Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I second this, I use polar and an EDP together. Geoff on 13/3/03 8:21 pm, Mark Sottilaro at sine@zerocrossing.net wrote: > 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 >> >
