Re:Re: Re: Looperlative 1st report

[a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

At 23:31 10/05/2006, you 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?

indeed,
at least it's correctly capitalised for a change

>   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."

right, so it's possible to achieve the musical effect effect you want.
...but you'd have to hit the button at the right time.

er...........?


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

?you keeping it then


>Mark

andy