Re: A Repeater suggestion

["Miko Biffle" <Miko.Biffle@asml.com>]

Mark >> Yeah, but put in a wet/dry mix control, like every other pro 
effect processor every made.

Andre > This gets into the whole issue of, "What is a looper SUPPOSED to 
do?  Is it SUPPOSED to operate like a pro effects processor?"

With all due respect Andre, this is a system integration problem. EVERYONE 
using a mixer and bussing the looper on an aux send is going to have this 
problem, and provide a workaround to solve it. Managing multiple 
inputs/instruments/voices usually involves a mixer. Someone at the board 
at a show who would like to add a looper for post processing will have 
problems with the lack of a wet/dry mix control. Granted the Repeater has 
an awesome feature set... They are cutting off simple integration of their 
product to a very LARGE user group.

A question for DT... how are you patching it?

Andre > 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.

In the multi-track paradigm, most multi-track studios manage their 
dsp's/loopers etc using the same fx buss / aux buss architecture most 
mixers are designed with. ACID is a DAW multi-track with it's own 
limitations etc. Mix seems like a simple OBVIOUS function. Why was it left 
off? Damon?

Andre > 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? 
  

A universal balance. That way it WORKS on an aux send of a mixer. This is 
basic, studio setup stuff here.

Andre > 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.

Once again. Conventional Multi-Track style is typically the usual aux send 
sorta deal, which asks for 100% wet operation. Standard studio practice. 
This is the reason I don't use Vortexes, and Line 6 DL4, as much as I love 
them both. I'm not willing to either jettison my mixer, or ADD more gear 
to deal with managing feedback and volume jumps due to having dry signal 
present in something on an aux send. I've dealt with it many, many times, 
and it's a pain in the butt.

> 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.  

If I were selling a product and KNEW I'd lose users due to a simple 
oversight, I'd clear that up. If Electrix is listening, I'm adding my 
request for wet/dry mix as well as single button press to go from record 
to overdub. This is also a serious ommision.


Miko Biffle - Miko.Biffle@asml.com
"Running scared from all the usual distractions!"