RE: Repeater and EDP (d/t)

["Kevin Mulvihill" <kmulvihill@mediaone.net>]

Insightful post, Andre. Actually, you are correct too... having independent
outs for each track and FX inserts opens up a wealth of possibilities that 
I
have not yet explored. When these approaches are considered, it becomes
readily obvious that the EDP doesn't necessarily belong after the Repeater.
Yesterday, just to get the Repeater up and running, I set it up in mono
mode. I will explore the routing possibilities more fully in the coming 
days
and weeks.

Back to the fun...
Kevin

> Pardon my non-dt commentary...
>
> > Anyway, after a little experimentation, I'm just wondering,
> d/t, surely you
> > have the EDP in the signal chain after the Repeater right?
> That's the way
> > that offers the most possibilities, or at least, so it seems to me.
>
> Really?!
>
> I don't have a repeater, but my presumption is that the natural signal
> chain would be to have the EDP BEFORE the Repeater.  Why?
>
> Repeater works in stereo, with different pan and output for each
> individual track.  If you send that into an EDP, everything gets summed
> to mono and output as the same, and the possibilities for discrete
> signal routing are lost.
>
> The whole issue of simultaneous, discreet loops, with individual editing
> tweakability, seems to be at the core of the Repeater's design
> "identity," just as I would suggest that the idea of
> editing/cutting-and-pasting a loop "cycle" is one of the signature
> traits of an EDP.  It would seem to me that running the Repeater into a
> mono in/out unit (such as an EDP) would be sacrificing a lot of its
> strong points...  but of course that's just hypothetical speculation on
> my part.
>
> I do seem to recall Mr. Torn saying that his EDP was indeed before the
> Repeater, but I'll certainly defer to the man himself on that one.
>
> It is really interesting to see that the emerging consensus is largely
> of the Repeater as an alternate looper with a new and different design
> slant, as opposed to something that utterly and completely supplants the
> previously existing units.  Considering that the EDP dates back seven
> years or so, that's saying a lot...
>
> Anyway.
>
> --A
>