Re: footswitchable series/parallel signal routing schemes

[Greg House <ghunicycle@yahoo.com>]

You're right. I got confused when I drew that. It's not totally parallel, 
but if
you did the RC20 loop first, then split out the Headrush, it might be 
useful, but
probably not moreso then simply having them in series and not adding to 
the rc20s
loop while you're working.

Sorry,
Greg


--- Doug Cox <dougcox@pdq.net> wrote:
> I don't see how you get a parallel configuration out of this.  
> 
> A = serial, headrush and then RC20
> B = bypass the RC20
> A+B = serial (headrush then RC20), mixed with a straight signal
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Doug
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Greg House" <ghunicycle@yahoo.com>
> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: footswitchable series/parallel signal routing schemes
> 
> 
> > --- Tim Nelson <psychle62@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've been trying to come up with a simple way to route
> > > a couple of loopers so that one footswitch will select
> > > between running them in parallel, each with their own
> > > output destination, and with running them in series,
> > > one (a Headrush) cascaded into another (an RC-20), but
> > > so far my experiments have been pretty frustrating.
> > 
> > What about a simple A/B split? For example:
> > 
> > instrument -> headrush -> A/B box: A -> RC20 -> passive mixer input 1
> >                           A/B box: B -> passive mixer input 2
> > 
> > passive mixer out -> other gear -> amp
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> > 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com