------------------------------
Loopers-Delight-d Digest				Volume 97 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
  Re: ECHOPLEX SHIPPING TO EUROPE       [ Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com> ]
  stereoizing mono loop with vortex     [ buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barre ]
  Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?   [ Grover Sheffield <gls@mindspring.co ]
  Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?   [ Kim Flint <kflint@chromatic.com> ]
  Re: Vocoder                           [ malhomme <malhomme@infobiogen.fr> ]
  URGENT!! HELP REQUEST                 [ Leonardo Cavallo <LEO@DINONET.IT> ]
  Re: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST             [ Marc Lawrence Roche <govinda@cyber- ]
  Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?   [ PainPete@aol.com ]
  Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?   [ Andre LaFosse <altruist@shoko.calar ]
  Re: stereoizing mono loop with vorte  [ Fmplautus@aol.com ]
  Is Mr. Torn on this list??            [ 7302 <7302@ssj.dtu.dk> ]
  Re: stereoizing mono loop with vorte  [ buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barre ]
  Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?   [ improv@peak.org (Dave Trenkel) ]
  Re: ECHOPLEX SHIPPING TO EUROPE       [ pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pyc ]
  Re: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST             [ Erik Ljones <eriklj@stud.ntnu.no> ]

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, 10 Oct 1997 11:54:20 -0700
From: Kim Flint <kflint@annihilist.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: ECHOPLEX SHIPPING TO EUROPE
Message-Id: <v03102803b0642471cdb4@[207.171.198.49]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Kim:
>>CE totally hosed a lot of small american manufacturers, by the way. Doing
>>the design changes, getting EMI tests, managing the paperwork, etc. was too
>>expensive, so a lot of them had to stop selling in europe.
>
>Serves ya right for making substandard gear!  Ha!

It wasn't substandard when we designed it, just after you guys changed the
laws! It had already been shipping for quite a while before that, meaning
it had to be changed in production. Huge pain.

It was those damned EMI regulations. Do you know how much it costs just to
find out if you have an EMI problem? The scan labs charge at least $200 an
hour, plus another $200/hour for a consultant since you almost certainly
don't know what you're doing. And you're gonna be sitting in there for a
while! And then you've got to pay some other bunch of overpriced
consultants who may or may not know what they're doing to recommend design
changes to correct any problems, then you've got to redesign a shipping
product, build new prototypes, scan them again, probably do it over again
since the consultant turned out to be a flake, redo all the production
engineering, fill out all the paperwork, etc. That's a lot of cash for a
small company and a low volume product.

I mean, jeez. If the music is good, who cares if it stops a pacemaker or
two? :-)


>
>> The bigger companies could afford to make the changes and had the sales
>>volume > to make it worthwhile; they just bumped the price way up.
>
>I'm amazed.  Aren't there decent standards held in the States?

Ha! In the land of the free-market-no-matter-how-much-damage-it-causes?

Don't get me wrong, I think the standards are a good thing. It's just that
the economic reality was pretty severe for small companies already dealing
with the expense of competing in a foreign market. I knew of several small
companies that just didn't bother.


>> That's why synths in europe cost way more than in the US now.
>
>Nah, that's just taxes and stuff.  Strats cost more here than there.  Going
>strat price is over $1000 right now.

Strats have to pass CE too! At Gibson, we were actually scanning Les Pauls
for EMI problems. It was crazy.

anyway, back to looping....

kim



______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                   | Looper's Delight
kflint@annihilist.com       | http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html
http://www.annihilist.com/  | Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:49:21 -0400
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: stereoizing mono loop with vortex
Message-Id: <199710102049.AA15418@world.std.com>

A sidenote:
 As a new owner of both a JamMan and a Vortex, I want to
 give many thanks to everyone involved with this list (and the website)
 for being such fabulous sources of information (and used gear).
 I've never bought equipment I'd never tried out with such a good
 understanding of what I was getting.

[This is kinda long, and totally Vortex specific...
it's not the looper you're looking for... move along.]

