] [Thread Prev
Re: A Repeater suggestion
> Yeah, but put in a wet/dry mix control, like every other pro effect
> processor every made.
This gets into the whole issue of, "What is a looper SUPPOSED to do? Is
it SUPPOSED to operate like a pro effects processor?"
I recall Kim stating once that he felt things like pitch-shifting and
time-stretching didn't really belong in something like an EDP, because
those were features based upon applying a DSP approach to sound. He
felt the whole EDP angle was about recording, editing,
cutting-and-pasting, and otherwise EDITING the audio on the fly, rather
than out-and-out PROCESSING it. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm
mis-representing you, Kim.)
So the Repeater is interesting in that it does a bit of sound editing,
AND sound processing. If someone's coming to it from a background of
real-time looping with units like a JamMan, EDP, Boomerang, etc., then
they could well find the wet/dry and feedback characteristics to be a
On the other hand, if someone's approaching it from a multi-track
recording perspective, and looking at Repeater as being a portable,
hardware extension of a program like ACID, then things like wet/dry
mixes and feedback functions won't be an issue, because those features
don't have anything to do with multitrack recording.
And beyond that, if there WERE a wet/dry control on Repeater, how should
it be implemented? Should there be a universal balance that affects all
four tracks uniformly? Should each channel have its own discrete
balance? Should there be both? If so, how should they interact?
I do think there's a certain dichotomy starting to emerge in terms of
feature sets, with the Repeater more geared towards multi-track-style
recording, panning, processing, and storage of stereo audio, and the EDP
more geared towards live, spontaneous interactive performance and
in-depth sample editing between the input and the looper.
OF COURSE this is an overgeneralization, and of course both units can
function in both live and studio environments. But it does seem to me
that they're leaning towards somewhat seperate ends of the live/studio
spectrum in terms of the way they're laid out, and in terms of the
design philosophy behind each one.
I think this sort of issue is interesting, since it re-opens the whole
issue of what a looper should or should not have. Some people will no
doubt find it a serious set-back. Others won't ever miss it.
The real question, though, is what sort of wet/dry balance will be on