Re: What would it take?(wasRe: RC-50 and Speed Control)

[van Sinn <vansinn@post.cybercity.dk>]

L.A. Angulo wrote:
> if there was only someone outhere that would take it
> into his own and do upgrades for the RC-50(like Bob
> sellon did witth lexicons jaman) this could be an
> amazing floor looper...its too bad so many promising
> devices get left out unfinished!
> although i dont own one i was very tempted to buy
> one,simply because of all the I/Os connecting
> possibilities,led screen,drum goroves,saving
> capabilities,stereo,etc. lots of good and positive
> things about it,i remeber even Kim Flint commenting on
> it and getting excited about it, until i started
> reading that it lacks very important things for many
> of us,but lets dream a bit about it, what would need
> to be implemented on this babys software to become
> "the floor looper of loopers"?
> Maybe theres a another Bob Sellon outhere!
> from what ive read so far so far the following are
> missing or are proving disatisfactory:
> feedback
> Pitch transposing
> time stretching
> replace
> sync fix
> multiple loops playing at once
> next loop
> multiple undo
> multiply
> cut and paste
> 
> so far 10 important features,now how hard could it be
> to implement this?

Probably 'just' access to the source code, good knowledge of signal 
processing algorithms, and programming skills ;)
Disassembling and reverse-engineering code is such a tedious job..


>>RC-50:
>>- stereo: yes, audio quality is excellent
>>- reverse: yes
>>- variable speed and pitch: no => it has tempo sync
>>option but it sounds horrible imo
>>- loops: 3, running in sync or independent
>>- feedback control: sort of => no delay type of
>>variable feedback control using an expression pedal.
>>Workaround: send sub-outputs to auxility in
>>(stereo), level decreases with each loop depending
>>on the aux-in level
>>
>>Sjaak


-- 
rgds,
van Sinn