RE: Short loop fades more quickly than long loop with same feedbacksetting

[Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com>]

I guess I don't see why feedback would have any better utility than fade -
it seems more limited, and its destructive nature doesn't seem like an 
asset
in any situation that I can envision (I'm sure others are more imaginative
than I). Don't have time for an archive search now, so sorry if I'm
repetitive of something there. 

Best wishes,
Warren Sirota


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Larson [mailto:jeff.larson@sailpoint.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:22 PM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: RE: Short loop fades more quickly than long loop 
> with same feedback setting
> 
> 
> From: Warren Sirota
> > The points seem to be tied to specific looping implementations.
> 
> There are two fundamental concepts, which lacking any formal 
> definition we call "feedback" and "fade".  The concepts are 
> implemented by many loopers, though the names used are not 
> always the same.
> 
> Fading is usually taken to mean manipulation of the output 
> level, either gradually lowering it to zero or raising it 
> from zero.  This does not modify the loop, so you can always 
> "unfade" by moving the level in the opposite direction.
> 
> Feedback is a destructive operation that involves 
> re-recording the loop at a percentage of its previous level.  
> The usual examples of this are the EDP or a tape delay with a 
> special erase/record head. You cannot "unfeedback" unless the 
> looper supports multi-layer undo.
> 
> The formulas apply to feedback, not fading.  This originated 
> from a discussion on fading and how you could accomplish 
> something similar to fading with feedback, but that they have 
> different characteristics. They should be relevant for the 
> EDP, Looperlative, or any other looper that supports feedback 
> with this definition.
> 
> Jeff
>