Thu, 19 Dec 1996

Dpcoffin@aol.com David: Hello, loopists...been enjoying your rantings and ravings as i struggle to locate the looper of MY dreams: stereo a MUST, expandable ram, all the other usual tricks ala Vortex, Jamman, Echoplex, AND no more than $1000...(or at least not much more...too bad I can't afford to jump on a pair of Echoplexes right now!). ....to that end, I called Bob Sellon, the guy who did Torn's PCM-42 tweaking (he's at 617-280-0395...not the # in the GP article...and seems to work for Lexicon) Very interesting...I was asking if the Vortex could be expanded delay-time-wise, and it seems not without the addition of another chip, for which no provision was designed in. BUT, he claimed, 1: that he may be coming out with some Jamman tweaks, and 2: that the just-out MPX from Lexicon Does have space for extra memory/chips, thanks to his insisting on it at the design stage, but no existing plans to actually use the space or expand its sampling/looping capabilities...his advice? Call Lexicon and ask for extra features.

Sun, 22 Dec 1996

Matthew F. McCabe: Just wondering if Bob mentioned what kind of Jamman tweaks?????

Fri, 3 Jan 1997

Ed Drake: I just called and spoke with Bob for several minutes about some of this stuff and he said a couple of things:

1. Lexicon is no longer manufacturing the JamMan and after current stock is sold, there are no plans to make any more

2 . He is currently working on some JamMan mods. Lexicon is interested in licensing the software to Bob and another fellow to make some upgrades which include hearing multiple loops simultaneously, more odd time signature MIDI clock support,and some other tweaks which I can't recall now. The other proposed mod would be hardware including more memory for longer delay times and yes --STEREO INS AND OUTS.

3. He said he did plan to write some looping software for the new MPX when he has time ( it will probably be a while ). He said the MPX would be great for looping because it has chorusing, reverb, etc. which could be used in conjunction with the loops.

4. I told him about our list and he said for anyone interested in these JamMan tweaks to email him at <bsellon@lexicon.com> so he can see how much interest and support is there for these mods and also to keep us posted on their progress

Mon, 3 Feb 1997

Ed said: I have not heard from Bob since so I don't know anything new, but if you haven't emailed him yet please do so. I also gave Bob our email address and told him to post directly to the list if there is any news.

Matt: Right after you originally posted this message I fired off an email to Bob. Haven't heard anything. I suspect he's a busy man. Maybe we should pool a list of questions and send them in one email so as not to overwhelm the man. Just a thought....

Ed: When I talked to Bob for 5 minutes or so that day, I got the impression he was very busy. He said it was funny that I had called about the Upgrade because he had just fired off a new eprom to try out for the upgrade the night before. One other thing he said that I had forgotten in my original post, was about the stereo loops and how you could pan them too! I got the impression this whole upgrade thing might still be a little while, because licensing the software from Lex had to be worked out. If you do email him, ask him what time frame for the upgrade and what new things are being implemented.

Fri, 11 Apr 1997 From Aviansongs@aol.com:

...Also, (Bob)what's the status of the Jamman upgrade? Take care, Marc

From Bob Sellon:

Marc, Work is progressing at a pretty good clip. This summer still seems realistic for a release if legal issues can be cleanly resolved. I'll keep everybody posted.

Tue, 6 May 1997 From: Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>

Any idea how much the upgrade will cost? And is it a factory upgrade, or something we can do ourselves?

-dave

Thu, 8 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>

Bob: Dave, I don't know what the upgrade will cost right now but I'd like to keep it well under $200. I still have to work out legal issues with Lexicon so that may effect it as well.

I should point out here that, though I work for Lexicon, all of this upgrade business is a side line of mine and will not be warranted or serviceable by Lexicon. The upgrade is NOT a Lexicon upgrade of the Jamman, it is an Stec upgrade. Stec is my side and very small modification business. The Lexicon sales management has made it very clear to me that they are not interested in providing or supporting a ROM upgrade for the Jamman. The Lexicon service and sales departments will not be able to help you with any problems you have with the upgrade. You will have to deal with me or someone on my enormous staff (eventually, the laughter subsides). Actually, I am going to get someone to help with service so I can concentrate on software.

As a performer myself I found the original Jamman to be less than optimal for a lot of the things I wanted to do so, being the guy who wrote the software for the Jamman in the first place, I went in and made some changes (and more changes, and more changes, and....). The current software is a result of changes I wanted and requests from the warranty cards, email, faxes, phone calls, etc.. of which there have been many.

I am also working on a small Windows app that will probably accompany the upgrade. So far it provides a virtual mixer for the 4 loop/channel "Pages" but will eventually provide lots of other things as well. Does this sort of thing seem like it would be useful to anyone? What kinds of things would you like to see in it?

Regarding the factory upgrade vs doing it yourselves; The upgrade will probably come in several flavors. Heres why. The basic upgrade is simply a rom upgrade that almost anyone could do. The original rom for the Jamman, however, was rather small but can be made twice as big by installing a jumper on the board. Again, this is simple but does require using a soldering iron. I am still working with the small rom but am just about to run out of space so the larger rom will probably be required. Now it starts getting ugly. The original Jamman had no nonvolatile memory (it can't remember anything when it powers down). When we laid out the board, however, we left a spot for a small electronically erasable ROM (EEPROM) which could store setup information (MIDI channel, mix settings, etc. but NO AUDIO). The part was left out of the original product for cost reasons but will be supported by the new software. It's an 8 pin IC with at resistor that needs to be installed. My gut feeling is that this is beyond the capabilities of most users. Will still offer it as a kit but will provide Stec factory upgrades for those who don't want to deal with it.

I am also looking at audio memory upgrades and audio performance upgrades (improving the converter filters) which, if they ever appear, will have to be done at the Stec "factory".

I will post more info as things solidify. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Sun, 4 May 1997 From mgsam@wave.net:

Dear Bob: The Loop Doctors have been thinking about Jammen modifications.

Here are the two IMPORTANT must have items on our mod list.

1: We want to be able regulate loop volume with an expression pedal.

