] [Thread Prev
Re: Echoplex=crap for dummies
Perhaps Kim has a good sense of humour as well as being a constant source
education for us.
I thought it was funny and enjoyed it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Javier Miranda V. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 6:14 PM
Subject: RE: Echoplex=crap for dummies
> I gotta say that Kim shows off a reptilian cool here with Italo (talk
> flames!). You Kim are an iceberg of incomprefuckhensible proportions! I
> would have lost my cool right off the bat. But not Kim.
> Congrats, Kim. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Not at all bad for a
> Hmm... Maybe Italo would benefit from a video explaining and
> all the great features of the Echoplex. I'm sure that would shut him up.
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Kim Flint [mailto:email@example.com]
> | Sent: Monday 07 August 2000 12:44 AM
> | To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> | Subject: Re: Echoplex=crap for dummies
> | At 6:07 PM -0700 8/6/00, italo de angelis wrote:
> | >It's almost 4 years that you all guys are pathetically talking
> | about this
> | >shitty box!!! Can you stop it?
> | ...
> | >Start writing to Scott Gilfix at Eventide (firstname.lastname@example.org) to
> | >properly designed software for looping into their outstanding
> | boxes, come
> | >ON!!! Fed up with this poor old ladies junk talk be MODERN!!!
> | >ITALO
> | I talked to Scott at length about looping on Orville. It's an
> | amazing box
> | for signal processing, but you may be interested to know that it has
> | fundamental architecture limitations that prevent it from doing
> | many of the
> | basic functions of the Echoplex. (as I understood it.) It
> | doesn't do the
> | stuff that is time based and revolves around direct access to
> | the data. No
> | multiply, no insert, no multiple loops and related functions,
> | no multiple
> | undo's, limited sync possibilities, etc. It has "sampler mode"
> | and "looper
> | mode" but can't do the interesting stuff that combines the two
> | concepts. If
> | you want tons of signal processing power and great algorithms,
> | and you want
> | to use those in conjunction with basic looping functions (and you
> | spare $6000 or whatever it costs) it seems like a pretty good
> | choice. Can
> | it replace an echoplex? or even a jamman? no. it's a different beast.
> | kim
> | Kim Flint | Looper's Delight
> | email@example.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com