] [Thread Prev
Re: Repeater and EDP (d/t)
i believe the repeater will be my main love when i finally
get one into my grubbie hands- i am using 2 dl4s on my aux
sends at the moment-which can be good and bad- i do tend to
overload the dl4 input way to often-repeater come to me!
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:28:57 -0700
Andre LaFosse <email@example.com> wrote:
> Pardon my non-dt commentary...
> > Anyway, after a little experimentation, I'm just
> wondering, d/t, surely you
> > have the EDP in the signal chain after the Repeater
> right? That's the way
> > that offers the most possibilities, or at least, so it
> seems to me.
> I don't have a repeater, but my presumption is that the
> natural signal
> chain would be to have the EDP BEFORE the Repeater. Why?
> Repeater works in stereo, with different pan and output
> for each
> individual track. If you send that into an EDP,
> everything gets summed
> to mono and output as the same, and the possibilities for
> signal routing are lost.
> The whole issue of simultaneous, discreet loops, with
> individual editing
> tweakability, seems to be at the core of the Repeater's
> "identity," just as I would suggest that the idea of
> editing/cutting-and-pasting a loop "cycle" is one of the
> traits of an EDP. It would seem to me that running the
> Repeater into a
> mono in/out unit (such as an EDP) would be sacrificing a
> lot of its
> strong points... but of course that's just hypothetical
> speculation on
> my part.
> I do seem to recall Mr. Torn saying that his EDP was
> indeed before the
> Repeater, but I'll certainly defer to the man himself on
> that one.
> It is really interesting to see that the emerging
> consensus is largely
> of the Repeater as an alternate looper with a new and
> different design
> slant, as opposed to something that utterly and
> completely supplants the
> previously existing units. Considering that the EDP
> dates back seven
> years or so, that's saying a lot...