2: In the ECHO mode, we want to be able to control FEEDBACK with an expression pedal.

Is this possible? Best, The Loop Doctors

Mon, 5 May 1997 From: Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>

One more thing... true stereo I/O! But basically, I think they're right. Expression pedal control of feedback and volume, whether through MIDI or CV, would make the JamMan near-perfect.

From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>

Loop Docs, The new rom allows both of these things (feedback and volume) to be patched to continuous controllers from a "Learn" mode (there's also SysEx control available). You can also switch a loop in and out of the echo mode and divide it by up to 19 (also patchable).

Thanks for the input. Its nice to know I'm on the right track. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Mon 5 May 1997 From: Joe Cavaleri <cavaleri@simi-valley.ate.slb.com>

Hi all, Some of the mods on my wish list:

1. The ability to modulate the loop. --- time of loop/pitch
2. Expanded memory.

I'm not very technology literate.. to me these mods seem very feasible. joe

Wed, 7 May 1997 From: RA336@aol.com

Bob... very much want to get this JamMan mod for controlling volume etc via cv pedals... can you inform me pleeeeeze?...

just wanted to let you know also that my trusty and loved pcm42 which you modified up all over the place is still the centerpiece of my looping rig... it's been on buncha tours and record dates and I really don't know what I would do without it!... thanks! bestregards, Robby Aceto

Sat, 10 May 1997 From: "Robert S. Carter" <rsc4@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu>

And now my contribution to the JamMan mod wish list.

What about MIDI clock send and receive in Echo mode? Never could figure out why this feature was lacking. I like the idea of the JamMan as a master clock source, but as it stands now this function is lost if you want to loop in echo mode. BOB.

Sun,11 May 1997 From: Matthew Finley McCabe <finley@ecst.csuchico.edu>:

Bob, If the hardware can handle it, it would be nice to be able to change the pitch of the loop and flip it over backwards. Also, an interface to save off your loops would be nice.

I also vote for a Mac version of the upgrade application. Matt

Fri, 9 May 1997 From Ed Drake <ejmd@erols.com>

Another thing that would be nice in Echo mode, which you may have already implemented in the new rom, would be to be able to hold or freeze the loop created in Echo mode and then to solo over the loop without adding your solo to the loop. As it is now, if I'm in echo mode and I have the regeneration at infinite, I have to reach over and turn the effects send to the JamMan on my mixer off to be able to solo over it. It would be nice to control this via MIDI.

Another thing that would be nice to have, is to be able to access the Loop, Echo, and Sample modes via MIDI without having to reach over and turn the Mode knob on the front panel.

And lastly (for now anyway ;-) to have the JamMan be able to MIDI sync to odd time signatures at least 5, 7. 9, and 11 ( you could go higher if you like) would be really nice. I hope I don't ask for too much , Bob! ;-)

Thanks again, Ed

Mon, 12 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>

Bob To Ed: All of these things are already in there. "Delay" has become a function just like Layer or Replace. You just toggle the Delay mode off and the current contents of the memory starts looping. The number of beats can be dialed in from 1-19. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Mon, 12 May 1997 From: RA336@aol.com:

Bob Sellon you are a lunatic GENIUS!!!!!!!!! I would like to get officially in line for your JamMan mods as soon as you think they be available... INCLUDE ME IN!

you are pushing the lil buggers into a realm where the things will become much more an instrument, and less a clever device.Thanks upon bended knee... Robby Aceto

Wed, 28 May 1997 From: patrick@his.com (Patrick Smith):

Bob, Would it be possible to add to your list of mods a function that would allow you to record a loop, play it backwards, record over the backward section, and continue to flip flop these overlays? Could get chaotic, but it may get very cool.....Thanks for all your thought and effort in this. Patrick

Thu, 29 May 1997 From Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>:

Yes, I'd highly recommend that one. It's a favorite effect of mine.... kim

Mon, 5 May 1997 From Ed Drake <ejmd@erols.com>:

On Tuesday, Andy at SoundFNR@aol.com posted this to Looper's Delight which seems to be from Bob Sellon at Lexicon:

In a message dated 07/04/97, you write: We have been considering the issue of different sized loops simultaneously but are not sure of how to implement it cleanly. For instance, if you created a loop in 4/4 then wanted a second loop of a different size, would you want the second loop to be in a definable relative time signature (5/4, 13/4) or just "tapped" in on the fly? Our current software approaches the traditional multi-loop concept used in Jamman (play the current loop then switch to the next one) by switching "Pages". Each Page can have up to 4 simultaneous loops which change when the Page changes. The Page changes at the end of the loop. How do I deal with this if the loops are of different size. If I wait for the end of each loop, the loops on the second page will be out of sync even if they weren't intended to be. Any ideas? We have the capability to have loops of different size but we have been backing away from them because of problems like these. We also weren't sure how many people would use them if we did work it out. Obviously there are some. If you have a preference on how you would like the thing to work, let me know. I can't make any guarentees but would like to put this kind of functionality in the new rom if we can. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Ed: Bob, is there a way to offer both functions to the JamMan upgrade depending on which "mode" you wanted? Obviously if you are in the "synced" mode you would want all loops to be the same length. One thing I've found frustrating if not impossible to do with the JamMan is if I'm playing a rhythmic loop with the JamMan but I'm not synced up to anything (drum machine, sequencer), say I'm just playing guitar and I want to switch to a second loop it is very hard if not impossible get the second loop to be exactly timed right. My timing is pretty good but but it still takes several passes, if I'm lucky, to get the second loop to line up. This limits trying to use this live. If the loops didn't have to be exactly the same length though, you could switch loops and even if the second loop was slightly shorter or longer than the first it wouldn't matter as each loop would maintain its own "integrity". There are times when I do want to sync so it would be nice to have either mode available. Maybe there is a way to implement both depending on which mode you want to access, synced or non-synced. What do you think?

Also, do you know what other new features you hope to have in the new upgrade? Thanks Ed

Tue, 6 May 1997 From: Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>

These are interesting discussions. We spent tons of time figuring out how to deal with these ideas on the Echoplex too. Challenging, isn't it? I didn't totally follow the "page" thing. How is that again?