I had been expecting that I was going to use the Vortex
as a "performance expression effect" on my guitar sound;
however, until I get an expression pedal for it, this
probably won't happen, because I've gotten hooked on
placing it _after_ my JamMan, and using it to give the
(long) JamMan mono loops a stereo field.  This will probably
be less interesting if I were to play live with the
setup, but it is especially appealing when I'm playing
late at night with headphones (and it's _plausible_ I'd
be willing to consume half of my 4-tracks tracks on a
single loop).

My goal is/was most definitely to achieve the "sound" of
a stereo loop, so I don't care (for this purpose) about
changing the effect dynamically.

Initially, I used the Vortex as a glorified stereo chorus.
Then I hit on the notion of using the Vortex's delays as
a "sustain" in the sense of performing volume-swelled notes
so that they blend seamlessly with the delay.  The reason
it's interesting to do this in the Vortex (as opposed to
actually embeddeding it into the loop "proper" as it's
stored in the JamMan) is that it means that the note coming
into the Vortex is shorter.  Thus, if there is some kind
of dynamically changing effect "at the front" of the
Vortex, the shorter note will be "mostly the same", and
then the echoes will hold it out; if the echoes were
"stored in the loop", then the note would pick up the
changing sound.

To put it in a different, maybe more clear way: if I play
two overlapping notes (as heard through the Vortex),
each of which lasts for 5 seconds, and the second starts
two seconds after the first--if you "sustain" the notes
outside the Vortex, then during the 3 seconds the notes
overlap, they'll be processed identically--making it
sound like a mono loop with stereo processing.  If each
note is actually 1 second long, with the Vortex "echo
sustaining" it for another 4 seconds, then those two
notes can sound "independent" if there's an effect that
has changed sound in the intervening 1 second.

To be more specific, the idea I had in my head (which I
am about to describe trying to implement) was that a Vortex
patch with an LFO-panner on the inputs, and the delays
arranged as a true stereo echo, would make it so that each
note played into the Vortex would come out at a random
location in the stereo field; tuning the panning speed
makes sure that the notes don't move too much during the
time they're actually at the input of the Vortex (and
going through the panner).

I.e., conceptually, I want the whole system to sound
like I have a "stereo JamMan", and each note added to
it is placed at a different position in the stereo field.
The actual description above achieves that, except that
when a loop repeats, the stereo position will change
(since the timing of the loop and the panning LFO aren't
in sync).

So, I hunt through the list of effects for something
that does this.  The best I find is (I assume now, I
didn't take notes) Maze A, which is basically this,
except that (according to the chart) the echoes are
connected L&R reversed from the direct signal.  That
could be coped with by not mixing in the direct signal.
However, it seemed that the echoes simply did not have
the same stereo separation that the direct signal did,
and I couldn't quite figure out why.  This could have
been user error, but I found a substitute--Cycloid A,
which does "filter panning", worked pretty well.  The
effect was interesting, and did give an interesting
stereo quality to the loop--a very different kind of
stereo than just "glorified stereo chorus".

Well, I thought that was the end of that, so I ignored
my JamMan and decided independently, for fun, to try
to make a Vortex patch with the Vortex looping but
some internal effect on the feedback, so that the
loop would get progressively "nastier" (for a
definition of nasty meaning multiple passes of some
effect).  The choices for algorithms that do this
are extremely limited; unless I'm forgetting one, just
Shadow A, which has an _unconfigurable_ hicut filter
in the feedback loop, to simulate tape echo, and
Atmosphere B, which has two modulators in the feedback
loop, and 7 parameters affecting them!  Sounds great.

So then I wasted a bunch of time trying to figure
out the parameters did.  (Where "waste" is defined
as "I never did understand".  Anyone care to attempt
to explain _what_ a modulator is, and then hence
what a _tap_ is?  I'm assuming the difference
between a tuned tap and a gliding tap is simply
that the former is fixed and the latter has a
parameter that is swept with the LFO.)  I pretty
much failed to get any kind of interesting "each
time it repeats it gets nastier".

