[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: RE: JamMan modifications

Bob Sellon said:

>I'm actually talking about 4 independent tracks playing at once. It was
>something that I really wanted to get into the original Jamman but we
>couldn't figure out how to deal with it in the user interface. The answer
>was the concept of a "page". In the new software I'm working on, I refer
>to the combination of all loops currently playing as a page. Each page
>can contain up to 4 loops/delays/samples (channels?), each with a
>separate level and pan control. You tap in the first loop in a page then
>select other channels which, currently, are initialized to the same size
>as the first loop. We currently allow a particular channel to be divided
>down when in the echo mode but I will probably fold that into the loop
>mode as well. When you need a clean slate, you switch to a new page. The
>new page gives you up to four new loops/delays/samples. We are currently
>have up to 4 pages. Each page stores the pan and level of each
>loop/channel. Pages are changed on the loop boundries which is where I am
>running into problems with the odd loop sizes. The hardware is capable of
>having all four loops be any size whatsoever but I still have to work
>through some of the issues of changing pages, etc..

Did you say pan of each loop? That must mean STEREO!  Will this cause the
length of available loop time to be cut in half to process left and right?
Also, will you be able to mute or replace any of the 4 loops on one page,
say you wanted to mute loop number 2 on a page and leave loops 1, 3, 4
still playing or even replace loop 3 while still hearing the other loops?
Will this be possible? I can definitely see where odd loop sizes could mess
up trying to sync across pages. Maybe you could have an "un-synced" mode
where each page could be as long as wanted or needed and you since you are
not syncing you don't need to worry how to sync from one page to another.
Just starting page 2 at the loop boundary of loop 1. Maybe in a "synced"
mode if the second and subsequent pages were some multiple of the first
such as half , twice, 3 times etc. or maybe even +1, +2, +3 , so if page 1
is 4 beats long, page 2 could be 5 or 6 or 7 beats long, maintaining the
common quarter note pulse? This would let you have a 4/4 page followed by a
5/4 page. I could see some practical applications of this, but maybe it's
too weird or hard to implement.

Bob again:

>Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble
>syncronizing  the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you
>should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally
>important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to
>another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the
>second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing
>real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the
>first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so
>the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first.
>Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply
>use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman
>handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic.

Bob, let me clarify what I meant. When I sync to a drum machine , there is
no problem lining loops 2, 3 4 etc. up to the pulse, because the drum
machine is my "click track". Suppose I want to strum an acoustic guitar
loop without using a "click" for timing, say a one measure A section in
loop 1, obviously at the end of loop 1 I can have loop 2 cued up to start
recording, so it's not really the starting point of loop 2 where the
problem is, it is the ending point of loop 2. Say loop one is exactly 4
seconds long. I think I have decent timing but humans aren't perfect so
without a "click" track when I play,  maybe I finish loop 2 at 3.98
seconds, so now there is a tiny gap at the end of loop 2 which is
noticeable when I switch between loops, as well as if my loop 2 is a little
longer than loop1, then loop 2 gets chopped off a little at the end. Is
this a little bit clearer? That's why for me at least, there are times when
I don't need or want to be synced to anything and letting each loop be its'
own length would be very useful.

Thanks for your time and allowing us to give you some input. I really look
forward to the upgrade. Oh, by the way do you need any beta testers? ;-)