What do you mean by "simultaneous loops"? Do you mean four independent tracks playing at once as a loop? I didn't think the Jamdude had the processing muscle to do anything like that. Or do you mean four discrete loops which are available to switch between?

The issue of rhythmic freedom vs. various degrees of synchronization is a fundamental problem with multiple loops, I think. The effort involved in making these features musically useful on the echoplex was huge, but worth it. Basically, you have to give the musician the option to choose. And the musician should be able to make the decision on the fly, with a minimal amount of setup. Some musicians (like Matthias) do not want any synchronization, insisting that they always be free to tap the lengths wherever they please. And some, (like me sometimes) want precise synchronization, allowing for polyrhythmic relationships. And most times, different types of music and different situations just call for one or the other. Tough challenge for the designer!

It sounds like you may be struggling with some basic architectural limits of the jamman. Hopefully you can find a way around them! The loop synchronization issue is a big can of worms. Once you open it a little bit, it just explodes and becomes very complicated in a hurry!

Ed said: Bob, is there a way to offer both functions to the JamMan upgrade depending on which "mode" you wanted? Obviously if you are in the "synced" mode you would want all loops to be the same length.

kim: Actually, no. Sometimes you want them to be multiples of each other. Say loop 1 is a four bar verse section. For loop 2, you want a 16 bar chorus loop. So it has to be exactly 4 times the length of loop 1. That's a pretty common need.

Ed: One thing I've found frustrating if not impossible to do with the JamMan is if I'm playing a rhythmic loop with the JamMan but I'm not synced up to anything (drum machine, sequencer), say I'm just playing guitar and I want to switch to a second loop it is very hard if not impossible get the second loop to be exactly timed right. My timing is pretty good but but it still takes several passes, if I'm lucky, to get the second loop to line up. This limits trying to use this live.

kim: You need a good time copying function. It should let you record the second loop while the time is being set up, so that there is no interruption in the performance. The second loop should somehow stop recording and begin looping automatically when it reaches a multiple of the first loop. The echoplex does this by combining the NextLoop and Insert functions, which worked out miraculously well.

Could you use the JamMan's midi sync functions for this? If you had something providing a midi beat clock and created the first loop synced to that, couldn't you just sync the second loop to the same clock?

Ed: If the loops didn't have to be exactly the same length though, you could switch loops and even if the second loop was slightly shorter or longer than the first it wouldn't matter as each loop would maintain its own "integrity". There are times when I do want to sync so it would be nice to have either mode available. Maybe there is a way to implement both depending on which mode you want to access, synced or non-synced. What do you think?

kim: That's the thing. Sometimes you want to sync the loops, and sometimes not. And sometimes you want the loops to be multiples on each other. Sometimes shorter, sometimes longer. And sometimes you want the first loop in 5/4 and the second in 17/8 and the third in 11/4 and the fourth with no rhythm at all. And sometimes you want to copy the audio too. And sometimes you want to sync your sequencer up to all of this. And sometimes you want five loopers to do this all synchronized together. And sometimes.....well it keeps us busy, right Bob? kim

Thu, 8 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

kim wrote: I didn't totally follow the "page" thing. How is that again? What do you mean by "simultaneous loops"? Do you mean four independent tracks playing at once as a loop? Or do you mean four discrete loops which are available to switch between?

Bob: I'm actually talking about 4 independent tracks playing at once. It was something that I really wanted to get into the original Jamman but we couldn't figure out how to deal with it in the user interface. The answer was the concept of a "page". In the new software I'm working on, I refer to the combination of all loops currently playing as a page. Each page can contain up to 4 loops/delays/samples (channels?), each with a separate level and pan control. You tap in the first loop in a page then select other channels which, currently, are initialized to the same size as the first loop. We currently allow a particular channel to be divided down when in the echo mode but I will probably fold that into the loop mode as well. When you need a clean slate, you switch to a new page. The new page gives you up to four new loops/delays/samples. We are currently have up to 4 pages. Each page stores the pan and level of each loop/channel. Pages are changed on the loop boundries which is where I am running into problems with the odd loop sizes. The hardware is capable of having all four loops be any size whatsoever but I still have to work through some of the issues of changing pages, etc..

Bob: With regard to the processing muscle of the Jamman, there is actually some to spare even with the features I have mentioned. The original Jamman only used a microscopic portion of the audio processing power of the DSP in the box. There are limitations to what I can do with the remaining processing power but the prospects are pretty exciting. The DSP at work here is the same processor that generates all those lovely reverbs that Lexicon is known for. I'm trying to do as much as I can with the hardware but I'm deeply concerned about the user interface.

kim: The issue of rhythmic freedom vs. various degrees of synchronization is a fundamental problem with multiple loops, I think. The effort involved in making these features musically useful on the echoplex was huge, but worth it. Basically, you have to give the musician the option to choose. And the musician should be able to make the decision on the fly, with a minimal amount of setup. Some musicians (like Matthias) do not want any synchronization, insisting that they always be free to tap the lengths wherever they please. And some, (like me sometimes) want precise synchronization, allowing for polyrhythmic relationships. And most times, different types of music and different situations just call for one or the other. Tough challenge for the designer!

Bob: Definitely. As I said, I'm very concerned about the user interface for this kind of stuff. I really don't want to spend a lot of time on features that are so weird or to hard to use, that no one uses them.

Ed said: Bob, is there a way to offer both functions to the JamMan upgrade depending on which "mode" you wanted? Obviously if you are in the "synced" mode you would want all loops to be the same length.

kim wrote: Actually, no. Sometimes you want them to be multiples of each other. Say loop 1 is a four bar verse section. For loop 2, you want a 16 bar chorus loop. So it has to be exactly 4 times the length of loop 1. That's a pretty common need.

Bob: Actually, yes. As I said earlier, in Jamman the loops can be any sized. It's managing them that is the problem. My current thinking is to let each loop (in a "page" of up to 4) play out then switch to the loop assigned to that channel in the next page. Given this senerio, would you like the alignment of the loops in the new page to be initially sync'd in any way or just start at the loop boundry of the previous loop/channel?

