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

Re: Getting rid of the Vortex...

Quoting mark <sine@zerocrossing.net>:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:10 PM, Eric Williamson wrote:
> > when i had a vortex i used it in both places, via the Repeater's ill-
> > implemented FX Insert function.
> Ill implemented?  Seems like an amazing feature to me that always seems 

i say ill implemented because they didn't have the time to provide any 
control for the insert, but did take the time to _make_sure_ you could 
use Resample to recursively process through the FX insert. it looks like 
could use it for that, and that's the _easiest_ and least 
process-intensive way 
to implement resampling. but when i think of all the r/d time wasted on 
that buffering code (and memory wasted to execute the operation), it 
burns me they wasted all this time with LPA and a castrated re-sample.

if Resample let you continue to resample after the loop-point ended 
(instead of 
buffering the last cycle), i wouldn't be selling my Repeater this weekend: 
be selling my Prodigy to buy another one.

remember: i'm not expecting a "weird" feature. recursive resampling 
_should_ be 
expected if resample allows you to go beyond one complete cycle.

i am rambling on 3 hours sleep, so please let me know if i make no sense :)

> So, I actually got the MPX1 to replace the Vortex, and to be honest, 
> I've never looked back.  If you're low on cash and looking for an 

sounds like a keeper to me. something that kind of kept me from really 
exploiting the Vortex is that i never _really_ understood what was going 
thanks for the input!

looks like i'll be selling some stuff to buy an mpx-1 ...
Eric Williamson

This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/