[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Decay rate and time

please read again
I don't want to sacrify anything trust me, its just that conceptually if 
we want
undo or indepedant control of _all_ the layers in any order we must somehow
write them each in a separate memory and summ all those layers together 
for play
nothing would change for the user
overdub would mean write to a new layer
multiply would involve the creation of a longer layer for whats overduben 
the other layers would just go on looping without being lenghted
overdub with feedback reduced would mean fade out all or a selection of 
while writing to a new layer
I dont see a difference for the listener
undo would bring back the faded layers and mute the newly created layer.


> 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 
> > > 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 
> >layer separate)
> 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 
> >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 
> >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
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Kim Flint                     | Looper's Delight
> kflint@loopers-delight.com    | http://www.loopers-delight.com