Ed wrote: One thing I've found frustrating if not impossible to do with the JamMan is if I'm playing a rhythmic loop with the JamMan but I'm not synced up to anything (drum machine, sequencer), say I'm just playing guitar and I want to switch to a second loop it is very hard if not impossible get the second loop to be exactly timed right. My timing is pretty good but but it still takes several passes, if I'm lucky, to get the second loop to line up. This limits trying to use this live.

Kim wrote: You need a good time copying function. It should let you record the second loop while the time is being set up, so that there is no interruption in the performance. The second loop should somehow stop recording and begin looping automatically when it reaches a multiple of the first loop. The echoplex does this by combining the NextLoop and Insert functions, which worked out miraculously well.

Bob: Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble syncronizing the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first. Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic.

Ed wrote: If the loops didn't have to be exactly the same length though, you could switch loops and even if the second loop was slightly shorter or longer than the first it wouldn't matter as each loop would maintain its own "integrity". There are times when I do want to sync so it would be nice to have either mode available. Maybe there is a way to implement both depending on which mode you want to access, synced or non-synced. What do you think?

Bob: I think it can be done, I just need to work through a few senerios. I am working on it, however, so I'll keep you posted. Thanks for the input. It's definitely appreciated. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Fri, 9 May 1997 From: Ed Drake <ejmd@erols.com>

Bob Sellon said: I'm actually talking about 4 independent tracks playing at once. It was something that I really wanted to get into the original Jamman but we couldn't figure out how to deal with it in the user interface. The answer was the concept of a "page". In the new software I'm working on, I refer to the combination of all loops currently playing as a page. Each page can contain up to 4 loops/delays/samples (channels?), each with a separate level and pan control. You tap in the first loop in a page then select other channels which, currently, are initialized to the same size as the first loop. We currently allow a particular channel to be divided down when in the echo mode but I will probably fold that into the loop mode as well. When you need a clean slate, you switch to a new page. The new page gives you up to four new loops/delays/samples. We currently have up to 4 pages. Each page stores the pan and level of each loop/channel. Pages are changed on the loop boundries which is where I am running into problems with the odd loop sizes. The hardware is capable of having all four loops be any size whatsoever but I still have to work through some of the issues of changing pages, etc..

Ed: Did you say pan of each loop? That must mean STEREO! Will this cause the length of available loop time to be cut in half to process left and right? Also, will you be able to mute or replace any of the 4 loops on one page, say you wanted to mute loop number 2 on a page and leave loops 1, 3, 4 still playing or even replace loop 3 while still hearing the other loops? Will this be possible? I can definitely see where odd loop sizes could mess up trying to sync across pages. Maybe you could have an "un-synced" mode where each page could be as long as wanted or needed and you since you are not syncing you don't need to worry how to sync from one page to another. Just starting page 2 at the loop boundary of loop 1. Maybe in a "synced" mode if the second and subsequent pages were some multiple of the first such as half , twice, 3 times etc. or maybe even +1, +2, +3 , so if page 1 is 4 beats long, page 2 could be 5 or 6 or 7 beats long, maintaining the common quarter note pulse? This would let you have a 4/4 page followed by a 5/4 page. I could see some practical applications of this, but maybe it's too weird or hard to implement.

Bob again: Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble syncronizing the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first. Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic.

Ed said: Bob, let me clarify what I meant. When I sync to a drum machine , there is no problem lining loops 2, 3 4 etc. up to the pulse, because the drum machine is my "click track". Suppose I want to strum an acoustic guitar loop without using a "click" for timing, say a one measure A section in loop 1, obviously at the end of loop 1 I can have loop 2 cued up to start recording, so it's not really the starting point of loop 2 where the problem is, it is the ending point of loop 2. Say loop one is exactly 4 seconds long. I think I have decent timing but humans aren't perfect so without a "click" track when I play, maybe I finish loop 2 at 3.98 seconds, so now there is a tiny gap at the end of loop 2 which is noticeable when I switch between loops, as well as if my loop 2 is a little longer than loop1, then loop 2 gets chopped off a little at the end. Is this a little bit clearer? That's why for me at least, there are times when I don't need or want to be synced to anything and letting each loop be its' own length would be very useful.

Thanks for your time and allowing us to give you some input. I really look forward to the upgrade. Oh, by the way do you need any beta testers? ;-) Ed

Mon, 12 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>

Ed wrote: Did you say pan of each loop? That must mean STEREO! Will this cause the length of available loop time to be cut in half to process left and right?

Bob: The loops still use up audio memory but you can have up to 4 per page so you could have, for instance, a single page with 4 eight second loops (total 32 seconds) or two pages with 4 four second loops. Get it?

Ed: Also, will you be able to mute or replace any of the 4 loops on one page, say you wanted to mute loop number 2 on a page and leave loops 1, 3, 4 still playing or even replace loop 3 while still hearing the other loops? Will this be possible?

Bob: Yes. You can operate on any loop independently while the others continue to run. The basic rule is, you can only operate (replace, layer) on one loop at a time while the others play. The one exception I may make to that is the Delay mode/function. Its just way too cool to limit it. I'll have to see what kind of problems I run into though.

Ed: I can definitely see where odd loop sizes could mess up trying to sync across pages. Maybe you could have an "un-synced" mode where each page could be as long as wanted or needed and you since you are not syncing you don't need to worry how to sync from one page to another. Just starting page 2 at the loop boundary of loop 1. Maybe in a "synced" mode if the second and subsequent pages were some multiple of the first such as half , twice, 3 times etc. or maybe even +1, +2, +3 , so if page 1 is 4 beats long, page 2 could be 5 or 6 or 7 beats long, maintaining the common quarter note pulse? This would let you have a 4/4 page followed by a 5/4 page. I could see some practical applications of this, but maybe it's too weird or hard to implement.

Bob: Thats been the thing. It gets weird real quick. I'll probably code it up an see how it works. I'll keep you posted.

Bob again: Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble syncronizing the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first. Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic.

