Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Stereo EDP

If you have an EDP  and a single stereo effects processor, is it better 
to just run a dry signal through the EDP first and then run it through the
stereo processor (ie, for reverb, etc.)?  If I all my synths are stereo,
should I run the signal out a pair of outs via a Y connector to combine the
signal into a mono signal before the EDP?  ( I am thinking in terms of
something like a matrix type mixer or mixer with several busses)  With my
mixer I can bring all my original sources (synths) out one bus (to the EDP)
and then on another bus combine the EDP return with the original signal and
output to my effects and then finally bring this effected signal, etc. out
to the main outs.  But, I am still not sure if I am creating an overall
stereo space/sound that is well put together.


On 8/24/03 5:38 PM, "Mark Hamburg" <mark_hamburg@baymoon.com> wrote:

> I feel compelled to defend my assertion that stereo isn't necessarily all
> that important -- even with stereo sound sources. I have stereo sources 
> well since some of my pre-loop processing is stereo. Do I miss it when 
> looped version goes down to mono? Somewhat. But I've also found that it's
> helpful for keeping a distinction between the new material and the looped
> material. The new material can be bipping around from left to right. The
> looped material can sit in the center. Furthermore, post-loop processing 
> add some stereo sheen back to the loop.
> So, would stereo be nice? Yeah. Is it death for the EDP that it doesn't 
> stereo? No.
> I think it's far more of an annoyance that if you've got some stereo gear
> before the EDP, you essentially have to get a mixer or lose the stereo
> effects on even the dry signal.
> The Repeater wins overall in this regard since it gives you stereo loops,
> stereo throughs, and a switchable insert point. Other discussions have
> covered what it doesn't give you.
> Mark