Re: Re: Looperlative 1st report

[mark sottilaro <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com>]

--- a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> hi Mark,
> Is it not possible to achieve the effect you want by
> muting 
> tracks  rather than stopping them.
> Surely the track can stay in sync by keeping running
> silently.
> 
> Or is it some other problem you have?

Andy.. is there a question mark missing from that
first sentence?  I'm not sure what you mean.  I think
a "quantized mute" function would work perfectly.  I
don't care if the loop is actually stopped.  I've
gotten it to kind of do what I want so I know it's
possible.  I did it by sending a message to make the
track's volume 0.

Here's the issue, I want that message to be somehow
cued to the loop point so I can say, "OK, at the end
of this loop, mute it and start recording a new loop" 
and another message that "I'm done with this loop,
mute it and switch to my first one."

Word on the street is that Bob is working on this
functionality as we type and it should be implemented
soon.

Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com