Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
|
Search the archives for a lot of in depth
discussion. URL is at the footer of each list msg. My 2c, owning both: The EDP is way more
versatile, with many more options for loop manipulation, with superior real-time
control, and is way more responsive to timing ( a crucial ingredient given what
you can do ‘post-record’ with the EDP:
but you’re working with one loop at a time, and committing to single
mono track (or stereo with 2 EDP), so you need to take care in controlling your
input levels for each overdub. The EDP is like live to two-track recording
compared to 4 independent tracks with the Repeater. In general the EDP is a superior solo
improvisers axe, where the Repeater is superior for remixing, and using for
background tracks for one man band or ensemble use. I’m just throwing this out, others may
disagree or fill in more nuance… Neil -----Original Message----- I haven’t
seen this specific question, but I’m a latecomer to LD. If this is a totally played out issue, feel
free to flame me. ;) I own an
EDP, and I’m jealous of the Repeater’s multi-track looping. [So? Go buy one!] I can’t afford another looper yet. In mono mode, it looks like the Repeater’s
four tracks act like four layers but with each one sent to a different
out. This effectively allows
muting/unmuting of parallel parts, which is total gravy. I’m curious whether any EDP owners have
approximated “multi-track” stuff and how?
This is distinct from layering obviously, as I’m indirectly addressing
the oft asked “can I play loops in parallel with my EDP” question. Again, if this is way played out, konk me…
but then point me in the right direction. If the EDP
evolves, stereo processing and “multi-track” support would be really cool. --- --- --- |