Ed: Bob, let me clarify what I meant. When I sync to a drum machine , there is no problem lining loops 2, 3 4 etc. up to the pulse, because the drum machine is my "click track". Suppose I want to strum an acoustic guitar loop without using a "click" for timing, say a one measure A section in loop 1, obviously at the end of loop 1 I can have loop 2 cued up to start recording, so it's not really the starting point of loop 2 where the problem is, it is the ending point of loop 2. Say loop one is exactly 4 seconds long. I think I have decent timing but humans aren't perfect so without a "click" track when I play, maybe I finish loop 2 at 3.98 seconds, so now there is a tiny gap at the end of loop 2 which is noticeable when I switch between loops, as well as if my loop 2 is a little longer than loop1, then loop 2 gets chopped off a little at the end. Is this a little bit clearer? That's why for me at least, there are times when I don't need or want to be synced to anything and letting each loop be its' own length would be very useful.

Bob: I think I get it. Sounds like the best solution is to let you tap in the size of the second loop.

Thanks for your input. It's definitely appreciated. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Wed, 14 May 1997 From Ed Drake <ejmd@erols.com>

Bob, Forgive me if I seem dense but I wanted to understand this pages and loops concept in the new software a bit better. I was just pondering practical applications of all this and since all we have so far are descriptions of this stuff, I just want to make sure I understand. Are the pages basically what the loops are called now, in the current software ? Is the size of the page (start and end points ) the first thing you determine or is the page size determined by the size of the longest loop on that page? Do all loops on a page start over at the beginning of the page? The loops on a page seem to be like layers or overdubs that are controllable, undo-able, etc. I assume that each loop on a page can still consist of several layers as they are in the current software. How is the memory allocated, can you start with two 8 second pages first, which means you can only have 2 loops per page, or if you have an 8 second page then you can't have any more pages because the memory is being held aside for the 4 loops on that page ? It would seem more practical to sync the pages to each other, rather than loops on a page, allowing each page to be it's own length, maybe subsequent pages being some relationship to the first page, especially if loops on a page are only as big as the page itself, ie. if they start over at the beginning of the page. Using multiple pages probably won't be very practical until if and when the memory can be expanded. Keep up the great work!

Thanks again Ed

Sun, 11 May 1997 From: sarajane@tmbsbbs.com (Sarajane)

To the Jamman Upgrade Crew (AKA Bob), All the possible new parameters to tweak with the new upgrade sound spiff however it still sounds like no memory expansion to get past 32 seconds. Is that the drift I should for to be catching here, or what? Bryan Helm

From Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>: I was wondering about that too. All the new features sound cool, but also sound like they require a significant amount of memory. If you have four tracks simultaneously on one loop, and they are all recorded at the same sample rate used now, wouldn't that mean each can only be 8 seconds long in a fully expanded jamman? And with a second loop (or "page" as you call it), they would be 4 seconds each, right? Seems like memory expansion would be pretty critical! Maybe you should start making your own memory expansion cards with bigger drams.

Mon, 12 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Bryan, Memory expansion is a significantly more involved mod than the upgrade I am working on but it's still in the plan. It will probably be handled seperately from the other mod. I'll keep the forum posted.

From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Kim, Memory expansion is a significantly more involved mod than the upgrade I am working on but it's still in the plan. The original Jamman hardware did include some special circuitry to simplify expansion to 120 seconds but it will require one additional IC in addition to the larger RAMs and a 1.5Amp wall wart (the one used for the LXP 5 will work). It will probably be handled seperately from the other mod. I'll keep the forum posted.

Fri, 25 Apr 97 From miguel.barella@poyry.com.br :

Hello, I am facing the following problem with JamMan, that maybe somebody already solved and can give me some help. An SMPTE track (from an ADAT) drives a PC with Cakewalk that sends MIDI clock to JamMan. Fine, JamMan syncs properly! The problem is that in the beginning of every bar and/or loop JamMan introduces an audible perturbation on the sound. The silly solution I found is not to play in this spot but this keeps me away from continuous sounds and many other things. This does not happen when Jam Man is used alone or driving the computer or any other box. Any clues on how to solve this? Miguel

From SoundFNR@aol.com :

Me too, I get the same from a similar setup (but without the DAT). If you fire up cakewalk and choose Midi Devices from Settings menu you'll see why. Notice that the resolution suggested for Custom settings is 1 millisecond. The JamMan records signal up to 15kHz, so the glitch comes when the ends of the loop don't meet properly. For some reason I couldn't get Cakewalk to even, accept the custom settings mode. I can click the button, it changes, but it won't do anything; if I OK then look again it's still on the same setting. It might work for you however (I only have a 486). The resolution would ideally be .01 milliseconds, maybe less. As the highest continuous tone your guitar (if thats what you use) puts out at significant volume is 2kHz you might get away with .05 milliseconds. Basically Midi-sync isn't very good, daisy chains of Midi gear produce enough delay for errors in rhythmic timing, so I think maybe we aren't going to get a solution. Nevertheless there's alot of people out there who know a lot more about this than me, let us know if you get it solved. Andy Butler.

Tue, 29 Apr 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Miguel, there are two possible causes for the noise I can think of; one you can fix the other you can't.

When Jamman is slaved to an external MIDI clock it determines the end of the loop by itself based on the tempo of the clock and the number of beats selected on the front panel. If the operator tries to end the loop manually, the resulting loop will very likely be shorter than it should be. When the loop is too short, Jamman restarts the loop twice: once when the end of the loop (time) is detected and once when the correct number of MIDI clocks has come in. The solution is to let Jamman close the loop by itself (DON'T tap a second time). This will get the loops size to it's best fit.

The second cause is based on the jitter on the incoming MIDI clocks and the resolution of Jamman itself. At best, Jamman can lock in a loop size to within half a millisecond (512us). The problem is that most MIDI clock sources have jitter (timing variations) in the same neighborhood. After the loop time is locked in, the priority in Jamman is to stay in perfect sync with the incoming MIDI clock. The problem is that the combined half millisecond resolution of Jamman and the jitter on the incoming clock result in the actual size of the loop changing very slightly every time through. As the loop size changes, Jamman either shortens the loop or replays the very beginning of the loop to compensate resulting in potential clicks and pops. With the PC itself being slaved the jitter gets worse and so do the clicks and pops.

