------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain

Loopers-Delight-d Digest                                Volume 96 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
  Re: Echoplex system version?          [ Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski,  ]
  Re: Echoplex system version?          [ "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.c ]
  Re: Vortex                            [ Tom Attix* <attix@apple.com> ]
  Re: Why Vortex flopped...?            [ matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias  ]
  Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes  [ matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias  ]
  Vortex/Jamman                         [ PMimlitsch@aol.com ]
  Re: Echoplex system version?          [ Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski,  ]
  Re: Echoplex system version?          [ "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.c ]
  memory                                [ Sean Echevarria <sean@PureAtria.COM ]
  Re: Vortex                            [ Ray Peck <rpeck@PureAtria.COM> ]
  Re: Echoplex system version?          [ Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski,  ]
  Re: Vortex/Jamman                     [ JOHNPOLLOCK@delphi.com ]
  Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes  [ JOHNPOLLOCK@delphi.com ]
  Re: PCM 80: to morph or not to morph  [ Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.C ]
  Re: Vortex / LXP-5                    [ Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.C ]
  Re: Why Vortex flopped...?            [ Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.C ]
  Re: Vortex Alert and formal delurk    [ jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor) ]
  Re: Why Vortex flopped...?            [ jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor) ]
  whoops                                [ jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor) ]
  Re: implied rhythms                   [ matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias  ]
  Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes  [ matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias  ]
  BIO-ELECTRONIC ?                      [ matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias  ]

Administrivia:
Looper's Delight
****************

Please send posts to:

Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com

Don't send them to the digest!

To subscribe/unsubscribe to the Loopers-Delight digest version, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-d-request@annihilist.com


To subscribe/unsubscribe to the real Loopers-Delight list, send email
with "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe") in both the subject and the body, with no
signature files, to:

Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com


Check the web page for archives and lots of other goodies!

http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html


Your humble list maintainer,

Kim Flint
kflint@annihilist.com

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:16:41 -0500
From: Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski, Phd)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Echoplex system version?
Message-Id: <v01520d03aece4baecd2f@[205.216.96.77]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 jspeer@haverford.edu wrote:
>
>> Can anyone help me with Echoplex?  I am considering buying one, but I would
>> like to be sure that I am buying the latest version of the system.  What
>> are the distinuishing marks or phrases or insignia that I should look for?
>> Thanks!
>> Jim
>
>There's only one version of the Plex currently on the market (unless you
>find one of the first 100 or so manufactured.  If the LED indicator reads
>"3.0" on power-up, it's one of the very first.  If it reads "3.2", it's
>after that.  Get the 3.2 edition.)  The software upgrade is still tied up
>in contractual limbo at Gibson/Oberheim.
>
>--Andre


what is the going price of the echoplex these days?

paul

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 04:25:47 -0000
From: "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.com>
To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: Echoplex system version?
Message-Id: <199612062225.OAA21306@scv1.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>what is the going price of the echoplex these days?
>
>paul


I just ordered one this week, and $549 for the 12.5 second configuration 
was the standard.  The footpedal runs about $100.

Travis Hartnett

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 14:42:50 -0000
From: Tom Attix* <attix@apple.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex
Message-Id: <199612062239.OAA10026@scv3.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>Just got a Vortex and am wondering if there is a way to bypass it other
>than using a footswitch ... in other words if it is in my rig and always
>has signal going thru it, how might I turn it off, while maintaining signal
>going thru
>
>paul

Yeah, I had the same problem. The only solution I have come up with for 
this one is to create a patch that has the MIX selection turned all the 
way off (no effect) and then save it. It's a lame solution to a lame 
problem, rack gear should always have a bypass switch (it's not just good 
user interface, it's the law...)

