Re: Multitrack looper (was: Loop features, FX processor)

[matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)]

Dr  Pycraft said:
>> >The JM is great; the only differences I'd make are
>> >1.  The ability to play different loops concurrently, ie like a 
>multitrack
>> >       recorder where each could be muted, faded etc

myself:
>> This is something many dream of...
>> How would you like to control those in practical terms (a key that 
>does...)?

Dr Pycraft again:
>Exactly the same way the JM deals with separate loops at the moment - by
>scrolling thgrough them.  If I remember correctly (I'm not a user of
>multiple loops) the JM shows the current active loop on the front panel,
>andd operations only apply to that loop.  So if you have loops 1,2 and 3
>and you want to fade 3, select it and hit "fade".  The other loops 
>continue
>as before.  OK you have to remember what's in what loop, but we have to do
>that for multiple loops anyway.

Now I am confused. I was not aware the JM was able to play its various
loops simultaneously. And its your proposual for this modification that
iniciates this mail... ?
Or: what would be the difference between a multitrack looper and having
several simultaneous loops?

Hmm, you do not use multiple loops (neither do I), but would we use
multiple tracks?

>It's really an expansion on the UNDO key - you can start with ostinato
>chords (loop 1) add a riff (2) and a melody (3), then replace the riff, or
>suddenly mute the riff and melody for dramatic effect.  The JM's phrased
>mute would be ideal for this, as you could cue 2 loops to mute at the end
>of the next bar, giving time to select and mute both.  In order to keep
>track of the number of concurrent loops, that number would best be kept
>small and so the JM's memory wouldn't need to be overexpanded...

The Plex is not able to play several loops simultaneously, so far.
The idea with scrolling through loops is common to all units and ideas.
But:
You would not need to operate several loops as one?
To "pre-operate" them with the "phrased" (JM) or "quantized" (Plex)
functions might help, but in my case would not resolve, because I rarely
play in respect to loop-end.

I see that a extended use of multiple tracks could make UNDO and Multiply
rather useless (having only 3-5 parallel loops, I would still want them!).
But then, the various loops have to be of different length and synced,
which corresponds somehow to the Next-Insert (TimeCopy) function of the
Plex.
For the operation of several loops, would it become complicated?


Then, there was MiqSk8's dream:

>the idea i have in my mind would involve some kind of visual feedback- 
>click
>this button, light a goes on, now you're working with loop a(b,c,d). now 
>the
>loop tools(volume, recoed, multiply, reverse, modulation((!))) are 
>working on
>that particular loop. it would require the loopy one to keep track of 
>what's
>what in a logical manner as opposed to a tactile feedback manner(hearing 
>it).
>
>while i'm a complete midi novice, i'm thinking that the individual loop
>information (is there one in b, what's the volume level of d) could be 
>sent
>as some midi data, which then could be sent to something with a screen (i
>won't show my bias) for more of that instaneous feedback to avoid 
>swelling in
>that big loop that has nothing in it.

Yes, I think display becomes very important in this context. Thats why I
thought we should do it in a computer right away...
Do you think a LCD would do it?
Or did I get your wrong... you want to send this information by MIDI from
the looper to where?
Would it make sense to have a looper hardware that takes a computer to
control it?

>- if several loops could be concurrent the
>added flexibilty of more than two outputs that would be assignable by midi
>messages as well... certain extensions of the multitrack metaphor could be
>applied as the idea of improvized multitrack playing is exactly what i 
>want
>to do, and if i could do it with one or two boxes instead of ten... more 
>than
>one midi in (more pedals=more control, especially for multiple concurrent
>loops) and more than one out (synch, dump, once i get data in loop d start
>the sequencer, i'll stop there, but even more ideas rattling me)

Sounds good, all kinds of interdependent cues.
For me it would be like a mixing desk with pan for each loop and at leas
one Aux send, because the percussion loops I have done lately need
different reverb and positioning for each instrument.
But it also takes a system that my friend percussionist is able to 
understand...


We will end up getting there!
Matthias