] [Thread Prev
Re: A Repeater suggestion
Sorry gang... this might be a bit late in the thread, but I wanted to give
Andre the courtesy of a reply to his comments.
Miko Biffle wrote:
>> With all due respect Andre, this is a system integration problem.
>EVERYONE using a mixer and bussing the looper on an aux send is going to
>have this problem, and provide a workaround to solve it. Managing
>multiple inputs/instruments/voices usually involves a mixer.
> And with all due respect to you, I personally have never used a mixer
>and/or an aux send bus with a looper, and I've been using an Echoplex
>since October of 1995.
When I just want to plug in straight through the thing, I'll be just fine
too. Agreed... but there's the other side of the coin. It's a pain on an
aux buss. Why would you argue for less functionality?
> Now, clearly, this is an issue for someone like yourself, since it's an
>intrinsic part of the way you work. On the other hand, there are people
>who don't use loopers in the way you're describing it, who aren't going
>to be thinking in those terms. I would suggest that the design team at
>Electrix is one such group of people.
My point is that it's a simple and fairly common mode of control, which is
necessary for adding the box to a mixer. And am baffled why you'd think
that Electrix is targeting some mythical market that doesn't want to use
the Repeater on a mixer aux buss... I can't believe that's true. I'd think
they'd do whatever they could to make their box work well in many
>> In the multi-track paradigm, most multi-track studios manage their
>dsp's/loopers etc using the same fx buss / aux buss architecture most
>mixers are designed with. <<
> Doesn't it seem like the Repeater is designed as more of an "all-in-one"
>multitrack feature box, rather than being something that you
>fundamentally integrate into a larger system?
It only records... it needs inputs and it's outputs go somewhere... it
will ALWAYS be part of a larger system. Be it a guitar - Repeater - amp,
or a larger scale setup. Most DJ's as well as guitarists on this list
happen to use fairly sophisticated setups. Multi-channels; inserts;
real-time-midi control; Switchblades and relay switchers; Many like
having their looper on an aux send to handle multiple inputs so they can
build a track of different voices.
> It seems less like a component you'd plug into an external mixer, and
>more like a thing you'd use independently, in and of itself. The absence
>of a wet/dry control certainly seems to lend credence to that theory...
You're letting the cart drive the horse here Andre. Damon admitted himself
that they went DOH! when they realized they hadn't implemented some
version of that capability. Actually, you're giving a lot of philosophical
credence to their oversight. Maybe it's JUST an oversight?
>> ACID is a DAW multi-track with it's own limitations etc. <<
> And Repeater is a hardware DAW-style multitrack with its own limitations
>as well, clearly.
And you're justifying leaving off a useful feature here? What's your
point? I'm just trying to give useful feedback to the manufacturer. If you
need to defend them for some reason go ahead. I would think that Electrix
would welcome these inputs. This is an important feature to many of us...
>> A universal balance. That way it WORKS on an aux send of a mixer. This
>is basic, studio setup stuff here. <<
> But a Repeater isn't a basic piece of studio gear. It's a product that
>draws on a lot of different points of view and combines them into
>something that we haven't seen before.
It's just a four track recorder, mixer. Put a blend on there dammit. It's
pretty basic. They've used very elegant packaging and user i/f; high level
pitch transposing s/w; great components. They're not above some useful
critique here. I'm not going to put them on a pedestal, act like they're a
powerful diety and not ask questions about their motivations for doing
certain things with their product. I'd like to know where they're going
and how and when (if ever) they'll get there. This is how I plan for
integrating ANY piece of gear into my setup.
> Look, I'm not trying to be a salesperson for the Repeater (where's my
>endorsement deal, Damon?!) I don't own one, and I don't have any
>particular need for one in the work I do.
So maybe stand back and let those with real interest in the product try to
sort ou the pros and cons?
> But I do think it's worth stopping for a second, stepping outside
>onesself, and looking at where the unit is coming from before chastizing
>the company for not fulfilling any individual user's vision of the ideal
I've been a strong supporter of their product efforts and welcome the
Repeater with open arms. Now I'm learning even more about it's features
and asking questions. Everything I was taught to do in order to learn and
>> This is the reason I don't use Vortexes, and Line 6 DL4, as much as I
>love them both. <<
> You are aware that the Vortex can set up an independent wet/dry mix for
>each individual patch, I assume?
Sure, but most of the patches function best in the absence of a dry signal
in my opinion. I've had a few of them and utilized them in many, many ways
to great effect. You act like one shouldn't look at things with a critical
eye. I try to see strengths AND weaknesses ok? They're both open for
examination and improvement.
> It's not a hardware balance knob, certainly. But I personally wouldn't
>let that stop me from integrating it into the very sort of mixer-aux-send
>scenario you describe yourself; in fact I've used a Vortex as an effect
>through a send, as my main external unit, dozens of times, and it works
As have I... If I had 6 aux sends, I might have a Vortex there. I have
only two (with a third Alt 3/4) and choose different boxes to use there.
Vortex lost due to it's limitations there. I'm still aware that it's an
awesome box and love the thing. I'm sure you're aware that many of their
100% wet patches still have non-delayed real-time signal in there which on
an aux send causes phase cancellation as well as volume jumps? These are
integration problems which can be avoided with simple foresight. I'm
hoping any OTHER product developers watching this list are checking out
our accumulating feature-set wish-list and filing it away.
>> If I were selling a product and KNEW I'd lose users due to a simple
>oversight, I'd clear that up. If Electrix is listening, I'm adding my
>request for wet/dry mix as well as single button press to go from record
>to overdub. This is also a serious ommision.
> 1) Obviously Electrix didn't KNOW that this was a serious problem;
Damon admitted online it was an oversight and they'll address it. That's
product design... there's always something overlooked.
> 2) Considering that they've had a waiting list of users for about a
>year, none of whom had ever even USED a Repeater before placing their
>orders, I don't think Electrix is saddled with a lack of customer
> 3) Until such time as people have ACTUALLY USED the thing in the real
>world, I'm not convinced that this is the end of the world for anyone.
You're sniping here Andre... this is highly uncharacteristic of you. Why
is it such a problem to you that a large number of us are surprised at the
lack of a feature we all expect in a sophisticated unit? The one-tap
record-into-overdub capability is really a second gripe, but I'm sure
they'll probably take care of all this, ESPECIALLY in light of having
heard our instant reaction. Maybe they haven't been looping as long as
some of us? 8-) We can all benefit from building on their GREAT platform.
> Again, folks: A lot of these posts have the ring of, "Wow, this thing
>isn't what I thought it would be." And, again: The specs and details of
>the unit have been readily available for the better part of a year.
>Nobody made anyone buy a unit without trying it first.
Many of us DESIGN and consult regarding feature sets and user i/f on
products of all types here. We will certainly use our skills to try and
push the envelope (and anyone willing to listen) in the direction of
adding more functionality. Before I buy a product, I always try to
visualize it's possible shortcomings in the context I intend to use it, so
I won't waste my money or be dissappointed. I usually test it beforehand
as well... That's why I'm asking these questions. I know I can get an
answer from the actual manufacturer of the gear.
> If you actually try working with the thing and it absolutely cannot do
>what you want it to after you've learned its interface, then that's the
>time to start making requests for design modifications. Until then,
>though... Chill, peeps!
Sorry Andre... It's a simple question, that we've spent more time engaged
with you, than the designers. I'm a big fan of your music, and your
rational, logical, level-headed approach to many things we've discussed.
This just seems to be a different kettle of fish and I'm not quite sure
why you're trying to dissuade us from asking these questions.
> Again, all said with all possible respect to all parties involved...