As I said, there is currently no work-around for this other than, as you said, not playing anything at the loop edge. The only other thing I can suggest (which is equally klugey), is to place something percussive at the splice point which will tend to mask the noise. I am looking at the problem, however, and will let you know if I come up with anything.

If anyone out there has any suggestions on how to deal with this, I'd love to hear it. Bob Sellon

From SoundFNR@aol.com:

How about? With the jamMan synced to PC a loop is started not when the tap occurs, but when the audio threshold is exceeded. JamMan then records till the end of the midi-defined-cycle, and then continues recording a fade out of suitable duration ( 100millisecond?)(simultaneous with 1st playback). For continued playback simply start at the beginning of each cycle, overlapping the tail of the last copy.

You now have a sample which is regularly triggered with a polyphonic No. of 2.

Layering, For this to work you need some way of guessing that the next trigger is about to occur.So you'd have to monitor the incoming midiclock and make a guess, then ignore the actual trigger.

When recording a layer:- (assume layering starts mid loop) At 100ms(?) before the next trigger( estimated) start recording a fade in as well as recording the same material to the end of the sample. On the guessed trigger stop recording the faded in signal and start layering at full vol onto the beginning of the sample. Simultaneously record a fade out onto the end of the sample. Splice the faded in material to the beginning of the sample next time round.

On subsequent loops the fade in will need to be layered . Perhaps it would be easier to add a 100ms silence to the beginning of the sample before layering started, so the algorithm for layering wouldn't have to be different for the 1st layer. Hope this isn't gibberish, Andy Butler

Wed, 7 May 1997 From: "James Reynolds" <tritone@dsp.net>

Glad to hear the promising developments for the JamPerson ROM upgrade. Keep up the good work, Bob!

But my number one request for the new version is: If possible, please do something about the jarring "pops" at the loop boundary when synced to MIDI. After several minutes of this effect, I end up writhing on the ground, frothing at the mouth...

Kim Flint : Cool! Do you do this live? Tell me where you're playing next, I'd like to see! :-)

Sat, 10 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:(by way of Kim Flint)

James, My options are limited but I'm thinking about providing a fade at the loop boundry when synced to MIDI clock to eliminate the pops. The only problem is you'll hear a short drop out at the boundry. This seems reasonable and perhaps even usable compared to the current situation.

For the record, the working name for Jamman was MutMax. I really liked the name but Lexicon management wouldn't even consider using it so I washed my hands of the entire issue. Believe it or not, "Jamman" was a big improvement over most of the other suggested names. I still like MutMax (or the Mut). Oh well. Bob Sellon Lexicon,/Stec

Mon, 12 May 1997 From: SoundFNR@aol.com

In a message dated 11/05/97, you(Bob Sellon) write: James, My options are limited but I'm thinking about providing a fade at the loop boundry when synced to MIDI clock to eliminate the pops. The only problem is you'll hear a short drop out at the boundry. This seems reasonable and perhaps even usable compared to the current situation.

Andy: Yes, but if you could record a loop which was a bit longer wouldn't you be able to cross-fade it with itself?

Tue, 13 May 1997 From: "James Reynolds" <tritone@dsp.net>

regarding the jamcompadre's "clicking" at loop boundaries when synced to MIDI, bob sellon wrote: James, My options are limited but I'm thinking about providing a fade at the loop boundry when synced to MIDI clock to eliminate the pops. The only problem is you'll hear a short drop out at the boundry. This seems reasonable and perhaps even usable compared to the current situation.

james: this would definitely be a major improvement over the current situation.

however, you might want to try the method used by the echoplex - setting the loop time once when recording the loop, and letting it "free sync" from then on. one would think the loop would drift noticeably out of sync, but from my experience that doesn't seem to be the case. i've had two- or four-measure loops free sync for a couple hours with no noticeable drift. i guess very short loops would begin to drift more quickly, though.

also, this approach makes for seamless loop boundaries in sync mode, which is very nice for textural loops that have notes decaying over the loop boundary. thanks bob, james

From: "James Reynolds" <tritone@dsp.net>

kim f. sez: The echoplex doesn't "free sync" actually. It re-syncs to the midi clock each time through the loop. If it did free sync, it would definitely drift away from the midi clock. I think the manual has an error on that point.

james: ah, i see... and yes, the manual does erroneously give the free sync explanation. are there any other errors in the manual i should know of, before i go yammering about some other non-feature of the plex? :)

so anyway, since the plex apparently uses the same basic MIDI syncing concept as the jamman, how did you echoplex-designers avoid the clicking at loop boundaries experienced by the current jamman? the loop boundaries of a synced plex are unnoticeable. james

Wed, 14 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

James, Your suggestion may actually be more esthetically pleasing than the brute force mute I suggested. The only thing I'm concerned about is that you will probably still have some kind of artifact at the boundary due to both loops playing at the same time for a moment. In putting together the new version of the software, I had to make a fairly radical change to the basic software mechanics (???) which produces the loops. This change allows a lot of really cool stuff like slap delays and perhaps other kinds of DSP things but it broke the MIDI clock synchronization. Strangely enough, the new system lends itself to the technique you are suggesting so I'll probably try that first. This is one of the few remaining (though still fairly big) issues remaining in the new software.

I'll keep you posted and, thanks for the suggestion.

Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Mon, 26 May 1997 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes):

Just my tuppence worth: Bob, you mentioned that you were considering using a PC program to run the JM enhancement. Will it be possible to run it without a PC, purely by MIDI? I don't have a PC and wouldn't really want to gig with one. Of course, this is just one voice in the marketplace, so feel free to ignore it. I was just wondering; since most of the best JM features are already only accessible to MIDI, there's no real change in design philosophy. (Of yourse, if I could run it from a 386 I would probably end up buying one...) Michael

Tue, 27 May 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Michael, I do bring a PC with me to some gigs (a laptop) but this really wasn't my only intention for the glass interface. Other uses I have been thinking about are:

1. Configuration of the system for live gigs. On of the things I have been getting frustrated about with all of these rack mount systems is the limited user interface. With the lousy interface on the JamMan, its hard to set up certain features that the system is otherwise capable of doing (noise gate, compression, etc...). One of the things I was considering was making the footswitches and "Mode" encoder (the right hand one) programmable so you could select what you want them to do. Another this is setting up mixes with the parallel loops (pan, level).

