------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Re: slider for a vortex [ Michael Preston ] how's the Looper's CD? [ Ray Peck ] Re: the great Beyond..... [ pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hu ] Re: slider & pedal for a vortex [ Dave Stagner ] Re: slider for a vortex [ ccohen@voicenet.com (Charles Cohen) ] creative isolation [ "Jason N. Joseph" <73311.213@compus ] Re: the great Beyond..... [ Jonathan Brainin ] Re: creative isolation [ Dave Stagner ] Creativity and Technique [ "Ott, John" ] Re: slider & pedal for a vortex [ James Reynolds ] 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: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:34:02 +0000 From: Michael Preston To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: slider for a vortex Message-ID: <32E400EA.62FE@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Would anyone bother for this brother of another list? > > >Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:55:31 -0800 (PST) > >From: Saul Stokes > >To: synth-diy@horus.sara.nl > >Subject: slider with a vortex > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Sender: owner-synth-diy@horus.sara.nl > >Precedence: bulk > > > >Hi, awhile back I decided to build a slider controller for my Lexicon > >Vortex. Last night I got it together and hooked it up but it doesn't >>seem to control any of the Vortex's features. It does however work on >>my other instruments. At first, I wasn't sure of the pinout on the >>slider and tried different combinations to see if it would work. Now >>that I have it hooked up the correct way (thanks to Ric) and it still >>doesn't work, I'm beginning to think that maybe I fried something due >>to my experimenting. I can't imagine this happening since it's just a >>slider and a stereo cord. My question is could I have fried something >>by hooking the stereo wires up every which way to the slider? Also >>does anybody use an expression pedal on their Vortex? Do you have any >>problems with it? > > > >Ciao, > >Saul > >www.hypnos.com/stokes.htm Saul's fear of having fried some part Vortex is like my own. I thought I'd use my trusty MuTron volume/wah (on the volume only setting), with a carefully constructed stereo ring/tip Y split cable for expressive morphing. It didn't work. I thought my problem was in the making of the cable, but it turned out to be a well-enough made cable. The MuTron's volume pot works great, so I'm not sure why this alternative to the standard expression pedal didn't work for me. I dunno; I'm not very knowledgeable in the ways of the electron. So, next, I went downtown to my local music store and bought a Yamaha FC-7 expression pedal. The pedal works for morphing and other parameter value changes, but it requires a very light touch. A very short arc-piece of the full possible range of the pedal sweeps ya from 1 to 64. The Vortex manual states that toe-up position = parameter value 1 and toe-down position = 64. But my pedal seems to be functioning with toe-middle = 1, and toe-7mm lower = 64. The expression pedal seems to be working fine for other expression pedal purposes (e.g., midi-synth parameter changes with a Roland GM-70). Does anyone else have this "problem" with another brand of expression pedal? Perhaps there is a way to program the Vortex to solve this problem. I haven't learned enough about the thing yet. I do enjoy it though. Maybe I'll just have to learn to be a bit more light-footed? Did I harm (insult?) the Vortex by trying to control it with a mid-seventies vintage MuTron? I think I read a Loopers-Delight posting from John Pollock which recommended the stereo ring/tip Y split cable plus volume pedal in lieu of shelling out the cash for an expression pedal. I think he wrote that his own version of this set-up worked well for him. I don't know why Saul's and mine didn't. Any suggestions? Thanks, Preston ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: andre To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: slider & pedal for a vortex Message-Id: <199701200601.BAA05406@shell.monmouth.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>My question is could I have fried something by hooking the stereo wires >>up every which way to the slider? Also does anybody use an expression >>pedal on their Vortex? Do you have any problems with it? >> >>Ciao, >>Saul >>www.hypnos.com/stokes.htm hi all ! i also wonder about my vortex/expression issue. I just got (one of the last) guitar center ones - no problems, it seems - tho' it arrived sans "footpedal" or booklet !! are the instructions on line somewhere ?? also - i have a roland EV-10 expression ped. - what do i have to do to set it up - other than plug it in ?? any settings?? BTW - there are some awesome sounds in this !! ripping phase/flange type sounds with the subtle morph, and i've barely tweaked it, which i've gleaned from previous posts is the door to insanity (in a good way!!) So - thanks for all the recommendations and explanations - it made me buy one and i'm real happy !! BTW - if you're in the Jersey are - i'll be part of a night of ambience and looping at the Brighton Bar in Longbranch, Thur Jan 30. Then Feb 8 at the Common Ground. Bon Lozaga is also there Feb 14... E me if you're interested/close by. andre (NJ) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:55:06 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Peck To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: how's the Looper's CD? Message-Id: <199701200755.XAA29755@pure.PureAtria.COM> Michael Peters writes: >> Bring some