Support |
Frank Bas <frank.bas@dutch.nl> queried: > >From what I understand the trick that Fripp did with two Revoxes doesn't > differ all that much from what a tape-loop echo machine does. Or am I > overlooking something? I have an Echolette on the shelf (one with tubes > and an electronic eye) which I hope to restore to working order some day > and I would like to use to do some of the weird stuff Fripp used to do. > Could you give your comments on that? Hi Frank! While I might not use a tape setup to do my material, relying instead - and primarily for financial reasons originally - on a Digitech 7.6-sec. 'Time Machine' for my purposes.. But from what I understand about deck-to-deck looping (as opposed to my process, or physical tape loop methods like the Echolette), the differences have to do with the kind of layering that takes place. With the Deck-to-Deck method, there's the looped signal being electronically mixed via linein, the originally-laid sound never really disappearing unless through natural sonic obfuscation, as with dissonance. With the closed-system, single-box style (like mine), there are a finite number of stacks in memory (16 in mine), one for each loop cycle used. It uses a common computing method, FIFO (1st in, 1st out). So when you've laid down 16 layers of a loop, you have to remember while playing that the next cycle round, the first loop laid down just disappears. I suspect that the finite tape loop methods like the Echolette and Echoplex are somewhere in between, in that they're still electronically mixing a direct signal on top of a taped signal; but there's the added aspect of the signal from deck 2 - a signal from tape, not direct - electronically returned and fed to deck 1. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but that's what the difference sounds like to me. Stephen Goodman * Download The Loop Of The Week and more! EarthLight Studios * http://www.earthlight.net/Studios *--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------