------------------------------ Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: RE: RE: JamMan modifications [ "Sellon, Bob" ] Lexicon LXP-5 Question [ james rhodes ] Talking hex mikes.. [ Olivier Malhomme ] More RE: JamMan modifications [ Ed Drake ] RE: RE: RE: JamMan modifications [ "Sellon, Bob" ] updating the archive...? [ David Kirkdorffer ] An extension. (Re: Bach as a looper) [ "The Negative Eye" To: Loopers-Delight Subject: RE: RE: JamMan modifications Message-Id: <9705091338.AA21178@beryllium.lexicon.com> Kim wrote: >I didn't totally follow the "page" thing. How is that again? >What do you mean by "simultaneous loops"? Do you mean four independent >tracks playing at once as a loop? I didn't think the Jamdude had the >processing muscle to do anything like that. Or do you mean four discrete >loops which are available to switch between? I'm actually talking about 4 independent tracks playing at once. It was something that I really wanted to get into the original Jamman but we couldn't figure out how to deal with it in the user interface. The answer was the concept of a "page". In the new software I'm working on, I refer to the combination of all loops currently playing as a page. Each page can contain up to 4 loops/delays/samples (channels?), each with a separate level and pan control. You tap in the first loop in a page then select other channels which, currently, are initialized to the same size as the first loop. We currently allow a particular channel to be divided down when in the echo mode but I will probably fold that into the loop mode as well. When you need a clean slate, you switch to a new page. The new page gives you up to four new loops/delays/samples. We are currently have up to 4 pages. Each page stores the pan and level of each loop/channel. Pages are changed on the loop boundries which is where I am running into problems with the odd loop sizes. The hardware is capable of having all four loops be any size whatsoever but I still have to work through some of the issues of changing pages, etc.. With regard to the processing muscle of the Jamman, there is actually some to spare even with the features I have mentioned. The original Jamman only used a microscopic portion of the audio processing power of the DSP in the box. There are limitations to what I can do with the remaining processing power but the prospects are pretty exciting. The DSP at work here is the same processor that generates all those lovely reverbs that Lexicon is known for. I'm trying to do as much as I can with the hardware but I'm deeply concerned about the user interface. >The issue of rhythmic freedom vs. various degrees of synchronization is a >fundamental problem with multiple loops, I think. The effort involved in >making these features musically useful on the echoplex was huge, but worth >it. Basically, you have to give the musician the option to choose. And the >musician should be able to make the decision on the fly, with a minimal >amount of setup. Some musicians (like Matthias) do not want any >synchronization, insisting that they always be free to tap the lengths >wherever they please. And some, (like me sometimes) want precise >synchronization, allowing for polyrhythmic relationships. And most times, >different types of music and different situations just call for one or the >other. Tough challenge for the designer! Definitely. As I said, I'm very concerned about the user interface for this kind of stuff. I really don't want to spend a lot of time on features that are so weird or to hard to use, that no one uses them. Ed said: >Bob, is there a way to offer both functions to the JamMan upgrade depending >on which "mode" you wanted? Obviously if you are in the "synced" mode you >would want all loops to be the same length. Kim wrote: >Actually, no. Sometimes you want them to be multiples of each other. Say >loop 1 is a four bar verse section. For loop 2, you want a 16 bar chorus >loop. So it has to be exactly 4 times the length of loop 1. That's a pretty >common need. Actually, yes. As I said earlier, in Jamman the loops can be any sized. It's managing them that is the problem. My current thinking is to let each loop (in a "page" of up to 4) play out then switch to the loop assigned to that channel in the next page. Given this senerio, would you like the alignment of the loops in the new page to be initially sync'd in any way or just start at the loop boundry of the previous loop/channel? Ed wrote: > One thing I've found >frustrating if not impossible to do with the JamMan is if I'm playing a >rhythmic loop with the JamMan but I'm not synced up to anything (drum >machine, sequencer), say I'm just playing guitar and I want to switch to a >second loop it is very hard if not impossible get the second loop to be >exactly timed right. My timing is pretty good but but it still takes >several passes, if I'm lucky, to get the second loop to line up. This >limits trying to use this live. Kim wrote: >You need a good time copying function. It should let you record the second >loop while the time is being set up, so that there is no interruption in >the performance. The second loop should somehow stop recording and begin >looping automatically when it reaches a multiple of the first loop. The >echoplex does this by combining the NextLoop and Insert functions, which >worked out miraculously well. Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble syncronizing the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first. Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic. Ed wrote: >If the loops didn't have to be exactly the >same length though, you could switch loops and even if the second loop was >slightly shorter or longer than the first it wouldn't matter as each loop >would maintain its own "integrity". >There are times when I do want to sync so it would be nice to have either >mode available. Maybe there is a way to implement both depending on which >mode you want to access, synced or non-synced. What do you think? I think it can be done, I just need to work through a few senerios. I am working on it, however, so I'll keep you posted. Thanks for the input. It's definitely appreciated. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:08:42 -0500 (CDT) From: james rhodes To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Lexicon LXP-5 Question Message-Id: <199705091408.JAA28721@mail2.texas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" hi,,, i wanted to say thanks to Kim Flint for the advice on the Roland GP-8... later today, a guitar player friend of mine will be bringing by a Lexicon LXP-5,,for me to keep a few days and try out...if i like it ,,,it's mine for $225.00...i know it doesnt have any "preamp" sounds,,,but my question is : are these things easy to develop user patches? do i need a MRC.. etc.? does anyone on this list own one? do you like it? thanks to all for bearing with my questions,,,as soon as i find another Effects Processor for my Stick(R) i'll stop bugging you all with my questions.. I just put a BOSS SE-70 on layaway...but im still hunting for something to process the Bass side of my Stick,,,and im running pretty low on cash,,as my rack grows... are there bugs in the LXP-5 that i should know of? is $225.00 a fair price for a "like new" LXP-5??? right now im using a Midiverb 3 to process the bass. thanks again, james sharkey@texas.net one more thing...Cecil Taylor is pretty much a genius...or demented, or both i am in awe... > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:38:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: Olivier Malhomme To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Talking hex mikes.. Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Remeber long time ago when E VanHalen was endorsing the Kramer ripley with a hexaphonic pick up. Had these 6 little knobs someone was referring about. Maybe if it can be found somewhere, could be anice beginning to panning, effecting, distorting, and whatevering each string... Since my (beloved) VG only allows panning and pitch shifting of individual strings... Olivier Malhomme ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:03:37 -0500 From: Ed Drake To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: RE: JamMan modifications Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bob Sellon said: >I'm actually talking about 4 independent tracks playing at once. It was >something that I really wanted to get into the original Jamman but we >couldn't figure out how to deal with it in the user interface. The answer >was the concept of a "page". In the new software I'm working on, I refer >to the combination of all loops currently playing as a page. Each page >can contain up to 4 loops/delays/samples (channels?), each with a >separate level and pan control. You tap in the first loop in a page then >select other channels which, currently, are initialized to the same size >as the first loop. We currently allow a particular channel to be divided >down when in the echo mode but I will probably fold that into the loop >mode as well. When you need a clean slate, you switch to a new page. The >new page gives you up to four new loops/delays/samples. We are currently >have up to 4 pages. Each page stores the pan and level of each >loop/channel. Pages are changed on the loop boundries which is where I am >running into problems with the odd loop sizes. The hardware is capable of >having all four loops be any size whatsoever but I still have to work >through some of the issues of changing pages, etc.. Did you say pan of each loop? That must mean STEREO! Will this cause the length of available loop time to be cut in half to process left and right? Also, will you be able to mute or replace any of the 4 loops on one page, say you wanted to mute loop number 2 on a page and leave loops 1, 3, 4 still playing or even replace loop 3 while still hearing the other loops? Will this be possible? I can definitely see where odd loop sizes could mess up trying to sync across pages. Maybe you could have an "un-synced" mode where each page could be as long as wanted or needed and you since you are not syncing you don't need to worry how to sync from one page to another. Just starting page 2 at the loop boundary of loop 1. Maybe in a "synced" mode if the second and subsequent pages were some multiple of the first such as half , twice, 3 times etc. or maybe even +1, +2, +3 , so if page 1 is 4 beats long, page 2 could be 5 or 6 or 7 beats long, maintaining the common quarter note pulse? This would let you have a 4/4 page followed by a 5/4 page. I could see some practical applications of this, but maybe it's too weird or hard to implement. Bob again: >Ed, I not exactly clear on why you are having so much trouble >syncronizing the second loop. If you are using multiple loops, you >should always "Tap" on the first beat of the loop. This is vitally >important because this is the point at which changes from one loop to >another take place. If you tap on 3, Jamman will start initializing the >second loop on the third beat of your current loop which gets confusing >real quick. When you tap in the first loop try to tap exactly on the >first beat. All of the loops are the same size on the current Jamman so >the second loop will automatically be the same size as the first. >Remember, however, that you DON'T need to tap in the second loop. Simply >use the loop (? Channel?) button to select the next loop and let Jamman >handle the rest. The "time copy" function is built in and automatic. Bob, let me clarify what I meant. When I sync to a drum machine , there is no problem lining loops 2, 3 4 etc. up to the pulse, because the drum machine is my "click track". Suppose I want to strum an acoustic guitar loop without using a "click" for timing, say a one measure A section in loop 1, obviously at the end of loop 1 I can have loop 2 cued up to start recording, so it's not really the starting point of loop 2 where the problem is, it is the ending point of loop 2. Say loop one is exactly 4 seconds long. I think I have decent timing but humans aren't perfect so without a "click" track when I play, maybe I finish loop 2 at 3.98 seconds, so now there is a tiny gap at the end of loop 2 which is noticeable when I switch between loops, as well as if my loop 2 is a little longer than loop1, then loop 2 gets chopped off a little at the end. Is this a little bit clearer? That's why for me at least, there are times when I don't need or want to be synced to anything and letting each loop be its' own length would be very useful. Thanks for your time and allowing us to give you some input. I really look forward to the upgrade. Oh, by the way do you need any beta testers? ;-) Ed ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 14:14:55 -0500 From: Ed Drake To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: More RE: JamMan modifications Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Monday Bob Sellon said: >Loop Docs, >The new rom allows both of these things (feedback and volume) to be >patched to continuous controllers from a "Learn" mode (there's also SysEx >control available). You can also switch a loop in and out of the echo >mode and divide it by up to 19 (also patchable). Another thing that would be nice in Echo mode, which you may have already implemented in the new rom, would be to be able to hold or freeze the loop created in Echo mode and then to solo over the loop without adding your solo to the loop. As it is now, if I'm in echo mode and I have the regeneration at infinite, I have to reach over and turn the effects send to the JamMan on my mixer off to be able to solo over it. It would be nice to control this via MIDI. Another thing that would be nice to have, is to be able to access the Loop, Echo, and Sample modes via MIDI without having to reach over and turn the Mode knob on the front panel. And lastly (for now anyway ;-) to have the JamMan be able to MIDI sync to odd time signatures at least 5, 7. 9, and 11 ( you could go higher if you like) would be really nice. I hope I don't ask for too much , Bob! ;-) Thanks again, Ed ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 10:38:00 -0400 From: "Sellon, Bob" To: Loopers-Delight Subject: RE: RE: RE: JamMan modifications Message-Id: <9705091804.AA22348@beryllium.lexicon.com> Dave wrote: >Any idea how much the upgrade will cost? And is it a factory upgrade, >or something we can do ourselves? > >-dave Dave, I don't know what the upgrade will cost right now but I'd like to keep it well under $200. I still have to work out legal issues with Lexicon so that may effect it as well. I should point out here that, though I work for Lexicon, all of this upgrade business is a side line of mine and will not be warranted or serviceable by Lexicon. The upgrade is NOT a Lexicon upgrade of the Jamman, it is an Stec upgrade. Stec is my side and very small modification business. The Lexicon sales management has made it very clear to me that they are not interested in providing or supporting a ROM upgrade for the Jamman. The Lexicon service and sales departments will not be able to help you with any problems you have with the upgrade. You will have to deal with me or someone on my enormous staff (eventually, the laughter subsides). Actually, I am going to get someone to help with service so I can concentrate on software. As a performer myself I found the original Jamman to be less than optimal for a lot of the things I wanted to do so, being the guy who wrote the software for the Jamman in the first place, I went in and made some changes (and more changes, and more changes, and....). The current software is a result of changes I wanted and requests from the warranty cards, email, faxes, phone calls, etc.. of which there have been many. I am also working on a small Windows app that will probably accompany the upgrade. So far it provides a virtual mixer for the 4 loop/channel "Pages" but will eventually provide lots of other things as well. Does this sort of thing seem like it would be useful to anyone? What kinds of things would you like to see in it? Regarding the factory upgrade vs doing it yourselves; The upgrade will probably come in several flavors. Heres why. The basic