Re: Heavy philosophy on the fifth anniversary of LD (was: a Repeatersuggestion)

[hutton <hutton@pathcom.com>]

I share this opion also ..... You may not like it, but for me ,,,,,,
"Myself", this rings very true. although one of the designers has
already hit himself on the head for omitting this feature, I do not
personally require it.

Richard Zvonar wrote:

> At 3:09 PM -0400 9/4/01, Tom Ritchford wrote:
>
> >HOWEVER, not having a wet/dry mix control on an effects
> >unit is just wrong.  There is no way to argue
> >this matter!  Only the most primitive effects
> >units don't have a wet-dry mix -- even little
> >stomp boxes like the Headrush have it nowadays
> >or at least a "pure wet" output.
>
> Funnily enough, I've always thought that a wet/dry mix was a feature
> more typical of lower-end processors. That's because when I started
> using signal processors as performance instruments the high-end units
> were designed to be fed from an auxiliary send and then returned to
> the consol for mixing. As I recall, it was only later that the design
> of the cheaper performance-oriented processors started to influence
> the "pro" devices and wet/dry mix started showing up as an option.
> --
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Richard Zvonar, PhD
> (818) 788-2202
> http://www.zvonar.com
> http://RZCybernetics.com
> http://www.cybmotion.com/aliaszone
> http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=rz