] [Thread Prev
Re: Considering building an ultimate looper...
A good log pot controller definitely gives more dynamic range than 7 bit
down at the bottom end. Todd had complained about the resolution on
some of the foot controllers. My OWN controller (2
dimensional...btw...) that I build for my korg wavestation years ago and
that I still use in my rig has CRAPPY low end control because indeed
it's controlling midi volume at 7 bits. The analog pots that I used are
certainly better resolution than that. I can see the continuum on a
meter. . So please people..drop the issue. Dont' major on the
minors. It's an issue that is nice to have better res on for certain
types of playing where you want an ominous control in real time. And
that's why I mentioned it. If you don't find any advantage in it yet,
just ignore it. But don't keep bringing it up like I said something
stupid because it's not stupid.
It's the same reason I prefer a prophet 5 over a Prophet 600. The 16
bit dac in the P600 gives a noticeable stone wall drop off at the end of
an envelope. It REMINDS THE LISTENER..that they are NOT hearing an
aspect of NATURE..BUT AN ASPECT OF SOMETHING ...hacked up by software :-)
Some people are picky about that kind of thing and it often relates to
the style of music they do...where they feel the essential nature of
having it feel totally connected with the natural realm and totally
separated from the reminder that software is at work. -Bob
GORDIUS info wrote:
>I'd like to add one question to this :
>What kind of (physical) volume control device do you target, Bob?
>else than a foot pedal?
>I'm asking, because I am currently testing out a new design for a
>MIDI-controlled foot pedal. And to me it seems that the "physical range"
>a standard foot pedal is no more than 7 bit. I mean : I have trouble
>small enough movements to change the control value with 1 single step in
>128-value range. Therefore I believe a 10-bit ADC wouldn't make any sense
>when using a footpedal, but maybe you have another type of controller in
>(if you intend to manipulate the linear footpedal range and make it a
>non-linear transition curve, I would believe you will get much better
>results just using a 7-bit to n-bit lookup table in firmware, rather than
>doing it with some analog signal manipulation followed by 10-bit AD
>From: Jeffrey Larson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: zaterdag 17 februari 2007 23:35
>Subject: Re: Considering building an ultimate looper...
>Ok, here's some friendly advice.
>Be careful tossing out words like "ultimate looper" on this list. So far
>you've described a rather basic looper, except that you seem to be
>with the resolution of the output level control. In all the wish lists
>product reviews that appear regularly on this list, this is not a feature
>that I remember being mentioned.
>If you're intending to compete in the hardware looper market, I would be
>much more concerned about things like continuous feedback, synchronization
>with external MIDI clocks, pitch and rate shifting, and "editing"
>like insert, multiply, replace, etc.
>Second, the insinuation that the Looperlative is not "professional level"
>likely to annoy the many professional level musicians that use it, as well
>as the professional level musicians that use other devices and software
>a MIDI volume control.
>Quick show of hands. Does anyone find that their musical ambitions are
>being stymied by the resolution of their volume pedal?
>I don't doubt that there are devices that could do a better job smoothing
>controller changes, or providing a more musically useful attenuation curve
>at the top end of the range. But there are software solutions to these
>problems that are quite effective if not perfect.
>I don't mean to sound discouraging, but this strikes me as a rather odd
>feature to be focusing on. Before you start investing money in this
>venture, be sure you have a good understanding of the market for hardware