Coming from the Repeater world and being used to storing many loops onto various CF cards (I have over 512mb of memory in total), This comes in very handy when I play a gig for instance, or when I tour without having a computer around to transfer the newly created loops. Memory can fill up very fast when you base your whole gig on looping with a few tracks (which then you don't want to delete until you're back to a computer for transfer). I suppose using 16 bit instead of 24 bit would solve that problem though and give much more looping time. It's just that I was wondering why the memory was only 128mb and not higher in view of the price of RAM + the price of the machine. Then I think someone wrote it's because the whole system could actually not support more than 128mb. Anyways, as Ben wrote: "A network storage drive using the ethernet link is under study I think" so that would answer portable storage issues. I think this machine has great potential and may well add it to my looping rig when it has most of the features I require for this kind of investment. It's also brilliant that it fits in 1 rack unit. All the best Weasel -----Original Message----- From: loop.pool [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: 28 January 2006 09:17 To: LOOPERS DELIGHT (posting) Subject: RE: Looperlative - Max Time? about the Looperlative's maximum recording time, mrweasel wrote: "That's not a lot. Any way to upgrade to 512Mb or even 256Mb?" I have to ask: what on earth would you do with more than almost 1 minute a track in stereo for 8 tracks in a live looping situation? Quite frankly, unless you are laying individual percussion sounds for a rhythm track, how frequently would you even use 8 tracks in a single piece of music? The concept of timbral masking rears it's ugly head if you start piling too much stuff onto a track. Even if you are running long ambient loops in a piece, how many of those tracks would you run at any given instance? Unless you are going, purposefully for a muddy mess one isn't going to run more than three or possibly for such tracks at a time. That would give you four stereo tracks at almost two minutes apiece. You can't even perceive a loop that is two minutes long as a loop. Sorry, but I just had to get that off of my chest. peevishly, but not without some sense of humor, Rick ps and forgive me, mrweasel, I don't know that actual answer to your question, but Bob Amstadt, the designer can answer it at the forum at www.looperlative.com.