Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I totally agree. It's not a judgement call, it's just more a matter of personal choice. Bob's been great and so had the Looperlative. I'm just rethinking of how I want to work with a looper in my world. You mention that you couldn't afford to buy one. It was pretty hard for me too which is why I'm rethinking this. Do I really need a second hardware looper when I have a perfectly servicable Repeater? --- jayrope <jrploopers@kliklak.net> wrote: > > I am afraid I didnšt read further before, sorry > for dissing you here mark. > > > > I do undertand your reasons now. > > > > still I believe, that the looperlative will be a > very cool machine in the > > end and the more imprtant questions is, if > therešs any way of finding bob > > co-developpers to help him and expand the idea of > this great thing > > > > so > > jayrope - berlin > > > > From: mark sottilaro <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com> > > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT) > > To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com > > Subject: Re: LP1 Rant warning! (was Re: > Looperlative LP1 testers) > > > > Hey, > > > > I'm thinking of staying with my Repeater and > ditching > > the Looperlative. Bob's offered to take it back > but I > > imagine he'll just sell it for his $1500 price. > I'm > > not looking to make money on this, but I'd like to > > retreive my full purchase amount. $1320 gets it > > shipped to your door if you're in the USA. > > > > M > > > > --- mark t <aleatoric12@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > If you want to sell your LP1 i'll take it! > >> > > >> > On 5/2/06, mark sottilaro > >> > <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > > --- Claude Voit <c.voit@vtx.ch> wrote: > >>> > > > >>>> > > > having followed the LP1 forum for a > while, I'm a > >>>> > > > little bothered with the > >>>> > > > "throw in your ideas, boys" way of > develloping a > >>>> > > > software. > >>> > > > >>> > > Boy howdy, Claude!! At first I thought, > "what a > >> > great > >>> > > idea, go to the people!" and then reality > set in. > >>> > > People are self absorbed jerks! I'm a self > >> > absorbed > >>> > > jerk! I'm shocked that Bob's not gone crazy > by > >> > this > >>> > > point. I can't wait for the "let's change > the > >> > logo > >>> > > thread!" ;) > >>> > > > >>> > > I can't help but feel that in some ways, > maybe due > >> > to > >>> > > his design by customer input, that I bought > a beta > >>> > > product. The manual is poor (many features > are > >> > barely > >>> > > mentioned, let alone explained, if it wasn't > for > >> > Steve > >>> > > Lawson on the forum I probably would have > returned > >> > the > >>> > > LP-1), it's got outputs that aren't > implemented in > >> > any > >>> > > way and did ship with a fair amount of bugs. > (many > >>> > > have already been found and fixed) Was a > night of > >> > my > >>> > > life wasted because v 1.1 refered to midi > channels > >> > as > >>> > > 0-15? Yes it was. Another gone because the > midi > >>> > > clock sync didn't work? Yeah, that too. > Another > >> > gone > >>> > > because stopped tracks don't restart synced > to the > >>> > > clock... > >>> > > > >>> > > Also, because of it's very open yet > unfinished > >> > form > >>> > > I'm one of those frustrated owners. It's a > tweak > >> > away > >>> > > from being my dream looper. (there's > curently no > >> > way > >>> > > to use the midi tracks as separate loops > when > >> > synced > >>> > > to a midi clock and have them operate like > the EDP > >> > or > >>> > > the Repeater does, toggling betwen them) > Judging > >> > from > >>> > > what I read on the forum you could operate > it that > >>> > > way. > >>> > > > >>> > > If this was a product from a company like > Roland > >> > or > >>> > > Digitech, it would have been returned. > Mostly > >> > when > >>> > > those companies release a product it is what > it > >> > is. > >>> > > I'd have said, "Oh, this product does't > operate > >> > like I > >>> > > want it to. Bye bye." But now I have a > product > >> > that > >>> > > *may* change into what I want. This is kind > of > >> > odd, > >>> > > as rather than digging into if for what it > is (a > >> > very > >>> > > cool multi track looper), I can't help but > think > >> > of > >>> > > what it isn't and might be. LOOP TEASE! > >>> > > > >>> > > Will my tweak come? I don't know. I've put > in > >>> > > several requests but never got a "oh that's > slated > >> > in > >>> > > the next release" or "no, that's not doable > at > >> > this > >>> > > time" reply. The reply was "When it comes > to > >> > multiple > >>> > > tracks, especially when combined with MIDI > sync, > >> > we > >>> > > will need to spend more time defining how > you want > >> > the > >>> > > software to work. The software is still > young and > >> > I'd > >>> > > be happy to make changes to make operate in > a > >> > useable > >>> > > fashion." How much time? Do I be patient? > I > >> > don't > >>> > > develop hardware/software loopers so I have > no > >> > idea > >>> > > what it takes in terms of time to implement > >> > features. > >>> > > Maybe my request isn't worth Bob's time as > I'm one > >> > of > >>> > > few that even care about this. > >>> > > > >>> > > As it stands now it's mostly useless to me > *but I > >>> > > couldn't know that based on prerelease > >> > information* > >>> > > It's not even in my signal chain. I know > I'm > >> > ranting > >>> > > (I'm a good ranter, eh?) but $1200 left my > bank > >> > acount > >>> > > on something that's sitting on a shelf. Do > I > >> > wait? > >>> > > How long? Bob has been amazing and patient, > but > >> > part > >>> > > of me wishs that a bit more time was spent > in > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com