To connect back to how this started, however, I did
accidentally create a surprising looping effect which
I didn't even think was possible with just a pair of
delays: a stereo echo where each echo occurs
at a different location in the stereo field.  That
is, the first echo is basically in the center, the
second is a little more to the right, etc., until
they're mostly on the right; then they move back
across to the _left_.  If it weren't for that last
bit, you can get a similar effect simply with two
delays configured in stereo, with different feedback
settings (one channel dies away faster, and the sound
"moves" to the other side); however, that effect is
much less dramatic.  It's also not like the sound
of Mosaic A, where the echoes are glued to the
location of a panner controlled by an LFO; each
note sounded makes this progression independently.
[It may be that this effect is trivially creatable
with the Vortex, and I just happened to find it as
part of Atmosphere B; however, I was not able to
construct it in any other algorithms, although I
didn't try very hard.]

The upshot of this is that with the "use a delay
to simulate sustain", you get a note which starts
at the center of the stereo field, then slowly
moves one way and then the other.  Put the mono
looper back in front of that, and you get an effect
indistinguishable from what you would feeding that
same patch into a true stereo looper, and you get
a very interesting (and continuously shifting)
stereo field, as opposed to the "subtle fixed" chorusy
sounds or the "dramatically shifting" panning sounds.

Anybody got any other tips or tidbits for putting
Vortex post-JamMan, or in general applying stereo
effects to mono loops?

Sean Barrett
(of course two echoplexen is the right way to stereo loop, but
I can't really justify such a purchase solely to get stereo
looping; although I suspect there's at least one in my future)

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:10:13 -0500
From: Grover Sheffield <gls@mindspring.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971011041013.006bb518@pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Alright, all you gear-knowledgable people.  I'm about ready to buy a looping
toy and further twist my personality.  I want to know how I can selectively,
with one looping device, 
        1) loop guitar,   2) loop vocal,   and  3) both.

I assume I can run  both from my mixer, or use an A/B box to choose one or
the other.  Is there a box (commercially or that I can make) that allows me
to switch between the THREE options noted above?

Thanks for all the info so far.  I'm impressed with you.  Oh, when will the
new software start being shipped with EPs from Oberheim?  

        Grover 

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:35:33 -0700
From: Kim Flint <kflint@chromatic.com>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971011043533.008e960c@pop.chromatic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:10 PM 10/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Alright, all you gear-knowledgable people.  I'm about ready to buy a looping
>toy and further twist my personality.  I want to know how I can selectively,
>with one looping device, 
>        1) loop guitar,   2) loop vocal,   and  3) both.
>
>I assume I can run  both from my mixer, or use an A/B box to choose one or
>the other.  Is there a box (commercially or that I can make) that allows me
>to switch between the THREE options noted above?

I assume there is some reason why you can't just use the output of the mixer
directly into the looping device? Or an auxillary out? 

Or did you want some separate switching device to make it easy to switch
while performing? That would be a very simple device, easy to make. I'm sure
there are commercial devices like that as well, but I don't really know
what's out there for that.


>Thanks for all the info so far.  I'm impressed with you.  Oh, when will the
>new software start being shipped with EPs from Oberheim?  

Echoplexes shipping now have the new software.

kim
________________________________________________________
Kim Flint		       408-752-9284
Mpact System Engineering       kflint@chromatic.com
Chromatic Research             http://www.chromatic.com

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:52:15 +0000
From: malhomme <malhomme@infobiogen.fr>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: Vocoder
Message-ID: <343F5A5E.1D@infobiogen.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paolo said:
" One trick I've always wanted to try with a vocoder or similar effect
is to use it in conjuction with an Ebow"

AH this man should be awarded a king of gold medal for his ideas.

Did anyone try? Like with a SE-70, or another vocoder?

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:48:15 +0200
From: Leonardo Cavallo <LEO@DINONET.IT>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST
Message-ID: <19971011114813703.AAA212@Default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 Hi all 

I'd like to know where can I find in N.Y. a new, upgraded Oberheim Echoplex
Digital Pro with pedalboard. Any store reccomended? Info on line about
disponibility? I can search on the web if you give me the store names.
This is because I've got a friend of mine in N.Y. during the next week who
could buy the unit for me...
Any suggestions? Please help me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

thanks in advance
Leo

  

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:40:21 -0700
From: Marc Lawrence Roche <govinda@cyber-dyne.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST
Message-ID: <01bcd653$9a6262e0$212981d0@govinda.cyber-dyne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

8th St music in Phil will give you the best price. get in line.....ciao
-----Original Message-----
From: Leonardo Cavallo <LEO@DINONET.IT>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Date: Saturday, October 11, 1997 4:42 AM
Subject: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST


