PER SAID:
Sometimes when playing with that rig Iimagined the EDP as the accurate professional and the Repeater as the
drunk but incredibly talented improviser rambling its way through thescore with a funny smile :-) That's what I liked with its
imperfection; it sounded funny in an almost organic way.
Yes, I feel exactly the same way, its kind of what I meant. I dont mean that the sliding notes isnt pretty ok. Its fine if you are pitching your loops to create a .. er.. lets say 4 chord turnaround riff. or 12bar blues or basic backing. Where it begins to sound the same is when you sequence it. For a while I used it with a little 16 note analog sequencer, but i always got the same basic sound cos all notes were always with "Portamento" (the correct term I believe?)
MATTHIAS ASKED:
thats interesting! I guessed its in some big hand, unreachable?
Probably, I could try to follow up the connections I made, that were not negative, but not particularly interested either.
MATTHIAS ASKED:
if only the evoloop could replace both...
wow.. oh yes... please!! :)
MATTHIAS ASKED:
what do you mean: anal?
Maybe a better term would be More forgiving, musically. Like in EDP, you implemented many ways to END an operation. This was the genius behind EDP (if you didnt already know it?) that musical FLOW could be sustained, freely moving to the next segment of your song, choosing to go from Record straight into Reverse, or multiply or insert. If gives a feeling of freedom. Whereas the Repeater always needs you to end an operation properly. Maybe still not well explained... Its just a FEEL thing, of being at one with the machine. EDP has often been likened to a new instrument in itself, Not so Repeater, that feels more like the recording process in a studio. Record, change tracks, record more... etc. It gets alot better with a good foot pedal implementation however.
MATTHIAS ASKED:
sure… but how does this combine with switching them all on, how would you want to control this?
a mono- and a poly-track mode?
Well I realise you ask in relation to planning Evoloop, and therfore the implementation would have to follow Evoloops playing process. but on Repeater it would be obvious to follow the Repeater method, that is simply select which tracks you wish to record onto, 1, 2, 3, or 4 (or 1 and 3, or 2 and 4 or 2 and 3 etc) and hit record.
However, this is in opposition to the way it works now, as there is the STEREO functionality to think of.
Personally I don't use a stereo input on Repeater, therefore stereo operation is no use to me (except that I can record to 2 tracks at once) I have a loop from input 1 to input 2. But currently selecting BOTH tracks 1 and 2 (or 3 and 4) forces stereo operation.
Im interested in how many actually USE stereo INPUTS on the Repeater, as there are not many stereo send mixers (I keep looking for one, needs to be 1 U though) And Thru play on the Repeater is not wise, as the dry sound is then tainted by the less than perfect A to D converters. (or something like that)... anyway, there has been noticed a latency, not by me, cos I use it in a loop.
Mark