tape prooves of loop works. We should try to finish >> the sampler CD till then. (shit, still did not manage to burn and send my >part!) > >how many looping pieces have been submitted yet? Enough to get going, or are >most people still working on their stuff? Sorry for the long delay in replying to this, folks. I was away on business, and then sitting in class for a week. I received 5 submissions. If you didn't send me anything and want to get in on the CD, email me. Basic deal: From: Ray Peck To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Much Vaunted CD Project Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:51:24 -0800 (PST) ToddM@LaserMaster.Com writes: >I suppose I'm the 40th person to ask: > >I have an appropriate tune - how should I send it? I don't have DAT. >Who do I send it to and what form is preferred (i.e. cassette with DBX, dolby C, B) >What kind of cash is being asked for to have my tune included? >Will I receive a CD-R in return with the tunes on it or what? OK, once again. Send by mail to me. DAT and $12 or cassette and $15, plus $12 for each additional CD, limit, um, 1. Address is: Ray Peck 24653 Summerhill Ave Los Altos, CA 94024 On cassettes I can handle dolby S, C, B or none. Somewhere in a box I have dbx, but the liklihood of my finding it is slim. You can also send me quarter track 7 1/2" IPS 7" reel if you want. Hell, at the radio station I can do half track, so if you've got nothing else, contact me. This is really pushing it, though. >What if the CD-R burner being used for the project explodes in an unforeseen >technical mishap? What if Roy explodes in an unforeseen mishap? Then I will be very upset, just having paid $1600 for it a few months ago. If I (*not* Roy, please) explode, your DATs will be the least of my worries. Send the thing with a SASE that will hold your CD(s) and tape, so I can just drop the thing in the mail. Clearly label the tape and the SASE. If you've got special editing or other needs (e.g., single-ended noise reduction or eq), contact me directly by email and we'll work something out. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:26:37 GMT From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: the great Beyond..... Message-Id: <27563.199701201526@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bryan: >The notion that anyone's work in this medium has >any more viability than anothers is rampant bullshit, the likes of which >does nothing to promote either the genre as a whole or our individual >musical endeavours. Besides which it should be obvious that Fripp draws >these remarks as a direct result of his achieving a greater degree of >critical and (relative) market success than most if not all of the other >players working with this technology. But that's it - he is more known to us. I'll tell you why I equate Fripp with Looping, it's because from age 16 and first getting into KC until about 2-3 years ago, as far as I was concerned looping was called "Frippertronics". Consequently, when I started looping I came at it from a "Now I can do all that cool stuff RF does!" So ya loop footswolen chords, noodle over the top of it and hey, this sounds like No Pussyfooting! I mean there's so many different ways to approach looping, but that always seems to be the popular one. Because he _is_ so popular. And as for going "beyond" Fripp, what I mean is that I'm trying to break out of the "ambient soundscape with noodling over the top" and try to approach the whole issue differently. Do you want to know who the original looper is? I mean he wasn't a looper in the contemporary sense, but boy did he write a peice that is crying out for someone here to do a loop version. Go listen to Pachelbel's "Canon" and tell me that's not a looper's peice if ever there was one. Andre: >> So the moral of today's lesson: If you already sound more like Fripp >> than you want to, don't buy a Fernandes! the other Michael: >I've already got one. I've been using it for 2 years and it's a >wonderful device. You can do things with it that Fripp hasn't done yet! Hey, just think! Robert Fripp could be sitting in a room somewhere, looking disparingly at his guitar and saying "but how can I go _beyond_ Michael Peters?" Finally, Andre recommended listening to completely different avenues of music in order to overcome copying other musicians. Matthias (got the tape yet?) went one step further in suggesting listening to _no_ other musicians. I'll go the whole hog and say _give up your instrument_! OK it's a bit extreme. My wife has been ill (CFS) for some time, and for about a year I just didn't have time to play. Coming back to it afterwards, I went straight into practicing music that was (a) completely different to my previous playing (ie rote licks) and (b) compositionally nearer to what I wanted to hear. I think that the only way I achieved a complete chance in style that I'd tried for before was by putting the beast down for a while, although it wasn't for the best of reasons. Michael Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg, Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979 University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K. "Wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!" - Scottish proverb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:11:23 -0600 (CST) From: Dave Stagner To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: slider & pedal for a vortex Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've built 3 different Vortex expression pedals so far. The first was from the guts of an unused Crybaby wah. It worked, but had a very bad sweep, probably due to an audio taper pot rather than linear taper. I built a second one out of a modified ADA expression pedal. It worked, but I couldn't get quite a full sweep out of it (not enough pedal travel). I also jury-rigged one out of a loose pot as an experiment. Should be easy enough to make one with a slider. Just get a linear taper slide pot and wire as described in the manual. If it doesn't work, you probably have a wire swapped somewhere. Switch around wires until it does work. Don't worry about cooking components... it's just a voltage divider. -dave By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete. Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly. Venus De Milo. To a child she is ugly. /* dstagner@icarus.net */ -Charles Fort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:24:48 -0500 From: ccohen@voicenet.com (Charles Cohen) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: slider for a vortex Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I use a Roland EV 5 with Vortex and it works fine, giving full 1 to 64 range. It seems to be wired up something like this: Main Pot: Bottom to......Connector Ring (5vdc reference from Vortex) Top to.........Top of Auxiliary pot and it's wiper (Range adjust) Wiper to.......Connector Tip (Vortex sense) Auxiliary Pot: Bottom to..Ground and Connector Sleeve (Vortex Ground) Main Pot seems to be aprox 10K ohm Aux Pot seems to be aprox 50K ohm cc **** **** What's Charles up to? **** **** http://www.voicenet.com/~ccohen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:37:32 -0500 From: "Jason N. Joseph" <73311.213@compuserve.com> To: Loopers-Delight Subject: creative isolation Message-ID: <199701201137_MC1-F99-528D@compuserve.com> > I would rather suggest to listen to *none but your own music* for a while (it was a year, in my case). It does not save you from going on with habits, and you may accept them as they stay for some reason, but you might stop *following* someones light and thus become more aware of your own.< I've seriously followed this philosophy for awhile. I believed, when I first got into the recording business, that each musical "stage" I went through was a process of sloughing off my influences, one by one... and by continuing this process, and also by making every effort *not* to try to imitate any other musician in terms of technique or compositional style, I would eventually arrive at some sort of "pure" form of my own musical voice. As time wears on I become increasingly cynical about this, perhaps agreeing with Brian Eno that there is *no way* to be freed of one's influences, and thus the task at hand is not to find your own "pure voice", which I take it he does not believe to exist, but instead to come up with the most interesting and unique combinations of such influences... "Composting" he calls it. I routinely bounce back and forth between these two seeming opposites. I'm slowly coming to some kind of piece with *that* incongruity, too. Any thoughts on this? Am I just thinking too much? jj jj1@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:48:40 -0500 From: Jonathan Brainin To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: the great Beyond..... Message-ID: <32E3A1E8.3E57@easyway.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr M. P. Hughes wrote: > Do you want to know who the original looper is? I mean he wasn't a looper > in the contemporary sense, but boy did he write a peice that is crying out > for someone here to do a loop version. Go listen to Pachelbel's "Canon" > and tell me that's not a looper's peice if ever there was one. In a way, it's already been done, by Brian Eno, in 1978 on his Discreet Music LP. The piece is on the second side of the album. Definitely check it out. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:26:16 -0500 From: Michael Peters <100041.247@compuserve.com> To: "'INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com'" Subject: RE: the great Beyond..... Message-ID: <199701201227_MC2-FA7-169F@compuserve.com> Michael Pycraft Hughes says, > Do you want to know who the original looper is? I mean he wasn't a looper > in the contemporary sense, but boy did he write a peice that is crying out > for someone here to do a loop version. Go listen to Pachelbel's "Canon" > and tell me that's not a looper's peice if ever there was one. ha! someone already did a loop version - sort of - of this one: Brian Eno, on the B-side of "Discreet Music". > Hey, just think! Robert Fripp could be sitting in a room somewhere, > looking disparingly at his guitar and saying "but how can I go _beyond_ > Michael Peters?" I *really* like that ... yes, how can he? Don't know. Michael Peters private: mpeters@compuserve.com work: mp@harold-scholz.de http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mpeters (Never whistle while you pee) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:50:16 -0800 (PST) From: The Man Himself To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: creative isolation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jason N. Joseph wrote: > As time wears on I become increasingly cynical about this, perhaps > agreeing with Brian Eno that there is *no way* to be freed of one's > influences, and thus the task at hand is not to find your own "pure > voice", which I take it he does not believe to exist, but instead to > come up with the most interesting and unique combinations of such > influences... "Composting" he calls it. > > Any thoughts on this? A person's voice *is* the total of who they've listened to. Point to any musician and you'll be able to point towards a plethora of other influences as well. As far as I can tell, the people who are most often described as "unique" are the ones who are able to combine their influences into something unlike what's come before. (I also think it has something to do with a person's fundamental DNA, but that's another story...) Not unrecognizably different, mind you, but rather the sort of thing that makes the rest of us beat our heads against the proverbial wall and think, "Of *course*! It's so obvious now -- why didn't anyone think of that before?!?!" --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:01:36 -0300 From: matthias@bahianet.com.br (Matthias Grob) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: the great Beyond..... Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dr Michael: >"Now I can do all that cool stuff RF does!" So ya loop footswolen chords, >noodle over the top of it and hey, this sounds like No Pussyfooting! ... >"beyond" Fripp, what I mean is that I'm trying to break out of the >"ambient soundscape with noodling over the top" and try to approach the >whole issue differently. I like this one. After six month looping with footswolen chords and twingeling textures, I finally one morning (I never play in the morning) woke up and played a 3 seconds rock kind of riff and it had a solid drive and I became aware that almost any style can be played like that. >Hey, just think! Robert Fripp could be sitting in a room somewhere, >looking disparingly at his guitar and saying "but how can I go _beyond_ >Michael Peters?" I like this one even more. Imagine each of us goes beyond each other. Thats why I apologised some months ago and wanted to correct "beyond" to "beside" or something. >Matthias (got the tape yet?) nope > _give up your instrument_! ... Coming back to it >afterwards, I went straight into practicing music that was (a) completely >different to my previous playing (ie rote licks) and (b) compositionally >nearer to what I wanted to hear. Yes... I should have payed more atention to that, maybe. Before my one year trip with only my music, I had a year in which I only played accoustic (not my thing) sometimes, because I could not stand any more what I did before. So this might have been important. There have been other things like a Tai Chi course, experiences with Reiki, Shiatsu... mainly because of a hurting back, but also because I suddenly lived with a physioterapist and fell in love with a nurse... so each life is different and its about impossible to transfer experience... sad... And yes, I also made that amazing experience that we can improve without playing the instrument. As if something in the brain arranges itself in the background. A friend even told me, that he keeps practicing while driving, by imaginating the sound and the fingering, and really, it helps! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:27:38 -0500 From: jspeer@haverford.edu To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: creative isolation Message-Id: <199701202124.QAA27760@acc.haverford.edu> >As time wears on I become increasingly cynical about this, perhaps >agreeing with Brian Eno that there is *no way* to be freed of one's >influences, and thus the task at hand is not to find your own "pure >voice" jj, I agree that it's simply not possible to be act as if you have never heard anything before. There are way too many assumptions that we've inherrited from previous musicians, whether we are conscious of them or not, from the establishment of equal temperament in the 17th century, to sonata form, to far more minute aquisitions of pitch and rhythm by public consciousness. Actually if you think about it, influences provide a necessary context by which you music will be heard. Even if you do the impossible and generate an entirely influence-less composition (perhaps you could simulate one randomly on a computer) your audience *is* likely to have heard other peices before, and will assign your piece a context you did not intend. This is very important. The best you could hope for is to attempt *full* awareness of your influences, to the extent that this is possible, in order to act against what you identify as your personal tendancies. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:33:04 -0600 (CST) From: Dave Stagner To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: creative isolation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On one hand, you cannot free yourself completely from your influences. On the other hand, you aren't just a puppet being waved by your record collection! There is room for both influence AND creativity. Otherwise, where would new musical ideas come from? The question isn't whether influences or creativity control your destiny. The question is, how do you control THEM? With influences, you can either broaden your horizons by exposing yourself to new and different arts (either music or otherwise... I believe my artistic vision is affected as much by film, literature, philosophy, and other arts as it is by music), or you can closely study one artist or genre, learning its secrets in intimate detail (Brian Eno often listens to only one album for weeks at a time. I've read favorite books or seen favorite movies dozens of times, each one a different experience). For creativity, you can try to do radical new things, or focus on improving your existing skills. Derek Bailey does not distinguish between practice and performance. Fripp has