Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
From: Warren Sirota > I guess I don't see why feedback would have any better utility than fade - > it seems more limited, and its destructive nature doesn't seem like an asset > in any situation that I can envision Feedback and fade are different tools used for different purposes. One classic application of feedback would be in "ambient" looping where you are continually overdubbing, and each overdub gradually decays over several loop iterations. The loop keeps evolving for as many hours as you choose to keep playing. The key difference between this and what some multitrack loopers do, is that you are only using one track, the track is being destructively modified. A multitrack looper can simulate feedback by putting each overdub on a different track and lowering the output level of the earlier tracks. This works until you fill all the tracks, then you have to start throwing something away. With true feedback, the layers can decay over an unlimited number of loop iterations. Putting overdubs on separate tracks works very well for "arrangement" looping, where you record a beatbox pattern, then overdub a bass line, then some rhythm guitar, etc. Here the loop doesn't evolve in the same way. Each layer stands on its own and you want to mix them individually. In this case fades make more sense, you may want to temporarily fade out the rhythm guitar, but then fade it back in later. A more advanced use of feedback is to "play" it using a continuous controller pedal. The simplest use of feedback is to set it to a fixed value, like 50%, so the layers decay steadily. But you can also dynamically change feedback as the loop plays to create volume swells or tremolo effects in the background as you overdub new layers. A more mundane application of feedback is just to simulate a digital delay where the loop is short, say 1 or 2 seconds, and whatever you play decays over a few loops, but you're not burning any new tracks. Of course, it is nice if a looper provides both features :-) Jeff