on the musical situation.
> And so on.
>
> What I'm trying to say is this: Don't just judge any musical instrument
> or piece of gear on what it DOESN'T do.  Think about what it DOES do as
> well.  Approach it as an individual thing with its own strengths and
> weaknesses, and learn what those are.
>
> Choose your tool based upon the job you need to do.
>
> When I use an EDP, my creative process is being shaped as a result of a
> specific design architecture and philosophy.  Like any good instrument,
> it's the product of a particular creative idea that's followed a
> specific arc to be brought to fruition.  I'm sure the Repeater is the
> same way, and I'm sure that each unit will lead a user down certain
> paths that the other one isn't well equipped to travel.
>
> With all due respect to all the new Repeater owners, and without wanting
> to offend anyone, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people are asking
> for new design features in the unit mere days after having recieved it
> -- especially after having waited a year for the current model to take
> shape as an actual, workable, stable, real-world unit.
>
> It's taken years for a vocabulary of EDP techniques and approaches to
> build up.  That's the way it should be, as it is with any instrument.
> Don't expect to master something like a Repeater in a few days -- and
> don't expect it to be the final word in real-time looping.
>
> Learn your instrument.  Get to know it as a creative tool.  And don't
> blame the instrument if it turns out that it wasn't what you thought it
> was going to be, you know?
>
> Anyway...
>
> --Andre LaFosse
> http://www.altruistmusic.com