Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
As discussed many times, Feedback and fading are different functions. There can be some overlap, but mainly they server different purposes. Fading is about level control. Feedback is about loop evolution. One does not replace the other. At 10:49 PM 9/27/2006, Warren Sirota wrote: > > 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. > >Excellent observation. But then you can background mix old tracks as you >near capacity in order to free up memory and cpu, and go on forever if >that's your wish But why do something so complicated??? Feedback is so easy to implement and so powerful in use. > >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. > >Exactly. Except I usually group tracks and fade them in/out together >instead >of one at a time. You should try working with true feedback control as it is meant to be used, for loop evolution. You will understand it then. It is not a fader. > > A more advanced use of feedback is to "play" it using a > > continuous controller pedal. > >How do you create a swell with destructive feedback, anyway? As I recall, >at >least on the EDP, no matter where you set the feedback knob, the volume of >the loop never increases without new input. If you dynamically control feedback, you hear the loop swelling back up. try it. >It still seems to me that the destructive nature of the feedback is an >implementation artifact rather than a feature. No, that is the whole entire point of it. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com