2. Another use for a glass interface is "On-line help". The basic idea is to have a soft version of the users manual that pulls up the appropriate page of the manual as you use the system. Or, an interactive manual that sends commands to the JamMan and perhaps contains audio samples that play back through a sound card to demonstrate the system. The possibilities are frightening.

Though some of the configuration stuff could be done with something other than a glass interface, I suspect that it would be extremely time consuming (not impossible, just a pain in the ass). I'll definitely keep your situation in mind, however.

By the way thanks for feedback on the glass interface folks. I sort of suspected that the Mac may have been the most common system in use. One of the options I am exploring is the use of Java to perhaps make the tool(s) platform independent. I'll keep you posted.

Tue, 3 Jun 1997 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes)

Bob, I've lost your address so this is going to the list....

One thing I'm not sure about - I understand there'll be page panning - but will there be actual stereo looping? I've given this whole PC-thing some thought, and if it's possible to select pages from MIDI, and the beast has stereo looping a more memory (there's tons more 4Mx4bit ZIPs about than 1Mx4bit...) that's all the extra functionality I need.... though of course I'm grateful for anything this update does! Jeez, I'm just about to order new ZIPs (for $5 each at closeout!!) and the prospect of 32 secs is daunting enough! Michael

Wed, 4 Jun 1997 From: "Sellon, Bob" <bsellon@lexicon.com>

The A-D converter (input) on JamMan is mono while the D-A (output) converter is stereo so all loops are recorded in mono. What this software offers is the ability to play back multiple loops at the same with the ability to place the loops anywhere in the stereo field. Its a lot like a mixing board connected to a multi-track tape machine; each track on the tape is mono but you can use the pan and level controls to position the tracks in the mix. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Thu, 5 Jun 1997 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes)

Bob said: The A-D converter (input) on JamMan is mono while the D-A (output) converter is stereo so all loops are recorded in mono.

Michael: This surprises me - why were stereo DACs included when only one is used? Was this upgrade planned, or is it because the JamMan shares gubbins with mono-in /stereo out processors?

Sat, 7 Jun 1997 From: Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>

At 1:08 PM 6/5/97, Dr M. P. Hughes wrote: Bob: The A-D converter (input) on JamMan is mono while the D-A (output) converter is stereo so all loops are recorded in mono. This surprises me - why were stereo DACs included when only one is used? Was this upgrade planned, or is it because the JamMan shares gubbins with mono-in /stereo out processors?

I can probably answer that. Audio DACs typically only come as stereo devices. ADCs are the same. There are many good, low-cost audio converters out these days, and they are all stereo. When looking for a reasonable quality part at a reasonable price, this is what a designer will probably end up using.

Even if it means half of the converter is wasted, there are lots of other parts necessary to acheive full stereo. Not to mention a greater processing load! So depending on the application, a designer might need to use a more powerful processor to handle stereo, plus additional opamps, pots, passive components, etc. The price could go up quite a bit. If you are making a low cost mono device, you will almost certainly end up using stereo ADCs and DACs, even though half is unused. The Echoplex is the same way, actually. In the Jamman it probably has more to do with sharing hardware with the Alex/Vortex; the cost saving mono decisions were probably made for those guys. kim

Tue, 10 Jun 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>

One point to keep in mind is that refining a user interface does not always mean modifying the physical controls. One of the things we have been looking very closely at is the reuse of buttons for different functions depending on the state of the machine (JamMan in this case). For us, this started with Tap which, on the first prototype (a modified PCM 42) was two separate buttons: Start and End. The thinking is that it is easier to have one control that you must manipulate a certain way than to have a separate control for each function. With a growing feature set, the separate control approach will leave little room on stage for the performers. The trick is finding the right combination of functions for a particular control (aftertouch, etc..) so that functions are still easy to get to. This is a lot harder than it seems and I've/we've certainly made some mistakes but I do believe this is fertile ground. One of the reasons the guitar is such a popular instrument is that it provides a relatively simple interface with an incredibly wide degree of control.

Travis mentioned that he would rather see money spent on the feature set than on the interface. While I agree with the sentiment, I must admit that I have been very frustrated with the limited user interface of the JamMan, particularly the display. We've had tons of feature suggestions but getting advanced features into the box usually means you have parameters to tweek. How do you display BPM on a box like the JamMan. Good luck. The bottom line is, you don't want to blow the budget on the user interface but you have to be not careful to put in too little. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Tue, 10 Jun 97 From: "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.com>

Travis: If you want to display BPM, you have to have a numerical readout, there's no two ways about it.

As far as improving the interface on future JamMan, I'd suggest something like the the Zoom 508 uses. It has a two character display with about 10 dots that come on to indicate the status of different modes. Some of the display messages appear in the form of scrolling text, and I was surprised at how much info they managed to cram into two alphanumeric characters and a few dots. If you've got something as powerful as the JamMan, I think you really need to put more on the front panel, and yes, raise the price a little. Jon, can you give an estimate as to how much it would have added to the JamMan list to physically add in a simple LED display (not factoring in the additional R&D time to tweak the interface to take advantage of the increased info bandwidth)?

The Echoplex was about $300 more than the JamMan, and seemed to have about $300 more stuff, more features, and more display info on the front panel. However, that $300 seemed to be the breaking point for a lot of people, it was just too much for them to drop, even people who were already fairly loop-aware.