> Hi all
>
>I'd like to know where can I find in N.Y. a new, upgraded Oberheim Echoplex
>Digital Pro with pedalboard. Any store reccomended? Info on line about
>disponibility? I can search on the web if you give me the store names.
>This is because I've got a friend of mine in N.Y. during the next week who
>could buy the unit for me...
>Any suggestions? Please help me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>
>thanks in advance
>Leo
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: PainPete@aol.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
Message-ID: <971011120709_1333627494@emout16.mail.aol.com>

I don't know if it would do a good job, but could you use the Ernie Ball
panning volume pedal as an A/B mixer while it's in "pan" mode? That way you
could mix the levels of A and B in any configuration you want. The sweep of
the mix might sound awkward, but then again maybe not. ? Anyone tried this?

In a message dated 97-10-11 02:42:37 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:	Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
 Date:	97-10-11 02:42:37 EDT
 From:	gls@mindspring.com (Grover Sheffield)
 Resent-from:	Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
 Reply-to:	Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
 To:	Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
 
 Alright, all you gear-knowledgable people.  I'm about ready to buy a looping
 toy and further twist my personality.  I want to know how I can selectively,
 with one looping device, 
         1) loop guitar,   2) loop vocal,   and  3) both.
 
 I assume I can run  both from my mixer, or use an A/B box to choose one or
 the other.  Is there a box (commercially or that I can make) that allows me
 to switch between the THREE options noted above?
 
 Thanks for all the info so far.  I'm impressed with you.  Oh, when will the
 new software start being shipped with EPs from Oberheim?  
 
         Grover 
 
 
  >>

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andre LaFosse <altruist@shoko.calarts.edu>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.91.971011101646.8569A-100000@shoko.calarts.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

>  Alright, all you gear-knowledgable people.  I'm about ready to buy a looping
>  toy and further twist my personality.  I want to know how I can selectively,
>  with one looping device, 
>          1) loop guitar,   2) loop vocal,   and  3) both.
>  
>  I assume I can run  both from my mixer, or use an A/B box to choose one or
>  the other.  Is there a box (commercially or that I can make) that allows me
>  to switch between the THREE options noted above?

Morley makes a couple of pedals along these lines; the one I use has one 
input/output jack, an A jack, and a B jack.  You can select between A 
alone, B alone, or A and B combined.  I use it live when I'm running two 
amps at once to switch between a "normal" unprocessed guitar sound and my 
looped stereo rig, by plugging my guitar into the in/out jack and running 
each of the A and B jacks to one of the amps.  But there's no reason you 
couldn't invert the formula, i.e. plug a mike into A, a guitar into B, 
and then send the in/out jack signal into your looper.

It's a pretty good piece of gear, and retails for about $40 bucks.  It 
can be run both with or without a battery (the former option drives LEDs 
which tell you what channels are engaged).

--Andre

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:53:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fmplautus@aol.com
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re:  stereoizing mono loop with vortex
Message-ID: <971011145303_1177307584@emout14.mail.aol.com>

Sean:

Congratulations on your new Vortex...quite simply the most amazing box of
mind boggling space innerds ever devised by deviants in any laboratory.

The LoOpDoctOrs must quibble with your assessment that...

(of course two echoplexen is the right way to stereo loop, but
I can't really justify such a purchase solely to get stereo
looping; although I suspect there's at least one in my future)

There is no "right" way.  We like the twisted, tortured, jerryrigged approach
to creativity and your post about the accidents that came about as you
massaged your Vortex is a paen to the monstrous fertility that comes when you
do your corn rituals and sacrifice to the aural god known as VORTEX.

We would not presume to instruct anyone on how to get the "right way" going
as far as stereo fields, however the LoOpdoctOrs will venture that one of the
more truly "sick" and interesting patches as far as panning and ponging and
bonging is the DUO "click" on the Vortex dial.  Try fooling with Duo and do
get an expression pedal so you can toesy-morph between this and some of your
other stereo pans. 

