RE: Looperlative questions

[Dave Lauzon <davelauz@hotmail.com>]

" I'm contemplating moving from the EDP to the Looperlative."

Best thing I ever did.

Dave

> From: billwalker@baymoon.com
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: RE: Looperlative questions
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:15:11 -0700
>
> Eight independent loops that can be synced or not synced, with independence
> over track length, track speed, panning, and direction. There are multiply
> functions, and both cue and play once functions. I rarely use the multiply
> function as it's just as easy to create a longer loop length than the
> original simply by recording a longer loop on a new track. This is, and I
> repeat, a different beast than an EDP, and though they share some
> similarities, you would be wise to throw out any preconceived ideas that it
> will act like an EDP.
> Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hamburg [mailto:mark@grubmah.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:37 AM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Looperlative questions
>
> I'm contemplating moving from the EDP to the Looperlative. Yeah, it
> would be nice to keep both, but part of the point of this is to reduce
> rack space consumption. But this leads to some questions:
>
> * Am I correct in my impression that the core model for the
> Looperlative is essentially 8 parallel Line6 DL-4s -- i.e., the
> primary controls are record/overdub and play. Is there even a play
> once function?
>
> * Is there support for multiply? I've seen a chart that says yes. I've
> seen threads that say no. Is this expected to be handled by recording
> a separate loop for the extended portion?
>
> * I've seen talk of a cue function for providing command
> synchronization at various boundaries. Did this ever get implemented?
>
> Thanks.
> Mark
>

---

Windows Live helps you keep up with all your friends, in one place.