Re: sample based looping vs. delay looping

[Mark Sottilaro <sine@zerocrossing.net>]

On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 11:04  AM, Lance Chance wrote:

> Thanks you guys.  I was indeed using a pure sine (kinda just as a test 
> for
> my filter factory) and certainly the unit does seem to produce really 
> nice
> loops from more dynamic material.

Right.  The "bump" that exists seems to be so subtle to me that I can't 
imagine it being noticeable unless you're drone is almost featureless.  
Is there a big need for that in most music?  I've always been of the 
mind to think, a difference which makes no difference, is no difference.

I always thought that people try to "break" their gear in a sense, then 
point to it and say, "It's not perfect!"  Perfect is boring, though a 
certain amount of flaws can make or break a device.  For instance, I 
could see someone saying, "The way I need a looper to work is to have it 
define the MIDI clock for me so all my other gear synchs to my loop." 
and then I'd say, "forget the Repeater."  If someone said, "I'm going to 
create ambient drones and soundscapes on a looper." I would for sure 
say, "Get the Repeater." (if it did exist to be gotten)  I guess if you 
went up to me and said, "I need a looper that will do seamless loops of 
dynamicless waveforms." I'd say, "you don't need a looper, you need a 
synth and a piece of duct tape."  This method works really well, and 
good duct tape can be purchased in most grocery stores for very little.

There were many performances that only used the Repeater at the Santa 
Cruz Loopfest, and there was not a single time that I thought, "Oh god!  
That bump!  WHY NO SEAMLESS LOOPS!?"

Mark Sottilaro