Jamman sync issues (continued)

["Sellon, Bob" <bsellon@lexicon.com>]

James,
Your suggestion may actually be more esthetically pleasing than the brute  
 
force mute I suggested. The only thing I'm concerned about is that you   
will probably still have some kind of artifact at the boundary due to   
both loops playing at the same time for a moment. In putting together the  
 
new version of the software, I had to make a fairly radical change to the  
 
basic software mechanics (???) which produces the loops. This change   
allows a lot of really cool stuff like slap delays and perhaps other   
kinds of DSP things but it broke the MIDI clock synchronization.   
Strangely enough, the new system lends itself to the technique you are   
suggesting so I'll probably try that first. This is one of the few   
remaining (though still fairly big) issues remaining in the new software.  
 


I'll keep you posted and, thanks for the suggestion.

Bob Sellon
Lexicon/Stec

 ----------
From:  Loopers-Delight[SMTP:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, May 13, 1997 8:17 AM
To:  Loopers-Delight; bsellon
Subject:  Re: FW: JamMan modifications (sync to MI

In a message dated 11/05/97  8:31:318:23, you(Bob Sellon) write:

>James,
>My options are limited but I'm thinking about providing a fade at the
>loop boundry when synced to MIDI clock to eliminate the pops. The only
>problem is you'll hear a short drop out at the boundry. This seems
>reasonable and perhaps even usable compared to the current situation.

Yes, but if you could record a loop which was a bit longer wouldn't you
be able to cross-fade it with itself?