upgrade is simply a rom upgrade that almost anyone could do. The original rom for the Jamman, however, was rather small but can be made twice as big by installing a jumper on the board. Again, this is simple but does require using a soldering iron. I am still working with the small rom but am just about to run out of space so the larger rom will probably be required. Now it starts getting ugly. The original Jamman had no nonvolatile memory (it can't remember anything when it powers down). When we laid out the board, however, we left a spot for a small electronically erasable ROM (EEPROM) which could store setup information (MIDI channel, mix settings, etc. but NO AUDIO). The part was left out of the original product for cost reasons but will be supported by the new software. It's an 8 pin IC with at resistor that needs to be installed. My gut feeling is that this is beyond the capabilities of most users. Will still offer it as a kit but will provide Stec factory upgrades for those who don't want to deal with it. I am also looking at audio memory upgrades and audio performance upgrades (improving the converter filters) which, if they ever appear, will have to be done at the Stec "factory". I will post more info as things solidify. Bob Sellon Lexicon/Stec ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:49:24 -0400 From: David Kirkdorffer To: "'Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: updating the archive...? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was wondering, is the archive of digests being updated? It's such a cool way to find useful information. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 14:14:35 -0700 From: Kim Flint To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Cc: David Kirkdorffer Subject: Re: updating the archive...? Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970509211435.009d9100@pop.chromatic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:49 PM 5/9/97 -0400, David Kirkdorffer wrote: > >I was wondering, is the archive of digests being updated? It's such a >cool way to find useful information. Sorry about that! I've been real busy lately, and haven't had time to do that for a month or so. When I did have time this past weekend, I opted to put some new stuff in the tools section that some people had sent me. It's not very difficult to update the archive, but it's built up enough that it'll take me a few hours. I'll try to get on it this weekend, since you're asking. While we're on the subject, are there any other things people would like to see on the website? Ideas, and even more important, volunteers are always welcome! The people who have helped out so far have done a great job, making the Looper's Delight site an increasingly cooler spot in the musical universe. Me, and I think everyone who uses it, appreciate this a lot. And for those interested, Looper's Delight is averaging about 2000 page-downloads a week now! This totally amazes me, and really says something about how much interest in looping is out there. kim _______________________________________________________ Kim Flint 408-752-9284 VLSI Systems Engineering kflint@chromatic.com Chromatic Research ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 01:24:07 -0300 From: "The Negative Eye" To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: An extension. (Re: Bach as a looper) Message-Id: Content-type: text/plain Hello Carlos and Loopers in gral, I'd like to add something: On 7 May 97 at 19:08, Carlos R. Carrillo wrote: > The Canon is the most obvious form to single out since it was often > built up from a repeating ostinato bassline with sort of a call and > response harmonic movement riding up on top. That's an excellent loop comparision! Not only they sang a loop but they also used some pitch-shifting! > The Fugue is another important form which makes use of repetition. > In a fugue, a theme called the subject, is announced by one voice then > subsequently repeated by various voices. It's not actually repetition. I would say that it works like a "long delay" rather than a loop. Remember how the fugue works: 1º Voice A B C D E F.... 2º Voice -- A B C D E.... 3º Voice ----- A B C D.... etc... Plus the intrument variations and arrangements to make it work. No voice will repeat itself, but they will rather, delay the previous one. On the canon each voice repeats itlsef. > I am sure many of you would find a great deal of similarities between > looping and these early musical forms. Perhaps, but barroque styles, and specially BACH, hate to repeat themselves! But today's looping is mostly a "trance" or "hypnotic" way of music. And it shouldn't be compared to those occidental types of music, because it's done with another purpouse. We can find better (and much older) "loop forms" of music in different tribal "songs" or musical styles from very distant, non occidental, places .Most of this tribes had used music to fall into trance, to put themselves in contact with the spirits, gods, etc. An that music is just that: LOOPS Don't fool yourselves thinking that BACH was better that neolitic music because there are so many notes. Music don't get better. It just changes, like people do. Thanks, And please, correct me if I'm wrong. Juan Manuel Aguirre aka thE negativE eyE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 23:15:15 -0500 From: "Mikell D. Nelson" To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Lexicon LXP-5 Question Message-ID: <3373F653.7DB4@crystalball.