I said this before in mail to Motley, and I don't think it's a stunning revelation, but I think that selling looping devices to the masses requires in-store demo's of how to use the thing. I play tapes for people of the live looping stuff I've done, and they think it's four or five people playing--they may like the music, but the "magic trick" nature of looping is invisible on tape. If you have a musician show another musician how to use one of the Big Three, I'd say your chance of selling them a box goes up five-fold. This requires someone who can adequately demo the product (which consists of more than playing some riff haphazardly into the loop and hitting "hold" and then saying "Now you can solo over it!") and answer questions. This isn't going to happen unless the manufacturer pays someone to go on a tour of dealers doing clinics. Perhaps an instructional video tape, for $5 to interested parties? Travis Hartnett

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 From: Leonardo Cavallo <LEO@DINONET.IT>

Hi all-In the last weeks I've followed Loopers topics with great interest. For the first time, yesterday, I had the opportunity to try the Jamman. I'm considering to buy the unit but not before some of you experts clarify some concepts... Thank you in advance...

- When the upgrade will be ready? And what will be the features? Higher price? Have I to wait some more time for it?

- Any problem with 32 sec. upgrade?? Where can I find it on the net??

- This is vital. I'd like to let grow my loops in spontaneous ever changing compositions. Does the Jammark allow you to start with loop 1, add a layer as loop 2, add another layer as loop 3, erase loop 1, add a new loop 1, erase loop2, etc., all without interruption? For me continuity should be essential... The little I tried was to change loop number STOPPING the last loop and adding a new one. THEN you could shift from a recorded loop to another. This seemed a big limitation for me...I'd like to add a new loop while listening the other ones. Thanks again for your help. Ciao Leo

Mon, 16 Jun 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Leo: When the upgrade will be ready? And what will be the features? Higher price? Have I to wait some more time for it?

Bob: Work continues on the upgrade but legal issues need to be resolved. I have several things going on, of which JamMan is only one so it's hard for me to provide a specific date. I should have a clearer picture in the next few weeks. Right now the primary new features are: pan-able multiple loops, undo, the ability to switch the loops into loop, echo or sample mode in real time, a built in slap delay, non-destructive click, MIDI learn, full MIDI SysEx and loop divide. I'm also investigating the possibility of replacing the EPROM with a flash ROM that would allow the future upgrades to be done via MIDI. The upgrade package will probably include a first generation Windows glass interface as well for what ever its worth (I haven't forgotten you Mac people. I just don't own one and will have to work out a port when I get the Windows version doing something useful). The upgrade will be less than $200. If response is good enough I am considering doing further ROMs with additional/different features for significantly less money.

Again, this is NOT a Lexicon upgrade. In other words, don't call Lexicon and expect them to know anything about it.

Leo: This is vital. I'd like to let grow my loops in spontaneous ever changing compositions. Does the Jammark allow you to start with loop 1, add a layer as loop 2, add another layer as loop 3, erase loop 1, add a new loop 1, erase loop2, etc., all without interruption? For me continuity should be essential... The little I tried was to change loop number STOPPING the last loop and adding a new one. THEN you could shift from a recorded loop to another. This seemed a big limitation for me...I'd like to add a new loop while listening the other ones.

Bob: The released version of the JamMan software does not do this (the upgrade will). If you need this functionality now, the Digital Echoplex is probably your best bet. I believe it currently provides this functionality.

As a side note, the output of the JamMan was specially designed with sufficient drive capability to power 600 ohm headphones for private looping. This feature was not listed on the web site or the A-B comparisons with other products. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 From: "Jason N. Joseph" <jj1@COMPUSERVE.COM>

Pardon me if I'm being slow about the technicalities of the proposed Jamman upgrades, but when you mention having 4 loops going at once, that can be any speed, does that mean each one can be a different, not-necessarily-related-to-the- other-loops length? That is, can I, for example, have one loop with a periodicity of 3 seconds, another at say, 17, then one at 5 and another at 7? Pardon if I'm being repetitive here, but it is still one of my utmost desires to be able to do something along the lines of the early Eno and/or Fripp experiments with multiple tape machines running at different lenghts such that the end result is unpredictable ... I can do it by putting loops of different lengths onto my DA-88, but the result is then quite static. It'd be nice to be able to do it "live" with just a Jamman.

Thanks for any help, Jason N. Joseph Comfortably Obscured Productions

Wed, 18 Jun 1997 From Bob Sellon <bsellon@lexicon.com>:

Yes. That is the intent. We're still working on the details but I'll keep you posted. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec

Wed, 14 May 1997 From: Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>

Ok, so, the JamMan has been out 1 year longer than the Echoplex, with nary a mention of upgrade ever. Lexicon even goes so far as to chuck the whole thing. JamMan users are understandably sad.

Then along comes Bob, who says, "Hey guys, I'm workin' on a software upgrade in my spare time! What do you think?"

JamMan users, with renewed joy and bright happy smiles, exclaim, "That's wonderful Bob! You're the swellest guy in the world!"

....and all is lovely in JamManLand!

Meanwhile, in Echoplexia (which has been around one year less than JamMania, as previously mentioned), where it always seems to be raining and maybe a bit gloomier than most places, Kim, Matthias, and Eric say, "Hey guys, we're working on a software upgrade! We're even spending all of our spare time, using up our life savings, maxing our credit limits, and destroying our personal lives to do it for you! What do you think?"

And then we run for cover as a horde of raving Echoplex users gives chase, screaming "Well where the @#*&% is it? Why aren't you done yet? We want it now and we're going to stamp our feet and hold our breath until you give it to us!!!"

And I'm so proud! My motivation just soars!

Hey Bob, wanna trade places for a while?

:-) All of this gets a big smiley, of course (-:

Now if you all don't mind, I'm not answering much mail at the moment since I'm a little busy testing stereo functions and such. Please just take a deep breath and go play with your reverb for a while. We'll let you know when the cookies are done and make all the appropriate announcements. In the mean time, I'm remaining quiet so as not to make vaporware problems any worse. And maybe, just maybe, I'll actually get some work done.....thanks, kim

Wed, 14 May 1997 From: Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>

Of course, Kim, the reason the JamMan users are so much more excited about an upgrade than the Echoplex users is because the Echoplex already does most of the things we want out of the JamMan upgrade... :} -dave