Re: Repeater

[Mark <mark@redmoon-music.com>]

Kim Flint (04:40 AM 07.27.2000) wrote:

 >> >I'm not saying that the only use for an Electrix product is for a DJ.
 >> >I'm suggesting that the Repeater seems to be less geared towards live,
 >> >performance-oriented looping and more towards studio-based production
 >> >work.  That's all.
 >>
 >>Oh. I read your words as just the opposite. It looked like you were 
 >saying
 >>that Repeater was geared toward the live crowd.
 >
 >Isn't it?? I would think that's a good thing.

I think that we're having a breakdown in semantics. My confusion over what 
Andre was saying is based on what seems to be conflicting statements to 
me. 
It was my impression that Andre is separating a "DJ" and a "live 
instrumentalist". The key being this statement:

   >That's not to say that an instrumental performer couldn't use it in
   >a live situation, but from what I can tell it seems like the interface 
and
   >the unit's intent is more ideally suited to a DJ than a live
   >instrumentalist.

And then the statement was made just above stating that the machine may be 
geared more for "studio-based production work".

This became a point of confusion for me. But, I didn't want to bring these 
statements out in front specifically for clarification due to Andre 
obviously being a highly respected individual. I simply fell back to the 
"safe ground" of it must of been my misunderstanding of what he was saying.

My overall general reaction to Andre's words was solely based on my 
impression that he was labeling the box only as a DJ tool.


 >> >At any rate, I think it's a bit premature to get too deep into a thread
 >> >on a unit that was just premiered at NAMM.
 >>
 >>I disagree. I thought that Electrix may be watching the list and Damon's
 >>response to the list shows that they are.
 >
 >Actually, like you, they just joined this list today.

Ummm, having admin'd lists for years, I can appreciate the information 
that 
you have in front of you to make this statement. But in my own experience, 
watching the subs for domain names doesn't tell the whole story. :)

I have many "interesting folks" camped out on one of my lists, and you 
wouldn't know it from their email addresses. :) Add to those the people 
that live only in the archives and you should see the return names on some 
of the private mail I get. :)


 >>The box isn't due to ship until November, and the cabinet at the show was
 >>clearly _production_ class. That would indicate to me that they have a
 >>pretty good handle on the mechanics of the machine, and that they're
 >>working on the software.
 >
 >Not necessarily. As Matthias and I have discovered many many times, it is
 >really hard to add another feature in software when you've already used up
 >all the buttons in the hardware. :-)

:) I agree, of course. The hardware has to be to such a state that it can 
support new software features without sacrificing the usability of the UI. 
Hiding modes on a machine behind non-silkscreened options can kill a 
product. Especially when working a box live where the performer is then 
being asked to think twice about what "mode" the machine is in before 
hitting a button.


 >>One great thing about digital machines is more times than not, "it's 
 >only a
 >>matter of software".
 >
 >haha! I wish that were true! Unfortunately, you can't program more CPU
 >power, more address space, more DSP processors, more knobs, more audio ins
 >and outs, a different display, etc. The hardware is what it is.

True. I made an unqualified statement in the passion of trying to get a 
point across.


 >anyway, welcome to LD.

Thanks Kim.


And my apologies to those who misinterpreted what appears to of been my 
misinterpretation of what Andre was saying.

Mark
_______________________________________________________
|_) _  _||\/| _  _ ._          evolutionary electronica
| \(/_(_||  |(_)(_)| |            www.redmoon-music.com
_______________________________________________________