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit james rhodes wrote: > later today, a guitar player friend of mine will be bringing by a Lexicon > LXP-5,,for me to keep a few days and try out...if i like it ,,,it's mine for > $225.00...i know it doesnt have any "preamp" sounds,,,but my question is : > are these things easy to develop user patches? do i need a MRC.. etc.? does > anyone on this list own one? do you like it? I have an LXP-5 in my home studio along with an LXP-1. Both sound very good, but whereas the LXP-1 is very simple and straightforward, the LXP-5 is a bit more difficult to tweak. To get at all possible parameters you'll need an external MIDI programmer. Lexicon makes one; it may be the MRC you reference. I haven't used mine in almost 2 years as home recording has been put on hold due to band & business demands, but I recall struggling with the LXP-5 and never quite getting what I wanted from it. The promise always seemed better than the product. I used a Mac based patch editor/librarian called Galaxy (I believe), and even with this couldn't get what I wanted. For example, a patch might be called "flange" in the manual, but I could never get much of a flange sound. Also, the pitch shifter produces some disagreeable artifacts. But hey, the 'verbs and delays sound good, and I got some good chorus sounds out of it. I did a side by side comparison with a friend's Quadraverb a few years back and the Alesis couldn't compete with the Lexicon basic reverb and delay sounds. > is $225.00 a fair price for a "like new" LXP-5??? Yes, indeedy. Motley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 10:52:48 -0500 From: John Pollock To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Sustainers and pickups Message-id: <337499D0.22AD@delphi.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I _thought_ I'd sent this a couple days ago :-} Mikell D. Nelson wrote: > > James Reynolds wrote: > > > > > The GK-2A pickup sends an ANALOG signal. it is in fact a > > > hexaphonic humbucking magnetic pickup. > > > > neat, i didn't know that! i have a gr-1 and associated gk-2 that i've kind > > of gotten bored of, but now i'm getting new strange ideas... > > > > has anyone tried or considered making an adapter to send those six outputs > > to a mixer and panning them in the stereo field, or sending each string to > > a different effect? it simply throttles the imagination... time to dust > > off the ol' soldering iron! > > > > james > > I saw a guitar at Brook Mays Music in Dallas a couple of years ago > that had 1 pickup, a volume knob, 6 pan knobs, and stereo output. You > could place each string anywhere in the stereo field. Rare, bizarre, and > I think it was a Washburn or Ibanez. Motley's description perfectly fits the Kramer Ripley. Designed by luthier Steve Ripley, it also had a built-in hex fuzz. The hex pickup looks like a conventional bridge humbucker. This was J. J. Cale's main stage guitar for several years. While he normally gigs with a band, in 1989 I saw him perform with only a percussionist, and he used the Ripley for most of the gig. If he was using the stereo capability, it wasn't apparent, but the hex fuzz was on all the time. It's very sweet-sounding even with full chords. Recorded examples include "Hold On Baby" and "Disadvantage" on Cale's _Travelog_ album. Re Kramer: They also marketed the "Floyd Rose Sustainer Guitar" in the late 1980s. Re hex pickups: RMC Pickup Co. (http://www.california.com/~rmc/) makes hex piezos. Also worth noting: Some K. Yairi acoustic guitars were made with stereo outputs, with the strings split 123/456. Some Ovation acoustic guitars were made with stereo outputs-- with the strings split 135/246. I wasn't excited by the Ovation I tried, but I played the Yairi through a pair of Twin Reverbs, with the low strings clean and dry, but with heavy reverb and tremolo on the high strings. It was delicious! -- John Pollock mailto:johnpollock@delphi.com http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock (Troubador Tech) -- John Pollock mailto:johnpollock@delphi.com http://people.delphi.com/johnpollock (Troubador Tech) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 09:16:53 -0800 From: improv@peak.org (Dave Trenkel) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Lexicon LXP-5 Question Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >later today, a guitar player friend of mine will be bringing by a Lexicon >LXP-5,,for me to keep a few days and try out...if i like it ,,,it's mine for >$225.00...i know it doesnt have any "preamp" sounds,,,but my question is : >are these things easy to develop user patches? do i need a MRC.. etc.? does >anyone on this list own one? do you like it? > I bought a used LXP-5 and an MRC about 4 years ago for $400. The LXP is a great sounding and very versatile box, it's a great for short loops (just over 1 second max) that you can further mutilate via stereo delays, reverb, and a (IMHO) very good-sounding pitch-shifter. But programming it from the front panel is not something I'd want to do, it has a very arcane interface based on 2 knobs and a multi-color LED, no display. Get an MRC if you can, or some other programmable fader box, or at least a computer editor. ________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________ --------------------------------