Incidentally, we really appreicate your understanding that "stereo" isn't
about "left and right" but really about depth of field...like the old
"stereographic" viewers the LoOpdoctOrs used to waste hours of time with as
children.  What true stereo means is three dimensionality and your idea of
notes playing hide and seek across a sound field simply means that you are
one multi-dimensional looping hombre.  We salute you!

Best,
the LoOpDoctOrs

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:56:17 +0200
From: 7302 <7302@ssj.dtu.dk>
To: 'Loopers-Delight' <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
Subject: Is Mr. Torn on this list??
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=ihs.dk%l=JAGUAR-971011185617Z-1005@jaguar.ihs.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi there! I'm new to this list ... here's a little descript. of me ...

The main thing about what I do is freedom and evolution. It's about
caching a
feeling and responding to that and what's happening now.
I don't consider beat, key and structure to be important for music.
I do however consider noise, feedback, surprice and interaction as very
eccential.

I'm at the moment working on a homepage as a tribute to David Torn, I
however
will not make it available before he says go.

My first Q is simple: Is Mr. Torn on this list??

Yes, I know that I'm pretty straighforward, but I really would like to
know! And yes,
I do hope to get a reply from the man himself!
Mr. Torn changed my life even before I heard his music.

This is only the takeoff ... there is something else that I want to ask
you, Mr. Torn ...
if I ever hear from you.

Stefan Hansen
Denmark

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:16:47 -0400
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re:  stereoizing mono loop with vortex
Message-Id: <199710120216.AA21331@world.std.com>

Speaking of Vortex (and going off tangent from looping):

This reminds me; does anyone know of any good web
resources for the Vortex?  As was noted here before,
Andy Butler's page seems to have gone away.  I don't
know what was on it to know what I'm missing.  Searching
with search engines turns up hundreds of pages, most
of which are actually just mailing list digests and
out-of-date for sale lists; my attempts to narrow the
search down further never produced anything interesting.

In terms of _other_ info about Vortex:

I'm currently producing a list of manual addenda,
and if anyone else has any, I'll be glad to put them
all together in a document.  At the moment, the list
is very short (how long it will grow will depend mainly
on how many other bugs I find):

   at least on my Vortex (this _could_ be a problem with
      all, or it might be just mine, I'm not sure which is
      more likely), mono output is achieved through hooking
      the left output, not the right as is asserted in the
      manual and the back of the unit.  (This could just mean
      my outputs are reversed... I haven't verified the
      actual L vs. R routing.  Is it possible that this is
      actually just grabbing the "phones" output and Y-ing
      them together?  At a minimum, I definitely claim that
      using the right output alone does _not_ result in both
      L & R channels mixed together, at least on mine.  Those
      of you using it in mono might want to check yours out
      and see if you've been missing anything.)

   In Mosaic B, the manual indicates that Echo 1 is connected
      directly to an output (after going through Echo FX Level).
      I discovered that it is actually routed through
      Mod FX Level on the way to the output (but not on the
      way to the next echo).  (This seems likely to be a software
      bug rather than a manual bug, since it doesn't really
      make any sense configured this way.)

I will probably be making an exhaustive sweep though all
of the algorithms during the next few weeks, checking for
further errors of this sort (well, actually, that's not
the main goal, but I might as well check, since I'll be
doing it--and I really need to know this, because I do a
lot of "I want an effect that's wired up like this" and then
go hunting through the manual for one, so when it's not wired
up right it takes me a while to figure out why it's not doing
the right thing).

Hey, but don't take this as a slam against the Vortex.
It's very hard to write software that's completely bug free.
And the Vortex does lots of things right.  It always bugs me
in other effects boxes that the designer has limited the
range of the parameters to values thought to be "musically
useful".  I often used to turn one of the two knobs on my
Boss chorus pedal up all the way, and think "I could still use
more", and I still remember the day I actually turned both
knobs up to full to record a guitar track (creating a very
pleasant vibratoy tremolo effect that sat well in that
particular mix), when I once had never thought it would be
reasonable.  The Vortex's LFO rates are a good example of this
(ignoring their use as ring mod sources).  In general, the
extremal values in Vortex parameters seem--well, extremal,
which is great, since it covers the difference between the
designer's opinion of musiciality and mine (or else it means
the designer had a ludicrous definition of musicality and
should be shot, but I digress).

