Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
The LP1 does rule as far as the features, it's amazing! Like an 8 track recording studio at your feet! And so easy to use!! But...the Rang III has a smaller footprint and is self contained (unless you get the side car). Also, the LP1 needs a foot controller for hands free operation increasing its size even more. It's really nice to have those 8 tracks and I know once you get a smaller looper the features start peeling away. I've pretty much exclusively used an LP1 and *LOVE* it, I really do-happiness shaped into a singe rack space unit. But lately I've been thinking about downsizing (following this post has been awesome in helping weigh the options). I think the Boomerang III is the perfect balance of features and size. I've been really wanting to have a loop rig that is small enough to just bring with me on any "normal" gig/show. I play upright, electric, & resophonic basses and play different styles with different folks as an accompanist and also do a solo thing too. Sometimes I'll do a solo looping tune or two with folks I accompany and my full rig is just a bit too big and just a little too inconvenient to always bring along. Often I'll throw in my old RC2 to use in these situations but it's so limiting musically it's a drag, all the while the LP1 sits at home! This post has got me fired up, I'm going compact!! So...does anyone want to buy my LP1!? I'll throw in the midi-buddy foot controller too. I had Bob modify the midi in port to provide phantom power to the foot controller so no wall wart needed. It's in perfect condition, I'd take $875 and pay for shipping as well (within reason). Contact me off list if you're interested: Stevebassbird@yahoo.com Thanks all! Steve Uccello Www.steveuccello.com > On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Andrrew Owens <rootpile@icloud.com> wrote: > > Wow with these 45000 and rang comparisons, actually the LP1 DOES rule I > guess!! > > > >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Rusty Perez <rustys.lists@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Sergio, I don't know if you have gotten a response, but I have been >> thinking about this question in the past few days because I am looking >> for a new looper. >> Based on my research, I do not own either of these yet. >> >> As I understand, the 2880 and 45000 have four "tracks" and a master >> which are refered to as one "loop." These tracks are syncd together, >> and they must all be the same length. They can play together, or >> separately, but they CANNOT play one after the other. So, for example, >> you cannot record a verse on track 1 and a chorus on track 2 and then >> play them one after the other. >> You can do this if you use the 45000 and record one "loop" for the >> verse--which can contain four tracks--and one loop for the >> chorus--which contains four more tracks. >> Then, using the foot controller, you can switch back and forth between >> your first loop for the verse, and your second loop for the chorus. >> >> In contrast, the boomerang III has four possible loops at the same >> time. These loops can be played together, or one at a time one after >> the other depending on what mode you're in on the rang. Each loop can >> contain any number of layers which are similar to the "tracks" on the >> 45000. You can stack on your loops, but the individual layers cannot >> be panned like the individual tracks can be on the 45000. >> >> One advantage of the rang is that you can use the sereal sync mode >> which allows you to have one master loop which can be played at the >> same time as the other two or three sereal loops. This is called >> parallel loops. >> Depending on the mode you're set in, the rang can play parallel loops >> of different lengths and they don't have to be syncd. >> >> This is, in my opinion, the most important difference between the rang >> and the 45000. On the 45000 each of the 4 tracks in a "loop" must be >> the same length. Your "loops" can be different lengths, but they >> cannot be played at the same time or "parallel." >> >> So, with the rang, you can create your master loop, maybe a percussion >> track, and it will play while you switch from loop to loop to loop >> verse, chorus, verse style. >> >> Now, granted, you don't have the same flexibility of mixing your >> various layers in one loop like you can with the 45000, but that's not >> important to this loopmaker at this time. Another big difference to >> many is tha tyou can't save loops with the rang, but this loopmaker >> doesn't care right now. >> :-) >> >> >> Rusty >> >> >>> On 5/21/13, Sergio Girardi <simpliflying@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hello everybody, >>> >>> I was trying to sell my Boomerang 3 to a friend who is now interested >>> in the >>> Rang3. >>> I >>> am pretty sure the Rang 3 is more versatile as a looper and that the >>> 45000 cannot handle the 4 tracks in many different ways as the Rang can >>> handle its 3 or 4 separate loops. >>> But this of the 4 tracks vs 4 loops had already confused me at the >>> times of >>> the 2880. >>> My friend for example insists that the 45000 has got 4 separate loops. >>> Could anybody help me in understanding the differences and advantages >>> of >>> these two loopers? >>> Thanks! >