R: A Repeater suggestion

["tiscali" <grazianoaccinni@tiscalinet.it>]

ACCYNNY www.rustyrobot.com Album "HYPNOS"
----- Original Message -----
From: Andre LaFosse <altruist@altruistmusic.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: A Repeater suggestion


> Yo Mark,
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > 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
problem.
>
> 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
> the Againinator?!
>
> --Andre LaFosse
> http://www.altruistmusic.com
>