] [Thread Prev
RE: Looperlative - Max Time?
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
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
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
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
three or possibly for such tracks at a time. That would give you four
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