Support |
>Obviously Matthias, I will bow to your superior wisdom on the topic, >but I would have thought to just adding the ability to respond and >sync a single mono loop to MIDI start and stop messages really >wouldn't be that difficult at all? After all, it's >one of the most basic functions of the JamMan, and if the ability to >sync is there on the other delays, they must be most of the way >there already, no? hm... it depends on what you mean by "respond to a sync". You are right that some delays read MIDIclock and create a delay of an apropriate time, but then they dont continue syncing. As long as the delay repeats just a few time, this is not audible, but they way we keep loops going, we would hear them falling apart. You are also right that this would be simple and still better than nothing. ;-) As far as I understood, there are 3 units so far, that continuously sync to MIDI: - The JamMan creates hicks at loop end, that some users complain about. - There are hardly any such complaints about the EDP, but I know there are such artefacts, too :-) (depending strongly on the regularity of the incoming clock). - Now Electrix chose the more elegant and flexible way to stretch the loop. But (out of filter theory) it seems impossible to create a (quicker sample clock out of a slow (and sometimes instable) MIDIclock without getting some delay and some oscillation in the speed regulation. And then the stretching brings also artefacts... I hope they can improve it, but some way or other, the problem continues, I am afraid... For a connection to a sequencer, the solution clearly is to use the loop unit as master, but even this is not easy... > > >No syncing????? huh? what's the deal with that? That's sooo easy to >> >do if the MIDI is already there!!! >> >> well, I spent a terrific time with it and Electrix probably too, >> before they released it with mentioned limitations... so what makes >> you think its sooo easy? >> -- >> >> >> ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org >> -- ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org