-Tom Attix
_______________________________________________

attix@apple.com
_______________________________________________

"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing
through the leather straps". - Emo Phillips

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:08:10 -0300
From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Why Vortex flopped...?
Message-Id: <v01520d01aecd55e1440e@[200.254.32.111]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Man Himself put down:
>-- As has been commonly mentioned here before, the factory presets don't
>do the unit any sort of justice.  Not only is the selection of basic
>effects pretty tame, but the actual effects level is far too subtle to be
>noticed in a guitar store environment.  Like I said, there was little if
>anything in the factory sounds to suggest that the unit was capable of
>some of the things it can actually do; most of the stock patches sounded
>like a good chorus/delay unit with a lousy control interface.  The subtle
>velocity-sensitive bits and stereo panning details will never come across
>in Guitar Center, even under the best of circumstances.  And most of the
>preset pairs are so similar that I didn't even know I was engaging
>morphing most of the time.

Exactly.
I had half an hour in a friends studio. It was new to him, too. We found
pretty quickly how to operate it, but we were not interested in chorus and
such sounds and up to date I hardly can imagine what more it does.
But Chris will bring me one, he said! YIPIE! We might have a good time... ;-)

Matthias

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:08:26 -0300
From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes
Message-Id: <v01520d04aecd5fe99f74@[200.254.32.111]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jon tells:

>Eventually, some smart person put his hands on a new (at the
>time) 2105 chip (manufacturer escapes me temporarily, sorry)

Thats Analog Devices, really the cheapest DSP there was.

and began
>experimenting. He discovered some serious mind-altering delay modulation stuff
>which simply couldn't be done within a Lexichip.

You meand there is no possibility to do the sounds on a PCM80? That must be
a limit of the Lexichip then, because I cannot see anything the 2105 does
that the "big" standard DSP don't do.

>Then somebody stumbled into the morphing thing,
>and a whole new set of doors opened up.

But morphing could and should be done on the PCM80, right?

>Morphing: OK, it was "an idea who's time had come", but I will say this.
>Morphing is the primary reason I use the box. I use it all the time, to either
>swell in delays, fast pedal detunes, slow ring-mod to
>flangin/panning/looping--fractal, or sometimes leave the pedal somewhere in the
>middle for horribly nasty beauty.

I was looking for that for all kind of sounds, because I did not want to
switch. So I have a fader between two guitar sounds I can choose. On one
end piezo, on the other bridge distorted, on one end polydistortion, on the
other clean humbucking... is that morphing, anyway?

>Then, 20 years from now, you'll be able to sell it for $1200 as a classic,
>vintage, whatever...

Probably. And the JamMan, and the PLEX?
Certainly the LOOP delay will have a tremendous value - there are only 100
of it!

Matthias

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:30:59 -0500
From: PMimlitsch@aol.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Vortex/Jamman
Message-ID: <961206193059_707658353@emout04.mail.aol.com>

O.K. -- I'm convinced.-- Could someone re-post the phone # of the place
that's selling the Vortex unit for $150.00?  Also, I'm thinking about adding
another Jamman to my setup but have also been thinking about the Echoplex.
 However I'm a little worried that the Echoplex might not be as intuitive to
use as the Jamman. Any thoughts or suggestions?  
   Saw an add in the recent Rock and Rythm catalog for a thing called
"Dimension Beam" by Interactive Light that puts out an invisible cone of
infrared light.  Apparantly any movement within different parts of this beam
can be used to send  midi signals to trigger sounds, lights etc.  Anybody
using this?
        ---Thanks. Take care.---Paul

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:08:16 -0500
From: Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski, Phd)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Echoplex system version?
Message-Id: <v01520d06aece736c1d24@[205.216.96.77]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>what is the going price of the echoplex these days?
>>
>>paul
>
>
>I just ordered one this week, and $549 for the 12.5 second configuration
>was the standard.  The footpedal runs about $100.
>
>Travis Hartnett

where did you get it and do you know how much for additional memory

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 07:11:06 -0000
From: "T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.com>
To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: Echoplex system version?
Message-Id: <199612070110.RAA20872@scv1.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>>>what is the going price of the echoplex these days?
>>>
>>>paul
>>
>>
>>I just ordered one this week, and $549 for the 12.5 second configuration
>>was the standard.  The footpedal runs about $100.
>>
>>Travis Hartnett
>
>where did you get it and do you know how much for additional memory


I purchased the Echoplex and the controller from Banana's At Large, 
415-457-7600. 
I paid $116 for 4 4MB simms, to bring it up to 198sec.  I ordered the ram 
from Techworks @ 800-688-7466.  Shipping was $5, next day.

