Re: THE BEST OF THE BEST LOOP STATIONS

[Matt Davignon <mattdavignon@gmail.com>]

Hi Michael, 

You can probably count on three fingers the number of looping musicians who actually USE "all the bells and whistles" of their looping pedals, and are still interesting musicians. With both amateur and professional musicians, getting lost in all the features of is a very easy and common pitfall, frequently taking what could be an interesting performance and turning it into simply a demo for the technology.

For a new musician, I usually suggest getting a basic looper with some key features - half speed, reverse, and an ability to set the number of layers in each loop (that's usually called feedback). It sounds like you want to have the ability to make separate, independent tracks, so maybe look for something with those features. Work with that for a year or so. In that time, you'll discover the areas in which the technology is stifling you, and look for those features in a new device. 

Like Per says, I don't think any hardware foot pedal has everything. Using a laptop with Ableton Live, or even building your own Max MSP patches is another option. 



-- 
Matt Davignon
mattdavignon@gmail.com
Music: http://mattdavignon.bandcamp.com
Podcast! http://ribosomematt.podomatic.com

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael James <livinguniverse@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Per....

Greetings from New Zealand.
Thanks for Your suggestions regarding the RC505.
Because I'm a beginner at recording and looping,
I arrived at the idea of purchasing a loop station with only
the desire to simply record separate instruments
onto different tracks and have them layered into one song.
Effects would be wonderful to have on a station and I'm
sure that as I get more skilled, I will enjoy using various
effects to enhance the instruments I record, and even
use pre-samples with effects to create totally synthetic songs.
So, from the point of view of a station or machine that
covers the basics of multi-track recording and playback
and leaves room to grow into very sophisticated sampling and effects
production, what machine or station would You recommend?

Thanks,
Michael

---

From: Per Boysen <perboysen@gmail.com>
To: Loopers-Delight <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:15 PM

Subject: Re: THE BEST OF THE BEST LOOP STATIONS

Hi Michael,

It's hard for people to make recommendations as your description of
what you want to do in looping is rather vague. I just read through
the spec's for the 505 on this page
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/04/04/boss-intros-rc-505-tabletop-loop-station/
and it seems it in some ways meets your ideas about post loop effects.
The 505 also offers pre loop effects, to be recorded into the loop's
audio, so you get a chance to practice both workflows with this box.
Check out what can be done with the 505 and think about if the implied
performance flow would work well for your music. That's the only way
to go. Roland is known for good product build quality so what it's
about here is whether the feature set matches your needs.

Greetings from Sweden

Per Boysen
www.perboysen.com
http://www.youtube.com/perboysen


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Michael James
<livinguniverse@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Z....
>
> Thanks for Your reply.
> In reply to Your question: 'What do You want to use it for?'
> I have to say again:
> "I basically want a loop station with all
> the bells and whistles that allows
> excellent sound recording, layering and
> playback and that doesn't have software
> and or hardware problems.  I'm playing
> a lot of actual hand percussion and the saxophone
> and want to multi-track record with effects if desired."
> If this answer is not technically sophisticated enough,
> then help Me to give You more detailed information
> by asking Me questions that will clue You in.
> I'll put it this way:  the Boss RC505 (five hundred and five) looks very
> complete
> and it seems to be the go to machine for basic looping with
> all the bells and whistles, but I've heard that Boss looping
> stations can be and have been problematic.  So if the RC505
> doesn't have any problems, is it the go to loop station
> as of June 2013?  If not, then what is the basic looping station
> with all the bells and whistles that's totally reliable for laying down
> multiple
> tracks with crystal clear recording and playback?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Z <zzz@zzz.ch>
> To: Michael James <livinguniverse@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com"
> <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:35 PM
> Subject: Re: THE BEST OF THE BEST LOOP STATIONS
>
> Hehe, I guess everyone here will agree 'loopstations' should be understood
> as a family of instruments, like 'wind instruments' that include
> saxophones..
> Again, how do you plan to use it?
>
> Le 10 juin 2013 à 10:12, Michael James <livinguniverse@yahoo.com> a écrit :
>
> Thanks Andy for Your reply.
> I am a total novice regarding looping.
> I've seen live looping done by a very accomplished
> looper named Mihirangi.  She uses an RC50,
> but in researching that machine, I found that it's
> somewhat dated and then found that there are
> many complaints about the RC50, and this makes
> Me wary about Boss products.
> I basically want a loop station with all
> the bells and whistles that allows
> excellent sound recording, layering and
> playback and that doesn't have software
> and or hardware problems.  I'm playing
> a lot of actual hand percussion and the saxophone
> and want to multi-track record with effects if desired.
> There must be a go to loop machine or station that
> is the agreed upon standard as of June 2013 and I'm simply trying
> to learn what that standard is.
> I'll give You an anology: for saxophones, if someone said
> the Yamaha 62 Tenor is an excellent, safe horn to go with,
> probably 95% of saxophone knowledgeable folks would agree.
> It's simply a good horn that is well made and has a very reliable track
> record.
> I'm interested to know the equivalent for a looping machine/station.
> Thanks, Michael
>
>
>