Re: Considering building an ultimate looper...

[Bob Weigel <sounddoctorin@imt.net>]

Like I say, my intent, if I delve into this, it to produce a product 
that has enough hardware to easily add innovative features as people 
request them....hence developing this indeed into an 'ultimate looper'.  
That's the goal.  Will I accomplish it?  I dunno.  You certainly won't 
if you don't aim for that though.

If I had claimed to have already posessed such a thing I can see order 
for some of the discussion. :-)  As it is I'm just trying to express 
desire to build something that will have the features of increased track 
accessibility, smoother control at low volume levels, elaborate yet 
intuitive speed/meter control and some other features which I don't want 
to discuss at this time like I say because a few surprises at release 
time *are* nice for the designer.  But as I said to some also would love 
to hear people's wish list of course so as to make this a product which 
fulfills all forseen needs if possible. 

Hence...the use of 'ultimate looper'...once again.  I really dont' *get* 
the rub here.  It's almost like people think I'm insulting the 
looperlative by insinuating that it leaves something to be desired or 
something.  It's a GREAT sounding product...for probably a large 
percentage of the people out there.  Of course if this winds up being 
very near the price point then it won't look quite so good I suppose in 
comparison.  But that's all to be seen.  So please..at this point just 
send me suggestions if you'd like to see this happen.

The unit will likely use AD products btw.  Considering whether it will 
be necessary to employ a TigerSHARC or if a SHARC will be adequate 
headroom.  As I tried to note, the PIC chip will only do the button and 
controller processing, displays, etc.   -Bob

andy butler wrote:

>
>
> Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>> So anyway I'm fairly fresh with PIC programming from that project at 
>
>
> A more powerful chip needed for the dsp surely?
>
>> etc.  btw..one of the very important features of this unit will be 
>> that it has my single pedal volume control interface.  We probably 
>> can get by with 10 bit A/D there because if need be, there will be a 
>> movement sensing in s/w which gates the selected CV's directly to the 
>> pedal voltage!  This allows for absolutely smooth transitions to 
>> extinction.   
>
>
> 128 steps, as Jeff points out, when smoothed  is ok for most audio 
> applications.
> Except that it's not good enough for a slow fade to zero.
>
> I do a lot of shaping the sound with quick pedal movements, and the 
> 'shapes' produced just aren't as smooth as they could be using 7-bit 
> res, even with smoothing. ( with the smoothing fine tuned it's 
> acceptable though)
>
>
>>
>> The whole objective also is to make this more like the Jamman which 
>> nicely syncs loops so that you dont' have to press buttons precisely.  
>
>
> The sync in the JamMan is primitive and glitchy.
> There's often a little scratchy sound at the loop-start, even when 
> just playing the loop.
>
> One of the "hard problems" in making a looper is how to handle 
> overdubs while synced. Just try it with the JamMan to hear how bad it 
> can be.
>
> Actually this sounds like exactly the sort of problem you'd enjoy 
> solving :-)
>
> ...but maybe you don't want to overdub onto the loops ??
>
>> We may have it with a couple *modes* and call that 'tight' mode or 
>> something and have an 'open' mode which allows people to do 
>> polyrhytmic overlays if they want :-). But minimally we want it to  
>> be capable of tight looping regardless of when the user hits the 
>> start button.
>>
>> A host of other nested possibilities with tempo tapping/sliding are 
>> being considered also. And some other options that I probably 
>> shouldn't mention at this time :-). -Bob
>>
>
> From watching the video of your client, what you're basically 
> intending is something like "8 stereo JamMans" in a box, all of them 
> in Loop Mode.
> Just using each loop to record one layer only.
>
> That doesn't sound too hard to implement, so I'd support your optimism 
> in thinking it's easily possible to do.
> As you described from your experience, it's much easier to design when 
> you know all the requirements at the start of the project.
>
> I think some of the more "unbelieving" comments on the list here are 
> provoked by the "Ultimate Looper" moniker. There's a lot of people 
> here who would find the "8 stereo JamMans" approach somewhat lacking 
> in the features that they rely upon.
>
> If you want to make the "Ultimate", then it's going to take a lot of 
> time and sweat, possibly starting with a review of the ways in which 
> people use their devices to create structured music.
>
> As a designer, I'm sure your familiar with the term "feature creep", 
> where a program picks up extra features during development, ultimately 
> making it almost impossible to make it bug free. Be warned, a looping 
> device attracts feature creep in a big way. Loopers think that Beta 
> Testing is an excuse to get their ideas put into the machine :-)
>
> Good luck with your venture.
>
> andy butler
>
> ( yes, I was tester for the EDP )
>
>
>
>