[
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?
--
Paul
---- 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
>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.
>
> 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
>unforgivable
> 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
>think
> that a 600.00 mass produced pedal board that is a "take" on several
>existing
> 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
>hear
> the gap. But as a musician playing an actual instrument that is looking
>to
> harmoniously accompany oneself, it SUCKS and is simply unacceptable.
>
> I am not sure how anyone can honestly be satisfied with the RC50. To me
>all
> 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
>outright
> 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
>consider
> 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
>garage
> 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
>a
> device like this has the greater the risk becomes of loosing that
>efficiency
> 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
>http://www.aol.com.