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 17:08:13 -0800
From: Sean Echevarria <sean@PureAtria.COM>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: memory
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961207010813.009929d8@pure.pureatria.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Fry's in the SF Bay area has a sale on 30 pin 4MB SIMMS for 18.95 each this
week (limit of 4 per person - how convenient for Echoplex owners!).


At 08:08 PM 12/6/96 -0500, someone wrote:
>
>where did you get it and do you know how much for additional memory
>

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:19:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Peck <rpeck@PureAtria.COM>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Vortex
Message-Id: <199612070419.UAA10847@pure.PureAtria.COM>

>
>Also, if you find an expression pedal, be prepared to do some
>soldering.  The wiring on the Vortex is a little unusual. 
>

The cheap plastic Roland pedals work great.

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:29:01 -0500
From: Paulpop@ssnet.com (Paul Poplawski, Phd)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Echoplex system version?
Message-Id: <v01520d00aecea2fe48c1@[205.216.96.77]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>>>what is the going price of the echoplex these days?
>>>>
>>>>paul
>>>
>>>
>>>I just ordered one this week, and $549 for the 12.5 second configuration
>>>was the standard.  The footpedal runs about $100.
>>>
>>>Travis Hartnett
>>
>>where did you get it and do you know how much for additional memory
>
>
>I purchased the Echoplex and the controller from Banana's At Large,
>415-457-7600.
>I paid $116 for 4 4MB simms, to bring it up to 198sec.  I ordered the ram
>from Techworks @ 800-688-7466.  Shipping was $5, next day.


thanks

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 04:29:05 -0500 (EST)
From: JOHNPOLLOCK@delphi.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Vortex/Jamman
Message-id: <01ICPRVRAV8295RZLY@delphi.com>
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Paul wrote,

>O.K. -- I'm convinced.-- Could someone re-post the phone # of the place
>that's selling the Vortex unit for $150.00?

There isn't a single phone number for Guitar Center, but the numbers
for their 28 retail stores are on their Web site--www.musician.com

John                              Email:  johnpollock@delphi.com
Troubador Tech on the Web--http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock/

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 04:30:17 -0500 (EST)
From: JOHNPOLLOCK@delphi.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes
Message-id: <01ICPRX5GX5Y95RZLY@delphi.com>
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

In an earlier post I wrote,

>>I had just been through a very bitter year attempting (unsuccessfully)
>>to have a birth defect in my GFX-1 preamp repaired under warranty--
>>a unit which I was enticed to buy by advertising and an owners manual
>>that were full of misstatements, untruths, prevarications, falsehoods,
>>lies, damned lies, and (just possibly) one or two mistakes (details
>>available upon request).

And Michael P. in Glasgow wrote,

>Isn't that the "Twin Tube" model?  I'm curious.  Consider this a request!

Since the tale is long and totally off-topic, I answered Michael
directly.  If you want to read it as well, let me know.

John                              Email:  johnpollock@delphi.com
Troubador Tech on the Web--http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock/

------------------------------
Date: 07 Dec 96 09:02:26 EST
From: Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: PCM 80: to morph or not to morph
Message-ID: <961207140226_74074.1316_GHQ72-2@CompuServe.COM>

Matthias writes:

>You meand there is no possibility to do the sounds on a PCM80? That must >be a
limit of the Lexichip then, because I cannot see anything the 2105 >does that
the "big" standard DSP don't do.
 
The Lexichip is a great *reverb* chip, designed *specifically* to handle the
rigors of Dave G.'s secret sauce. (not to mention remove the liklihood of
reverse-engineering!) It does have it's limitations, due to the nature of it's
design. In the PCM 80, the Lexichip is teamed up with a 56K, giving you the best
of both worlds. The new MPX-1 is a Lexichip/2110 combi platter, better suited to
Vortex-like oddness. But don't expect anyone to be doing them soon. Bring up the
naughty M-word, and you're likely to be run out of town.

