Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
ACCYNNY www.rustyrobot.com Album "HYPNOS" ----- Original Message ----- From: Andre LaFosse <altruist@altruistmusic.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 8:56 AM Subject: Re: A Repeater suggestion > Yo Mark, > > Mark wrote: > > > > Yeah, but put in a wet/dry mix control, like every other pro effect > > processor every made. > > This gets into the whole issue of, "What is a looper SUPPOSED to do? Is > it SUPPOSED to operate like a pro effects processor?" > > I recall Kim stating once that he felt things like pitch-shifting and > time-stretching didn't really belong in something like an EDP, because > those were features based upon applying a DSP approach to sound. He > felt the whole EDP angle was about recording, editing, > cutting-and-pasting, and otherwise EDITING the audio on the fly, rather > than out-and-out PROCESSING it. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm > mis-representing you, Kim.) > > So the Repeater is interesting in that it does a bit of sound editing, > AND sound processing. If someone's coming to it from a background of > real-time looping with units like a JamMan, EDP, Boomerang, etc., then > they could well find the wet/dry and feedback characteristics to be a problem. > > On the other hand, if someone's approaching it from a multi-track > recording perspective, and looking at Repeater as being a portable, > hardware extension of a program like ACID, then things like wet/dry > mixes and feedback functions won't be an issue, because those features > don't have anything to do with multitrack recording. > > And beyond that, if there WERE a wet/dry control on Repeater, how should > it be implemented? Should there be a universal balance that affects all > four tracks uniformly? Should each channel have its own discrete > balance? Should there be both? If so, how should they interact? > > I do think there's a certain dichotomy starting to emerge in terms of > feature sets, with the Repeater more geared towards multi-track-style > recording, panning, processing, and storage of stereo audio, and the EDP > more geared towards live, spontaneous interactive performance and > in-depth sample editing between the input and the looper. > > OF COURSE this is an overgeneralization, and of course both units can > function in both live and studio environments. But it does seem to me > that they're leaning towards somewhat seperate ends of the live/studio > spectrum in terms of the way they're laid out, and in terms of the > design philosophy behind each one. > > I think this sort of issue is interesting, since it re-opens the whole > issue of what a looper should or should not have. Some people will no > doubt find it a serious set-back. Others won't ever miss it. > > The real question, though, is what sort of wet/dry balance will be on > the Againinator?! > > --Andre LaFosse > http://www.altruistmusic.com >