Re: Any news on LP2, anyone?

[Grant <grantmepeace@mindspring.com>]

>Interesting perspective Andy - thanks for mentioning that. My current 
>looper is a RiffBox, which also requires a loop to start at the beginning 
>of a bar...
>
>But in cases (like you mention) where a loop isn't best initiated at the 
>beginning of the 1st bar, a workaround is to start at the middle of the 
>loop.
>
>So with 2-bar loop, you'd start at the beginning of bar 2 and cycle 
>through bar 1 to that point again.  Once the looping starts, it gives the 
>impression of a seamless loop starting at bar 1.


I'm curious about this: how could you start at some arbitrary point 
(relative to another playing loop) and expect the looper to know your 
intentions? I can see how the recording could be started but you would 
have to remember exactly where you started the second loop and terminate 
it at exactly the same point to expect the loops to be multiples of one 
another and play in sync. Or at least be within some quantitization 
factor. That seems like a more difficult thing to (mentally) keep track of 
than making a short "synchronization" loop and then let it initiate and 
terminate subsequent loops, giving you a wider window of control.


>I could see this workaround/solution also applying for the Pigtronix 
>Infinity.

Can you expand on this? My impression from reading the manual is you set a 
multiplier for the second loop (number of lengths of the first loop) which 
creates a new length for the second loop. Maybe your technique will work 
here too but it seems odd to me to have to figure out how long you want 
the second loop to be before you start recording (vs letting the length be 
determined by when you decide to press the button). Anyway, I can see how 
"multiply" made at least some sense with a single-track looper (even then 
I have decided it was an unnecessary limitation) but why is it considered 
to be such a powerful approach with multiple-track loopers?

Thanks for any illumination,

G