Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
So, I wonder how it is that MOTU's POLAR looper seems to work perfectly with no audible drift or latency using their 828 Firewire interface. Could it be because you're synching your loop to a predefined amount of measures based on your tempo? I also know that POLAR only uses RAM so that things happen without any disk issues. You can later "print" your loops to the hard drive and then use them in any way you'd like. Mark Sottilaro On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Kim Flint wrote: > At 01:15 PM 3/12/2003, Per Boysen wrote: >> > Från: Kim Flint [mailto:kflint@loopers-delight.com] >> > there is also control latency in this case. >> >> Sure, you're perfectly right about that. But I could stand waiting 7 >> milliseconds longer if I could bring just a laptop instead of this >> monster: http://www.boysen.se/pboy_looping_rig.jpg ;-D > > Per, you miss my point. Absolute latency is not so much the issue, but > lack of a guaranteed latency. Maybe control latency is 7ms nine times > out of ten, but every now and then it happens to be 50 ms, and maybe > somewhat rarer it is even higher. So if you perfectly tap a 1.00 > second loop, mostly it is 1.00 seconds, but sometimes it ends up as > 1.05s, or 0.97s. Once in a while you get 1.20s. It will be somewhat > random, depending on whether your system happens to be busy doing > something else at that moment. You can't manage rhythm reliably with > an os like that. (Judging by my win2k laptop, you might sometimes get > 3.0 seconds if the disk happens to be spinning up or there is some > network activity or whatever....) > > A hard real-time system will always guarantee that any event will > happen in a specific amount of time, no matter what else is happening. > The EDP for example, guarantees 1.5 ms for any switch or midi command > to be executed, at all times. A general purpose non-realtime os cannot > do that. > >> > Also "any recorded sound won't have to be played back until >> > the next loop >> > round" is only true in the most simplistic approach to looping. For >> > example, what if you tap reverse while you are overdubbing? >> >> Ooops.... Good point there! THAT maneuver will always be affected with >> some "early delay" in software loopers. I love to do this with the EDP >> and plucked string instruments! > > that is just one example. another is handling sync to external > devices. There are others. All I have to do is think of all the things > that used to cause clicks in the echoplex during development, and > that's where you will have trouble in a non-realtime system. > > If you look at the latest cars, it is common for PC systems to be > built in for driver navigation systems and passenger entertainment. > Windows is perfect for that because there are a lot of existing > programs ready to go. But I don't think you will find windows running > the processor that controls your fuel injection or anti-lock brakes! > True real-time os's are used for those. > >> > just recorded needs to be played back immediately or you will >> > get a pop, >> >> Not necessarily. A smoothing fade during that "reverse delay" period >> can >> be written into the software. I would have no problems with that. When >> it comes to reverb it's ok with some "predelay". Apparently software >> loopers will never be the same thing as hardware loopers. I guess both >> will have their pros and cons. > > Well, good luck with that one. > > to me, a more significant issue than these technical points is the > user interface. Notebook computers are designed for businessmen to > create power point slides in airports and display them in conference > rooms. I know, I used to design these things. That's who the customer > is, and that is who the interface is designed for. There are no > features tailored for musicians except by coincidence. If you want it > to be a looper, you need to customize and add a lot of things for you > to be able to control it and make it work for that purpose. If you > have that much time and patience on your hands, great, go for it. I > think most people would rather spend their time using the tool rather > than creating it. > > Personally, I find myself with less and less patience for things where > I have to create the user interface details for a tool before I can > use it. I don't have the time to research all the options, try them > out, and make a decision about what works best for an application. I > want somebody else to weed out all the bad ideas and present something > coherent and workable. Preferably they come up with a really intuitive > interface with nice ergonomics, and I can jump right in, learn how to > work it, and start using it. Then I can use that tool to do whatever > it is I want to do, rather then spend all my time creating the tool > for myself. > > For example, I've now given up on the idea of using a PC/Mac for > recording. I've been planning to go that route for years, but the > burden of all the decisions needed to make it happen was too much. I > didn't have time for figuring it out, so it never happened. My > girlfriend has been frustrated about this for years, since she is the > one who really likes recording and had outgrown the 4-tracks, but for > her figuring out the pc requirements was too intimidating to even > start. Instead we just bought a 16 track standalone hard disk > recorder with a cd-r built in. (Yamaha AW16G). Everything is laid out > nicely, all the elements we need are there - mixer, patchbay, effects, > i/o, eq, cdr, hd, loop sampler, etc. Nicely ergonomic control surface, > good quality audio, easy to use, etc. No decisions to make, just learn > to use it and go. One credit card transaction. It does everything we > need and then some, and in the end probably cost a lot less than I > would have spent on a pc recording system. We're happy, and she'll > probably begin a recording project here within days. It probably would > have been years if we kept on the PC path. > > To me, that is the real advantage of a dedicated device over a general > purpose computer/laptop. How much time and energy are you going to put > into customizing an interface for that general purpose device to fit > your needs, before you can do anything with it at all? How much time > are you going to spend screwing around with it later, fixing problems, > installing updates, etc? The dedicated device might have you up and > running in minutes. And after all the effort you put into customizing > the general purpose device for your needs, how good is it really? A > dedicated device had one or more knowledgeable people spend a whole > bunch of time figuring out the details of the interface design, > probably with input from other users. These days I find I'd much > rather take advantage of the interface design work that somebody else > already did, rather than reinventing that wheel myself. > > To each his own I guess. Certainly there are people who love the idea > of building their own musical tools. I think they are the musician > equivalent of people who build hot rods. Its a lot of fun and a > passion to build your own car, even if ultimately you hardly ever > drive it except to shows with other hot rod builders. Most people > would prefer to just have a car that gets them from A to B..... > > kim > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com >