The beauty of "morphing" in the Vortex, as opposed to, say, Digidrek (who began
using the term for a couple of months when they thought we were on to something)
was that it doesn't simply cross-fade between effects. A good look at the Vortex
Manual gives you a block diagram of the many different algorithmic structures.
Which tend to be convoluted and bizzarre. When you morph, those structures get
transformed, and along the way, some unbelievably cool stuff takes place. 

The PCM 80 is designed very differently, and for a number of reasons, I'm not
convinced it would work the same way. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool, but
it would be different. And, besides, as I mentioned earlier, no one's going to
go there. 

------------------------------
Date: 07 Dec 96 09:02:32 EST
From: Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex / LXP-5
Message-ID: <961207140231_74074.1316_GHQ72-4@CompuServe.COM>

Ken writes,

>I have a Lexicon LXP-5 I'm not having as good luck with.  Not only is it a
>pain in the ass to program, but I can't seem to get rid of the shrill
>"digital-ness" of the guitar sound through it, and I don't want to be
>cluttering up the signal more with some post-effect EQ or such.  I do like
>the fact that it does infinite loops that you can lock in and then play
>over,as well as a pitch shifter that's in tune in all octaves without any
>warbling or slap-back, but I don't like what it does to the tone.
>Maybe I just need to figure out the internal workings a little better, but
>it's a tough nut to crack, programming-wise.  Maybe it was more intended >for
studio use rather than as a guitar effect?

Joe Gore (senior editor of Guitar Player, and guitarist w/PJ Harvey and others)
called the LXP-5's user interface "user-sadistic". Best description I've ever
heard. Horrible interface, really embarrassing.

As for using it with guitar, you need to know that, yes it was designed for
studio use only. At the time (and still today, though it's changing rapidly) the
engineering department at Lex refused to acknowledge the guitar market as a
market at all. They're all kids playing with toys, and *real* musicians don't
use this stuff, only engineers do. I'm not joking here--this is how they
thought, and many there still think. But, the good news is that enough people
have come in who disagree that they're beginning to do some things right. The
MPX-1 is the start, and you'll see more in the future, assuming they don't have
the rug pulled out from under their feet.

------------------------------
Date: 07 Dec 96 09:02:29 EST
From: Jon Durant <74074.1316@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: Why Vortex flopped...?
Message-ID: <961207140228_74074.1316_GHQ72-3@CompuServe.COM>

Andre writes:

>-- As has been commonly mentioned here before, the factory presets don't
>do the unit any sort of justice.  Not only is the selection of basic
>effects pretty tame, but the actual effects level is far too subtle to be
>noticed in a guitar store environment.  Like I said, there was little if
>anything in the factory sounds to suggest that the unit was capable of
>some of the things it can actually do; most of the stock patches sounded
>like a good chorus/delay unit with a lousy control interface.  The subtle
>velocity-sensitive bits and stereo panning details will never come across
>in Guitar Center, even under the best of circumstances.  And most of the
>preset pairs are so similar that I didn't even know I was engaging
>morphing most of the time.

When I first broght the unit to Vernon Reid, I went through the presets, one by
one. He thought it was cool, but wasn't overwhelmed. Then I set up a register
pair of Bleen and Fractal, grabbed the e-bow, held down a note and morphed
between-em. He freaked out over it. "Why didn't you show me this first?!?!"  He
grabbed the guitar, and stated getting completely sick. It was great fun. 

The sales staff at Lexicon have a tendedcy to believe in make everything useful,
saily, right out of the box. An incredible time is spent on presets--and when
you plug in nany reverb from them (from Alex right on up the line), you're not
likely to have to do much alteration to find a sound that's right for what
you're doing. But Vortex is different, and I think you're right. The presets are
way too tame, and that coupled with lack of MIDI (#1 problem) were the two
biggest oversights in the device.

As for other issues, I can only state, again, that when the engineering
management forces a package on the designers (in the case of Vertex, the Alex
box), you have to make sacrifices. There's no bypass switch because there wasn't
one on Alex. Nothing could be done. MIDI was not an option because of price. It
was in the original spec, but taken out because of cost. Take it or leave it.

In a lot of ways, there were people who made it impossible for the marketing
team to really have any say over what would end up in the box. This is what we
often referred to as "sales prevention". An ugly situation, which as near as I
can tell, continues to worsen since my departure. Sad, really. Some really great
ideas are simply being throuwn away, and very good people are getting fed up and
leaving.

