Re: [Bulk] Re: Boomerang Vs. RC50

[midifriedchicken@comcast.net]

I've actually enjoyed my recent re-introduction with the RC-50. I've discovered several workarounds and outright solutions to several issues that I feel have made me a better looper. I was like you, I hated it and was going to sell it, but for the very specific situation Im using it for, its perfect.

I also have heard form a very reliable source, that there will be a firmware update this summer that will fix several issues.

 

MFC

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: BreachinThePeace@aol.com

In a message dated 6/27/2007 3:31:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, benoitruelle@yahoo.fr writes:

Why is everyone complaining about the RC50? Because they want to access some functionality with midi and that part is not working properly. It can be to synchronise a flanger to a loop, to start an external drum machine (archaic or not) or just to sync with other musicians.

 

I can understand you point about musical instruments.

So much people, so much ways to make music. That's the interest of it.

 

Ben.

 

Thanks for the reply Ben. I really like the quality of the RC50, I just don't care for it's immensly premature release. I think that was unforgivable from a consumer's perspective. Maybe that seems harsh but when you consider the number of years that floor loopers have been on the market, you would think that a 600.00 mass produced pedal board that is a "take" on several existing devices would be far more bug free.

 

How about the fact that you simply cannot make an initial uninterrupted loop? Is it just me or is that simply pathetic? Sure, as long as you are using the looper device to forward or continue a pre existing loop, you won't hear the gap. But as a musician playing an actual instrument that is looking to harmoniously accompany oneself, it SUCKS and is simply unacceptable.

 

I am not sure how anyone can honestly be satisfied with the RC50. To me all this justification of the RC50 seems like a grand effort to polish a turd. I guess you could say in this instance that I am "coming from" an almost polarized perspective as far as applied expansion is concerned. My point is this. In my mind, if a floor controlled looper unit meets it's unique design efficiency quota, you should not need to expand upon it. You also should not have to download "fixes" in an effort to eliminate poor design or out and outright design flaws.

 

I FULLY realize and acknowledge the Boomerang 1's faults and limitations. (I never purchased the 2nd generation so I can't comment) But when you consider it's release date with respect to where we are today it was beyond magnificent. Sure, it's noisy as hell unless you really "play" with it and it's quantitative capabilities were archaic at best. One has to understand however that the Boomerang was the vision of two men that worked literally out of a garage where these first units were made and assembled. The thing I really like about Boomerang is their obvious personal devotion to releasing a product that reflected an efficient human element within it's design. It was truly built by musicians for musicians. It just seems like the more bells and whistles a device like this has the greater the risk becomes of loosing that efficiency and screwing up the mix so to speak. I guess in hind sight the RC50 is one more example of somebody trying to reinvent the whee l. ;-)   

 

 

---

See what's free at AOL.com.