Re: Kim on EDP

[Kim Flint <kflint@loopers-delight.com>]

At 05:20 AM 9/28/2001, SoundFNR@aol.com wrote:
>Hi Kim (from andy)
>andy:
> > >Thanks for that Kim, but doesn't this mean I'd have to hit Insert and 
>move
> >  >that pedal simultaneously in order to go directly into Insert.
> >
>kim:
> >  no, it doesn't have to be simultaneous. The pedal control on the loop
>input
> >  volume is independent of what function is running. So I would think 
>you
> >  could easily turn the volume down just before you do this insert. Or 
>you
> >  could use Quantize, so the Insert doesn't start until the next cycle
> >  boundary. Then you could press insert well in advance and then turn 
>the
> >  loop input volume down before it starts.
>Ok, it's possible, :- stop noodling; push on pedal; hit Insert.

that's right. although I don't see why you have to stop noodling. :-)  The 
whole idea is that you could do this while you continue to play.


>I haven't found a use for Quantise yet, as I don't use a dum machine.
>................I mean drum machine

Quantize has nothing to do with drum machines! It is just a question of 
how 
you approach rhythm in manipulating loops. With quantize off, all actions 
you do with the EDP occur instantly, exactly when you execute them. With 
quantize on, all actions occur at the next cycle boundary, with the 
machine 
executing them exactly at the cycle boundary.

If having functions start exactly at the rhythm of the cycle boundaries is 
important in your use of loops, quantize is great because the machine can 
be far more precise with this than you could ever be. So you just press 
the 
button early and let the machine take care of the precision for you while 
you focus on playing something else. Usually people who use loops in more 
structured rhythmic music like this mode.

On the other hand, if your music does not require such precision, or you 
prefer to be free off such constraints and like to be in control yourself, 
unquantized is probably for you. The cycle boundaries don't really matter 
anymore and you freely execute things where you feel it. This usually 
appeals to more ambient styles, and soloists.

Practically, I think most people end up using a combination of both modes 
and switch back and forth depending on what they are doing. Even within 
the 
creation of a given loop you may want to do this. You might start out 
"free" and unquantized, building up some texture or whatever, and 
gradually 
form it into something more rhythmic and groove like. The startpoint 
function of the echoplex is really useful at that point, because most 
likely the "downbeat" of your newly groovy loop probably has little to do 
with the actual point where the echoplex thinks the startpoint is. So you 
tap the new startpoint, and then turn quantize on. Then all subsequent 
actions are quantized exactly to that point and are in perfect rhythm.

> >  also, since this loop input level control is always available you can
> >  actively control it while you are doing the insert or multiply, so 
>you 
> can
> >  continue playing and decide as you go what gets added to the loop or 
>not.
> >  in this case, it would be the same pedal you would have to control
>feedback
> >  in Loop mode. For me that is something I want to have available all 
>the
> >  time anyway, so a dedicated pedal for that seems worth it.
> >
>
>Yes of course, another lead, another pedal, and by next week I won't know 
>how
>I did without it.

that's correct. :-)


> >  One thing to note, this loop input level control that is available in
>delay
> >  mode is actually an analog volume control. (necessary to have smooth
>volume
> >  swells that we wanted in this mode, with no zippering noise that you
> >  usually get with midi volume controls.)  Unfortunately that means this
> >  particular loop input level is not midi controllable. Feedback and 
>loop
> >  output volume are midi controllable.
> >
>Isn't the feedback setup different in Delay Mode too?
>In Loop Mode the feedback changes at the loop end.
>In Delay it can be used to fade out just a bit of the loop!

no, the feedback is exactly the same in both cases. It doesn't matter if 
you are in loop mode or delay mode. Feedback is a live control at all 
times, and you can always manipulate it during a loop to just fade out one 
portion while maintaining another. Then you can overdub something new into 
that portion of the loop, so you might gradually evolve only one part 
while 
another remains the same.  This is a great technique, I like that a lot.


>Do I get an "Undocumented-Feature-Credit" for that?

sorry, no. :-)  Loop feedback has been discussed many times before. There 
is a whole section in the Echoplex FAQ about feedback control that is 
probably interesting for anybody to read:

http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/echoplex/FAQ8.html

or you could try these archive searches:

http://www.loopers-delight.com/cgi-bin/wilma_glimpse/LDarchive?query=echoplex%3Bfeedback&Search=Search&errors=0&maxfiles=1000&maxlines=0&.cgifields=partial&.cgifields=restricttofiles&.cgifields=lineonly&.cgifields=case&.cgifields=filelist


http://www.loopers-delight.com/cgi-bin/wilma_glimpse/LDarchive?query=EDP%3Bfeedback&errors=0&maxfiles=1000&maxlines=0&.cgifields=partial&.cgifields=restricttofiles&.cgifields=lineonly&.cgifields=case&.cgifields=filelist

>Can I pester Matthias for a MIDI controlled input mute to conpensate?

you can try, but it will be your fault that the LoopIV software takes 
longer to finish. :-)

kim


______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                     | Looper's Delight
kflint@loopers-delight.com    | http://www.loopers-delight.com