Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Andy, I think this assesment is too cynical. I have done beta testing with several pro audio manufaturers (I am a professional recording engineer) and the reality is that the "programmer " is often a part of a team of developers and programmers, and in DSP driven products, there are programmers dedicated to user interface, DSP coding, algorhythm design API integration (if it's software) etc. As a beta tester, I was perhaps the only member of the 'team' who dealt extensively and exclusivly with the end product. The basic reality is that the alpha and beta devices are broken and malfunctioning and need sombody with excellent troubleshooting -and particularly communication - skills to sus them out. At some point, there is a 'drop dead' date and the thing gets released, warts and all. -CZ >Charles Zwicky wrote: >> >>It really falls on the Beta testers. If they don't use the devices >>the way that us on the cutting edge might then these things slip >>past them. > >Roland knew about some of the RC-50 issues already. >Don't think they have much of a clue really, apart from being top >notch at profits. > >Complex loop devices really need something more than to rely on the >poor old "Beta Tester", as in someone who plays their music in the >way they like to see if it works out on the new device. > >Indeed, it's highly desirable to have a beta tester like Andre >Lafosse who'll push the technology to it's limit, but how realistic >is that hope? > >As cpr hints, it's either down to the programmer to ensure that >there's no way to crash the device for any possible sequence of >button presses, or they should get someone else to do it. Typically, >the programmer isn't the best tester of their own product, as they >already "know to use it". >As looping devices increase in capability, there's 2 ways I can see >this going. > >1) Actually pay someone to test, it's a skilled job. >2) Make it known that purchasers/users are "testers" right from the >beginning, and have good provision for dealing with that. > >>This is why the RC-50 gets complaints here but the LP-1 and 2880 >>don't...and vice versa in the mainstream press. > >The reason the LP-1 doesn't get complaints here is that these are >dealt with on the LP-1 forum. >There's not that many LP-1's in the world, so users get their >answers direct from Bob Amstadt. >Probably the 2880 is just too simple to have a lot of problems. > > >Isn't the RC-50 the first looper by a major company to have these >sort of problems? >It's a lot easier to create bug free software if all the features >are known before programming starts, and I'm guessing that's how the >majors do it. The independent loop developers are usually open to >change their product on the fly, which is no bad thing, but >eventually tends to create difficulties and complications in the >software. > >If we want to be on the "cutting edge" as loopers, I think we're >going to be testers :-) > >andy butler > -- ... http://www.zmix.net