Re: RC-50 Fade Out

["Todd Pafford" <calenlas@gmail.com>]

Bill,

You're on the right track with feedback.  Indeed, for a looper to loop
indefinitely, feedback would be at unity gain or 100%.  However, if
you want the loop to slowly change over time as you add new bits and
old bits fade to nothingness you'd want feedback set at something less
than 100%.  If feedback is set at 97% for example, it takes so long
for the old stuff to fade out that a listener may be ignorant of the
subtle changes until a half-hour later they find the loop is
completely different from where they started.  Conversly, if a
musician wanted to quickly get rid of a section they may set feedback
to something like 50%, where the next time around the existing
material will only be half as loud and new stuff will easily cover it.

Being able to control this feedback level (usually with a pedal) is
obviously a major boon to loopers.  It turns the loop into a living
entity, growing and changing over time versus a static loop with
overdubs (and perhaps undos).

Todd


On 2/19/06, Bill Fox <billyfox@soundscapes.us> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm a bit dense.  I totally understand the concept of feedback
> in the world of delay units.  Without feedback, a delay happens only
> once.  With feedback of less than unity gain, there are repeats that
> decay over time.  With feedback at unity gain, you have a delayed signal
> repeats forever... like a loop.  With feedback greater than unity gain,
> the volume builds up on each repetition.  But a loop, by any definition
> I know, doesn't need any feedback in order to, um, loop ad infintitum.
> Being the owner of only a Boss RC-20 and an Akai Headrush, what am I not
> understanding?  In the world of looping, what is the purpose of
> feedback?  A tape loop does not have feedback.  It is a length of tape
> that has been spliced into a loop and plays as long as you desire.  It
> will not change in volume over time.  Perhaps loopers such as EDP, etc.
> are different than the tape loop analogy and are closer to the delay
> concept, à la three head tape machines, analog and digital delays?  Thus
> making the looper appellation a slight (but not total) misnomer?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>