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

Re: [Bulk] Re: Boomerang - Rang III (?)

Not sure I understand every subtilities in you mail. English is not my native language.
It is difficult to give you any scenario as the Rang III is not out yet, and we don't know how difficult it might be to reach some "hidden" functions.
Imagine just that you as a guitarist  want to alter the feedback rate. The RANG II wants you to enter a so-called programming mode (press X, then Y to cycle to the needed value). Wouldn't it be easier to use an external midi controller to adjust the feedback on the fly?
If you have several instruments with different output level, wouldn't it be useful to send a midi CC from an external controller so the RANG can change its input Gain?
Perhaps the majority of players won't need this specific extra control and I agree that for reducing the costs and the size, the number of pedal should be limited.
But I think that not providing a way to expand the control might be a mistake.
Why is everyone complaining about the RC50? Because they want to access some functionality with midi and that part is not working properly. It can be to synchronise a flanger to a loop, to start an external drum machine (archaic or not) or just to sync with other musicians.
I can understand you point about musical instruments.
So much people, so much ways to make music. That's the interest of it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: Boomerang - Rang III (?)

"Midi does not only mean "SYNC" or "PC connectivity" but also "expandable".
With so much functions, it might be useful to add a midi footcontroller.
6 loops * 3 layers with Undo, half speed, reverse, loop extend (is that multiply?), merge,... and all the classical rec, stop, overdub, ... pedals. It seems a lot of function for a 5 (?) pedal board.
To me this is a fascinating subject Ben because it's perhaps a chance for me to understand greater possibilities from a different perspective . Can you give me a scenario where you as a musician might actually utilize the midi/usb facility of a floor controlled looper to accomplish an integral function with respect to your performance that could not be accomplished without the midi/usb facility with respect to this particular device?
Of course I am not asking if you can do just anything additional like tweaking, that would be asinine. I am certainly not some anti perversionist on a useless campaign to stamp out a lack of musical purity. I would be the most guilty witch at the stake if that were the case. What I am asking is more so specifically why a single or primary instrument toting musician would need "more" from a device that is designed to specifically do one thing, namely to sample "on spot" phrases & manipulate them on the fly?
I guess my logic may honestly be getting in the way here. In this sense however I seem to define various devices for their most valuable & efficient capability to me as a musician. With respect to this line of thinking I would sight the following logical choices or decisive similarities.
Why would a musician insist on using a mouse to control their laptop's DAW when they can liberally accomplish a great deal more with respect efficiency and musical addition by using a midi controller of their choice during performance?
Why would a musician use a drum machine when VSTI modules like RMX make them archaic and clumsy at best?
Why would a musician try to turn a basic floor controlled phrase sampler into a load storing sequencer?
Why would a musician bring 20 basses & 20 effect boxes to a gig when all you need is two (one for back up) as long as you use a quality midi synth module?
Why would a bassist tote around an SVT system to render a big powerful mono low frequency signal when you could choose a quality powered PA, having true stereo for any number of instruments/devices within their performance repertoire?  

See what's free at AOL.com.