] [Thread Prev
Re: Decay rate and time
At 10:43 AM 8/17/2002, Claude Voit wrote:
> > The idea to have the FB rate depending on the loop time to achieve an
> > absolute fading time has been arround for a while (also on this list?)
> > Technically it would not be complicated. We may have it in the
> > future, but I suspect it will not be perfectly usefull either...
> > --
>at the point where Loop x.xx will finally be a multitracker (meaning
why would you necessarily want that? I would rather have multi-tracks but
also the ability to layer things on one track just as it works now. The
layering concept from delays turns out to be such a simple to use and
elegant interface for making complex loops. The "track" interface from
recording studios gives more flexibility, but at the expense of a much
complex user interface.
>real feedback would be obsolete and replaced by layer volume
to me, they are not the same concepts at all. How does one replace the
other? For me, the feedback+overdub combination very neatly and easily
accomplishes something that is really complicated to manage with multiple
tracks, for both the user and the system. I don't really see the point of
trying to replace one with the other.
>and very limited undo per layer overdub (new layer) then short undo :mute
>of the new layer; long undo: erase and discard this last layer feedback
>reduction would then mean layer output volume fade out (virtual
>feedback) as we do not want the memory fill with undo layers while
>reducing feedback we could save a bunch of memory like that, for the sake
>of a maximum of seperate tracks.
but I do want the memory to fill with previous versions as feedback
it. Then I can undo it to go backwards, which is interesting itself, but
especially interesting when combined with overdubbing. That gives a very
simple and intuitive way to evolve and unevolve a loop with just two
buttons and a knob and very little thinking required.
Kim Flint | Looper's Delight
firstname.lastname@example.org | http://www.loopers-delight.com