advised playing a single open string, even intervals against a metronome, for four hours a day for three months. Some bands live together and play constantly. The Velvet Underground never practiced except to learn songs, and would walk out on stage after not playing together for months (even more extreme, Last Exit played for the first time in front of an audience of 10,000, without ever practicing together as a unit). Many years ago, when I was first developing a working relationship with electric guitar, I was playing lead in a band driven more by creativity than skill. The bass player once told me that he thought I was bullshitting 90% of the time, but that the other 10% of the time I was channelling music from another world. He was right. When I was lucky, I was totally expressive, but most of the time, I was just fighting my lack of technique. Technique is an expressive tool. It is our only channel to release creativity. On the other hand, technique is a trap. It is altogether too easy to fall back on stock licks, and play from the hands instead of the heart. This balance between technique and creativity is constantly shifting throughout our musical lives. Sometimes I'm more creative, sometimes I'm more technique-driven. Sometimes I set the guitar down in disgust and won't play for weeks. When I come back, I may be brilliant, or I may be fighting to regain the lost muscle memory. Creativity and creation are, like all things, a balance. -dave By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete. Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly. Venus De Milo. To a child she is ugly. /* dstagner@icarus.net */ -Charles Fort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:40:31 -0600 (CST) From: Dave Stagner To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: creative isolation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 jspeer@haverford.edu wrote: > Actually if you think about it, influences provide a necessary context by > which you music will be heard. Even if you do the impossible and generate > an entirely influence-less composition (perhaps you could simulate one > randomly on a computer) your audience *is* likely to have heard other > peices before, and will assign your piece a context you did not intend. > This is very important. That's a very interesting point. The human mind, exposed to totally new information, will try to impose old patterns of recognition. Moreover, it's much easier to comprehend new information if it fits a known pattern. I don't find Frippertronics difficult to listen to or follow, because I've listened to it for years. Wagner, on the other hand, is very difficult for me to understand, but very easy for someone well versed in opera. -dave By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete. Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly. Venus De Milo. To a child she is ugly. /* dstagner@icarus.net */ -Charles Fort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:09:24 -0600 From: "Ott, John" To: "'Loopers Delight'" Subject: Creativity and Technique Message-ID: Dave Stanger wrote: >Technique is an expressive tool. It is our only channel to release creativity. On the other hand, technique is a trap. It is altogether too easy to fall back on stock licks, and play from the hands instead of the heart. This balance between technique and creativity is constantly shifting throughout our musical lives. Sometimes I'm more creative, sometimes I'm more technique-driven. Sometimes I set the guitar down in disgust and won't play for weeks. When I come back, I may be brilliant, or I may be fighting to regain the lost muscle memory. Creativity and creation are, like all things, a balance. -dave< I agree with most of your post Dave, However I don't think technique is a trap within itself or a trade off from creativity. I know what you mean by relying on stock licks or riffs being a trap, but I believe to express yourself as a musician you need to practice technique and develop skill. Only when you have mastered your instrument can you play from your inspiration. It is frustrating to have a musical idea and not have the technique to play it. That's where I'm at with my looping (I've only had the jamdude for about a month now), but I'm working on technique so I can reach that point. Many music students give up before they develope the technique to play inspiring music because of said frustration and lack of patience or disipline. (I got my brother's electric guitar that way) I think technique and creativity are not opposing forces but are complimentary. later John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:26:11 -0800 From: James Reynolds To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: slider & pedal for a vortex Message-Id: <199701202226.OAA00641@dsp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >hi all ! i also wonder about my vortex/expression issue. I just got (one of >the last) guitar center ones - no problems, it seems - tho' it arrived sans >"footpedal" or booklet !! are the instructions on line somewhere ?? also - i >have a roland EV-10 expression ped. - what do i have to do to set it up - >other than plug it in ?? any settings?? i'm in just about the exact same situation as you - snagged the last bay area guitar center vortex, no manual or accessories. i also got a roland ev-5 pedal (the one used by John Durant), but it doesn't seem to do anything by just plugging it in. what's the trick? i'll address the manual/adapter issues in another post... james --------------------------------