RE: RE: JamMan modifications

["Sellon, Bob" <bsellon@lexicon.com>]

Ed wrote:
>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?

The loops still use up audio memory but you can have up to 4 per page so   
you could have, for instance, a single page with 4 eight second loops   
(total 32 seconds) or two pages with 4 four second loops. Get it?

>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?
Yes. You can operate on any loop independently while the others continue   
to run. The basic rule is, you can only operate (replace, layer) on one   
loop at a time while the others play. The one exception I may make to   
that is the Delay mode/function. Its just way too cool to limit it. I'll   
have to see what kind of problems I run into though.

>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.

Thats been the thing. It gets weird real quick. I'll probably code it up   
an see how it works. I'll keep you posted.

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.

I think I get it. Sounds like the best solution is to let you tap in the   
size of the second loop. I

>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? ;-)

Send me some email direct (at bsellon@lexicon.com) about software   
testing.

Thanks for your input. It's definitely appreciated.

Bob Sellon
Lexicon/Stec