Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Good luck Rusty, please let us know how you get on with the Boomerang..!I must say that at first glance, the user interface fills me with panic.. no obvious "play" "stop" or even "record" buttons. As a musician, but even more so as a recording engineer, I rely on muscular memory to perform repetitive tasks, so I am a fan of dedicated properly "function prioritized" physical interfaces. The layout of the Boomerang breaks too many interface guidelines: Dissimilar functions are grouped together, there is no prioritization or hierarchy of function in the physical layout, and that circle of LEDs looks like an afterthought, so many vital functions are required to be assigned to "bonus" buttons.
When I worked with Bob Sellon on the Jam Man software, we came up with a MIDI map that allowed loops to be selected across the top row of footswitches and the bottom row had fixed, predictable assignments for play / mute for each loop. Once you were going you never had to look at anything. I made similar suggestions for the 2880, but I prefer their footcontroller to my MIDI controller, so I don't remember the layout...
CZ At 10:18 PM -0800 12/11/13, Rusty Perez wrote:
Hi folks, I want to second Cara's assertion that there is not a "best for blind folks" anything. :-) Without turning this in to a "what can blind people do?" thread, part of living with any sort of disability is learning how to problem solve. Some problems are worth solving, some are best avoided. So, while the 45000 may require less problem solving in the sight department, ultimately I think another looper may open up more flexibility for this blooper. And I'll throw in here that the 45000 really sounds like a GREAT machine for some. And, I stand corrected. A loop artist could certainly record verse on one track, chorus on a second, and percussion on a third, and, as long as all of these elements are the same length, could mute and unmute and loop to hisher heart's content. But, i think that, for my next looper, I'll likely be choosing a Boomerang which, while relying on lights to communicate settings, has many customization options, particularly when the sidecar is used. So, once I employ the assistance of a sighted person to configure things just as i want them, I should be able to fly the rang without shoegazing. :-) I'll certainly let the list know how it works out for me. Rusty On 12/11/13, Cara Quinn <caraquinn@caraquinn.com> wrote:I so so so wish that there could be a pedal board version of the EDP! Or at least a smaller version that would not need a rack. Rather than have this turn into a 'what is my ultimate looper' thread, ;) I'll just say that though I really find the feature sets of 'larger' loopers way more liberating creatively, I too, very much agree that smaller / lighter footprints are where it's at. Smiles, cara :) --- iOS design and development - LookTel.com --- View my Online Portfolio at: http://www.onemodelplace.com/CaraQuinn Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/ModelCara On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Steve U <stevebassbird@yahoo.com> wrote: 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.comOn 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. :-) RustyOn 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 canhandle 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!
-- ... http://www.zmix.net http://albumcredits.com/zmix