Do I sound bitter?

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:40:58 -0500
From: jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Vortex Alert and formal delurk
Message-ID: <19961207154055184.AAB174@cola89.scsn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

john - what city is the guitar center in?
At 05:09 AM 11/30/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Just in case someone still wants one, the Guitar Center "December Deal
>Days" catalog announces a "Last Chance On Lexicon Price Breakthrough!"
>on the Vortex at $149.99.  Presumably, they have enough left to warrant
>the catalog space.  They also advertise the DOD DFX94 4-second
>sampler/delay stompbox for $120-- can anyone give a real-world review
>of this unit?  Is it worth the money?
>
>I've been reading the newsletter and visiting the Web site since Kim
>made the announcement in the Digital Guitar Digest.  I'm delurking
>now because I feel a flood of questions and comments building up,
>and think it only fair to give you an idea who they're coming from.
>
>I'm possibly the oldest reader of this list (still 51, for a few weeks),
>and likely one of the newest loop addicts (I got my Vortex three weeks
>ago today).  I played music for a living for 15 years, beginning as
>a steel guitarist and ending up as a one-person band, driving a pair of
>synthesizers with a MIDI guitar and a MIDI pedal keyboard while singing
>or playing harmonica.  I "retired" several years ago, after I realized I
>dreaded going to work; I'm now beginning to recapture the joy of making
>music for its own sake, and for mine.
>
>Rather than burdening the list with details of my gear, I invite anyone
>interested to my Troubador Tech Web site (URL in sig), which is devoted
>to tools and techniques of possible interest to the solo simultaneous
>multiinstrumentalist.  It includes the modest beginning of a page on 
>delays and looping, where you can find out how to get four delays of
>up to 12 seconds each from a Casio VZ-series synthesizer.  
>
>I'm deeply grateful to everyone who contributes to this project, for
>the information and the inspiration.  May all your loops yield happy
>surprises!
>
>John                              Email:  johnpollock@delphi.com
>Troubador Tech on the Web--http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock/
>
>
Jay Taylor
P.O. Box 1333
The State
Columbia, S.C. 29201
(803) 771-8549
fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
jtaylor@scsn.net

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:45:07 -0500
From: jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Why Vortex flopped...?
Message-ID: <19961207154506385.AAA184@cola89.scsn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

anybody - where can i get a mail-order vortex at a good price? i need to
forward it to the jolly old morph. (have lost address and phone obtained
earlier.) jay 

At 09:02 AM 12/7/96 EST, you wrote:
>Andre writes:
>
>>-- As has been commonly mentioned here before, the factory presets don't
>>do the unit any sort of justice.  Not only is the selection of basic
>>effects pretty tame, but the actual effects level is far too subtle to be
>>noticed in a guitar store environment.  Like I said, there was little if
>>anything in the factory sounds to suggest that the unit was capable of
>>some of the things it can actually do; most of the stock patches sounded
>>like a good chorus/delay unit with a lousy control interface.  The subtle
>>velocity-sensitive bits and stereo panning details will never come across
>>in Guitar Center, even under the best of circumstances.  And most of the
>>preset pairs are so similar that I didn't even know I was engaging
>>morphing most of the time.
>
>When I first broght the unit to Vernon Reid, I went through the presets, one by
>one. He thought it was cool, but wasn't overwhelmed. Then I set up a register
>pair of Bleen and Fractal, grabbed the e-bow, held down a note and morphed
>between-em. He freaked out over it. "Why didn't you show me this first?!?!"  He
>grabbed the guitar, and stated getting completely sick. It was great fun. 
>
>The sales staff at Lexicon have a tendedcy to believe in make everything
useful,
>saily, right out of the box. An incredible time is spent on presets--and when
>you plug in nany reverb from them (from Alex right on up the line), you're not
>likely to have to do much alteration to find a sound that's right for what
>you're doing. But Vortex is different, and I think you're right. The
presets are
>way too tame, and that coupled with lack of MIDI (#1 problem) were the two
>biggest oversights in the device.
>
>As for other issues, I can only state, again, that when the engineering
>management forces a package on the designers (in the case of Vertex, the Alex
>box), you have to make sacrifices. There's no bypass switch because there
wasn't
>one on Alex. Nothing could be done. MIDI was not an option because of price. It
>was in the original spec, but taken out because of cost. Take it or leave it.
>
>In a lot of ways, there were people who made it impossible for the marketing
>team to really have any say over what would end up in the box. This is what we
>often referred to as "sales prevention". An ugly situation, which as near as I
>can tell, continues to worsen since my departure. Sad, really. Some really
great
>ideas are simply being throuwn away, and very good people are getting fed
up and
>leaving.
>
>Do I sound bitter?
>
>
>
Jay Taylor
P.O. Box 1333
The State
Columbia, S.C. 29201
(803) 771-8549
fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
jtaylor@scsn.net