If I could fix one thing about the Vortex, I don't think it
would be MIDI, or front panel controls, or more slots to
save programs in.  I think I'd like Envelope to effectively
range from -64..64... technically, make it 0..63, but make
32 be "no envelope effect", 63 be the same as it is now, and
0 be "envelope has full effect in the 'reverse'" sense.  I'm
a big fan of orthogonality.  Maybe it would turn out all of
these settings would be useless, but I'd like to try a
"reverse ducking echo"--i.e. an echo that got quieter as
I played quieter and louder as I played louder.  I'd like
to be able to make my panning speed up as I play louder, instead
of the reverse. Etc.

Oops, end rant mode.  Nobody's going to change the Vortex,
and nobody's going to make a new one, so not much point
in saying what I'd change.

Besides, it's a lovely box.

Sean Barrett

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:11:31 -0800
From: improv@peak.org (Dave Trenkel)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: looping vocals, guitar or both?
Message-Id: <v01510100b065b3fbbd03@[128.193.5.203]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Alright, all you gear-knowledgable people.  I'm about ready to buy a looping
>toy and further twist my personality.  I want to know how I can selectively,
>with one looping device,
>        1) loop guitar,   2) loop vocal,   and  3) both.
>
>I assume I can run  both from my mixer, or use an A/B box to choose one or
>the other.  Is there a box (commercially or that I can make) that allows me
>to switch between the THREE options noted above?
>
>Thanks for all the info so far.  I'm impressed with you.  Oh, when will the
>new software start being shipped with EPs from Oberheim?
>
You can do this with a JamMan without any extra equipment. The JamMan has
stereo ins & outs, but only loops in mono, summing both channel inputs when
it loops. This "feature" has been endlessly criticized on this list. But
you could plug your guitar into one channel, the vocals into the other,
then when you loop, you would just capture which ever input had a signal,
or both.

________________________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@peak.org  : www.peak.org/~improv/

"...there will come a day when you won't have to use
gasoline. You'd simply take a cassette and put it in
your car, let it run. You'd have to have the proper
type of music. Like you take two sticks, put 'em
together, make fire. You take some notes and rub 'em
together - dum, dum, dum, dum - fire, cosmic fire."
                                            -Sun Ra
________________________________________________________

------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:12:39 +0100
From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Michael Pycraft Hughes, PhD)
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: ECHOPLEX SHIPPING TO EUROPE
Message-Id: <3528.199710120912@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>Kim:
>>>CE totally hosed a lot of small american manufacturers, by the way. Doing
>>>the design changes, getting EMI tests, managing the paperwork, etc. was too
>>>expensive, so a lot of them had to stop selling in europe.
>>
>>Serves ya right for making substandard gear!  Ha!
>
>It wasn't substandard when we designed it, just after you guys changed the
>laws! 

Got to keep you on your toes, heh heh.

>I mean, jeez. If the music is good, who cares if it stops a pacemaker or
>two? :-)

Hey, that's what the music's for!

>>> That's why synths in europe cost way more than in the US now.
>>Nah, that's just taxes and stuff.  Strats cost more here than there.  Going
>>strat price is over $1000 right now.
>Strats have to pass CE too! At Gibson, we were actually scanning Les Pauls
>for EMI problems. It was crazy.

Bloody hell...

OK, but gtrs etc were stupid prices even before CE....

Michael

------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:42:18 +0100
From: Erik Ljones <eriklj@stud.ntnu.no>
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971012234218.0072c984@pop.stud.ntnu.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>8th St music in Phil will give you the best price. get in line.....ciao
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leonardo Cavallo <LEO@DINONET.IT>
>To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
>Date: Saturday, October 11, 1997 4:42 AM
>Subject: URGENT!! HELP REQUEST
>
>
>> Hi all
>>
>>I'd like to know where can I find in N.Y. a new, upgraded Oberheim Echoplex
>>Digital Pro with pedalboard. Any store reccomended? Info on line about
>>disponibility? I can search on the web if you give me the store names.
>>This is because I've got a friend of mine in N.Y. during the next week who
>>could buy the unit for me...
>>Any suggestions? Please help me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>>
>>thanks in advance
>>Leo

Does this mean that new Echoplexes are available again in the USA? 
Erik (Norway)

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