Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Charles Zwicky wrote: > > > Andy, > I think this assesment is too cynical. sure, :-) fit's the facts though. Where are the bug free DSP devices? ( other than simple ones ) > I have done beta testing with > several pro audio manufaturers (I am a professional recording engineer) > and the reality is that the "programmer " is often a part of a team of > developers and programmers, and in DSP driven products, there are > programmers dedicated to user interface, DSP coding, algorhythm design > API integration (if it's software) etc. Right, and that would be the case with Roland. Actually I don't think Roland have a lot of bugs in their gear. I'd be fairly certain they have guys to systematically test their products. ( but who wouldn't conceive what LDers would want to do with it) > As a beta tester, I was perhaps > the only member of the 'team' who dealt extensively and exclusivly with > the end product. > The basic reality is that the alpha and beta devices > are broken and malfunctioning and need sombody with excellent > troubleshooting -and particularly communication - skills to sus them > out. wanna job ? :-) > At some point, there is a 'drop dead' date and the thing gets > released, warts and all. Well, I'd agree with that. That's why the LP-1 thing works so well. There's no cut off date. The buyer is a tester, and possibly a contributor. ...and generally buyers end up happy. The same model works for software loopers. andy butler > > -CZ > >> Charles Zwicky wrote: >>> >>> It really falls on the Beta testers. If they don't use the devices >>> the way that us on the cutting edge might then these things slip past >>> them. >> >> Roland knew about some of the RC-50 issues already. >> Don't think they have much of a clue really, apart from being top >> notch at profits. >> >> Complex loop devices really need something more than to rely on the >> poor old "Beta Tester", as in someone who plays their music in the way >> they like to see if it works out on the new device. >> >> Indeed, it's highly desirable to have a beta tester like Andre Lafosse >> who'll push the technology to it's limit, but how realistic is that >> hope? >> >> As cpr hints, it's either down to the programmer to ensure that >> there's no way to crash the device for any possible sequence of button >> presses, or they should get someone else to do it. Typically, the >> programmer isn't the best tester of their own product, as they already >> "know to use it". >> As looping devices increase in capability, there's 2 ways I can see >> this going. >> >> 1) Actually pay someone to test, it's a skilled job. >> 2) Make it known that purchasers/users are "testers" right from the >> beginning, and have good provision for dealing with that. >> >>> This is why the RC-50 gets complaints here but the LP-1 and 2880 >>> don't...and vice versa in the mainstream press. >> >> The reason the LP-1 doesn't get complaints here is that these are >> dealt with on the LP-1 forum. >> There's not that many LP-1's in the world, so users get their answers >> direct from Bob Amstadt. >> Probably the 2880 is just too simple to have a lot of problems. >> >> >> Isn't the RC-50 the first looper by a major company to have these sort >> of problems? >> It's a lot easier to create bug free software if all the features are >> known before programming starts, and I'm guessing that's how the >> majors do it. The independent loop developers are usually open to >> change their product on the fly, which is no bad thing, but eventually >> tends to create difficulties and complications in the software. >> >> If we want to be on the "cutting edge" as loopers, I think we're going >> to be testers :-) >> >> andy butler >> > >