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

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

Nice sermon but, the original Boomerang sucks more than the RC-50. The 
sound was so bad, I sent it back to the vendor in a day or so (when I 
bought one years ago). The RC-50 is much more usable than the Booms as 
currently exist.

Also, the new 'rang appears to be missing a lot. Why not rag on that?


---- BreachinThePeace@aol.com wrote: 
> In a message dated 6/27/2007 3:31:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> benoitruelle@yahoo.fr writes:
> Why is everyone complaining about the RC50? Because they want to  access 
> 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  
> 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.
> Ben.
> Thanks for the reply Ben. I really like the quality of the RC50, I just  
> don't care for it's immensly premature release. I think that was  
> from a consumer's perspective. Maybe that seems harsh but when you  
>consider the 
> number of years that floor loopers have been on the market, you  would 
> that a 600.00 mass produced pedal board that is a "take" on  several 
> devices would be far more bug free. 
> How about the fact that you simply cannot make an initial uninterrupted  
> loop? Is it just me or is that simply pathetic? Sure, as long as  you 
>are using 
> the looper device to forward or continue a pre existing loop, you  won't 
> the gap. But as a musician playing an actual instrument that is  looking 
> harmoniously accompany oneself, it SUCKS and is simply  unacceptable.
> I am not sure how anyone can honestly be satisfied with the RC50. To me 
> this justification of the RC50 seems like a grand effort to polish a 
>turd.  I 
> guess you could say in this instance that I am "coming from" an almost  
> polarized perspective as far as applied expansion is concerned. My point 
>is  this. 
> In my mind, if a floor controlled looper unit meets it's unique design  
> efficiency quota, you should not need to expand upon it. You also should 
>not  have to 
> download "fixes" in an effort to eliminate poor design or out and  
> design flaws.
> I FULLY realize and acknowledge the Boomerang 1's faults and 
>limitations.  (I 
> never purchased the 2nd generation so I can't comment) But when you  
> it's release date with respect to where we are today it was beyond  
> magnificent. Sure, it's noisy as hell unless you really "play" with it 
>and it's  
> quantitative capabilities were archaic at best. One has to understand 
>however  that 
> the Boomerang was the vision of two men that worked literally out of a  
> where these first units were made and assembled. The thing I really like 
> about Boomerang is their obvious personal devotion to releasing a 
>product  that 
> reflected an efficient human element within it's design. It was truly  
>built by 
> musicians for musicians. It just seems like the more bells and whistles  
> device like this has the greater the risk becomes of loosing that 
> and screwing up the mix so to speak. I guess in hind sight the RC50 is 
>one more  
> example of somebody trying to reinvent the wheel. ;-)   
> ************************************** See what's free at