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:47:16 -0500
From: jtaylor@scsn.net (Jay Taylor)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: whoops
Message-ID: <19961207154715290.AAA61@cola89.scsn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

scratch that request for stores selling vortex. i overlooked the recent post
answering same. jay 

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:20:14 -0300
From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: implied rhythms
Message-Id: <v01520d02aecd58bef03a@[200.254.32.111]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Bryan Helm said a lot of interesting stuff, hard to understand though.
At first I was fascinated reading:
>    The contrast between an
>    acccompanied loop versus a solo loop is really clearly heard if
>    you listen to any "Frippertronics" work with a lead non-loop melody,
>    such as "Evening Star", and compare it to solo-loop work such as
>    "Let The Power Fall", the differences are major.

But then I thought about it and remembered my experiences and started to
doubt. As loops grow longer, melodies enter on top of multiplied bases, and
maybe disapear again, the limits between the live and loop part get lost.
And I think its good. The musician listener will always know what part the
musician is actually playing. But for the simple "liker of music", I feel
it is best to offer one integrated thing and as long as the loop and live
part are as different as you say (or I understand) the loop is not really
part of your playing and maybe not integrated for the listener either. This
is a possible way, but probably not a basic condition.


I maybe must say something of little respect: Its time to go way beyond
Fripp in terms of looping! I said that to himself, too: A part of a long
letter I wrote over a year ago was:

...until I found the Soundscapes CD at the beginning of this year.
Listening to it, I felt the desire to contact you: I learned so much about
guitar playing and music from you, mainly in the 70's, and I am still a
rather limited musician. But now, I have developed the looping way of
playing to a degree, where I could teach you something, too - about the
technology of the machine and its musical applications.

He never answered. Maybe I was not delicate enough or did not understand
his record. Or he and his disciples stick to what has been found, just the
same way as many stick to Strat-Marsh music as developped by Hendrix...

Matthias

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:20:47 -0300
From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Vortex Applications Notes
Message-Id: <v01520d00aecf3fddc776@[200.254.32.114]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>selfsame pump sank like a stone as I read, down at the very bottom,
>those dread words:  "A Harman International Company."


As fusions go on, soon you will read "Made by Mankind Inc." and after the
first error (which you will certainly discover after 5 minutes, in the
future) you are forced to buy only from other planets...

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:20:52 -0300
From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: BIO-ELECTRONIC ?
Message-Id: <v01520d01aecf40ed074c@[200.254.32.114]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>
>Michael,
>pretty damned jealous!  :)

Well, your nickname Dr     called my atention, and I not just like
englishmen, usually, but especially those sincere ones and the name PYCRAFT
sounds like someone really special and the Zen Proverb is a extremely
interesting one... but, I'm afraid,  what really makes me risk to rob some
of your time is:  BIO-ELECTRONIC - What the hell... ??
I imagine you implant RS 232 into rats to monitor them... or make chips
cross their legs and then procreate...

Nothing but d... humble curiosity
Matthias

PS
If anyone thinks this is off topic: shht, he is Dr., lets see whether we
can finally find the resonance centre in the brain, you know, the
twistplace, the ANSWER to the loop...

>Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes      Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg,
>Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979        University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K.
>        "Everything in moderation, including moderation" (Zen Proverb)

--------------------------------