Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Kim please read again I don't want to sacrify anything trust me, its just that conceptually if we want undo or indepedant control of _all_ the layers in any order we must somehow write them each in a separate memory and summ all those layers together for play back nothing would change for the user overdub would mean write to a new layer multiply would involve the creation of a longer layer for whats overduben but the other layers would just go on looping without being lenghted overdub with feedback reduced would mean fade out all or a selection of layers while writing to a new layer I dont see a difference for the listener undo would bring back the faded layers and mute the newly created layer. etc claude > At 10:43 AM 8/17/2002, Claude Voit wrote: > > > The idea to have the FB rate depending on the loop time to achieve an > > > absolute fading time has been arround for a while (also on this >list?) > > > Technically it would not be complicated. We may have it in the > > > future, but I suspect it will not be perfectly usefull either... > > > -- > > > >at the point where Loop x.xx will finally be a multitracker (meaning >each > >layer separate) > > why would you necessarily want that? I would rather have multi-tracks but > also the ability to layer things on one track just as it works now. The > layering concept from delays turns out to be such a simple to use and > elegant interface for making complex loops. The "track" interface from > recording studios gives more flexibility, but at the expense of a much >more > complex user interface. > > >real feedback would be obsolete and replaced by layer volume > > to me, they are not the same concepts at all. How does one replace the > other? For me, the feedback+overdub combination very neatly and easily > accomplishes something that is really complicated to manage with multiple > tracks, for both the user and the system. I don't really see the point of > trying to replace one with the other. > > >and very limited undo per layer overdub (new layer) then short undo >:mute > >of the new layer; long undo: erase and discard this last layer feedback > >reduction would then mean layer output volume fade out (virtual > >feedback) as we do not want the memory fill with undo layers while > >reducing feedback we could save a bunch of memory like that, for the >sake > >of a maximum of seperate tracks. > > but I do want the memory to fill with previous versions as feedback >changes > it. Then I can undo it to go backwards, which is interesting itself, but > especially interesting when combined with overdubbing. That gives a very > simple and intuitive way to evolve and unevolve a loop with just two > buttons and a knob and very little thinking required. > > kim > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com > >