Re: flexible looper in small package

[Travis Hartnett <travishartnett@gmail.com>]

There's obviously a market for looping technology, since demand for
the EDP and Repeater remain high, and even the JamMan rackmount
remains in demand almost ten years after being discontinued, plus the
Boomerang and DL-4 keep on ticking along (granted the DL-4 is usually
bought as a delay modeler with a bonus looping feature).  The always
baffling question is why Gibson doesn't step up production given the
continual high demand for the EDP.

There is less demand for tolls which aren't up to commercial standards
(in many cases) and which requires an assemblage of computer, midi
interface, outboad D/A conversion, and a lot of configuration hassles
all for something which is expensive, fragile, and often not suited to
live performance situations.  When you factor in the issue of software
piracy, I can understand the lack of interest on the part of
commercial software developers to devote the not inconsiderable amount
of effort towards developing a software looping application/plug-in.

However, while the looping market may not be huge, I'd say that a
majority of them would prefer a looper that includes a
record-straight-to-overdub deature.  Likewise for MIDI sync and
controllable feedback.  Personally, I can't imagine gigging (solo) as
a looper with anything less than a Boomerang+.  A Loop Station or
JamMan is lots of fun, but too limited for what I want to do in a live
situation.



On 8/26/05, Jeff Larson <Jeffrey.Larson@sun.com> wrote:
>  > From: "Travis Hartnett" <travishartnett@gmail.com>
>  >
>  > Yet, after several years of software loopers, they don't seem to be
>  > planned out much better than the dedicated hardware boxes.
> 
> Well, that's debatable, but something to consider here is that unless
> you fit into the Ableton Live school of looping, there aren't any
> "manufacturers" of software loopers, with the possible exception of
> PSP and their Lexicon emulators.  Mostly there are people building
> something for their own use and publishing it as shareware.  The sad
> fact is that there is *no* market for software loopers, so there
> is very little incentive to do anything great.  Believe me, I would be
> happy to be proved wrong on this.
> 
>  > I've seen very little evidence that there's been much research on the
>  > part of manufacturers as to what makes a great looper (and what makes
>  > a frustrating one).
> 
> I don't doubt this.  But I am curious, how many people in the world
> actually care about going into overdub after record or any other
> "fundamental" looping features we hold so dear?  A thousand?
> Probably.  Ten thousand?  Small markets are difficult to please.
> Big companies just don't care, they want to move as
> many units as possible to the lowest common denominator.
>