Dotcomformat

At 12:42 PM 7/22/2008, ~Morbius~ wrote:
>I'll second that. It will lock it tight in sync. But... it is 
>constantly looking at two 'taps' to set the sync-point... and even 
>pulling or patching a patchcord tied to it's 'tap input' will 
>confuse it, thinking (so to speak) that the noise was something it's 
>supposed to count. (Not really an issue...  just saying).

Excellent points.


>One thing about the 'tap tempo'.... (the one drawback  is that it 
>won't allow the user to offset that tempo any. I find that very 
>oten, it's too perfect...  that you get better effects by the tempo 
>NOT being in perfect sync, but rather, slightly out of sync. And the 
>best way... IMO... is to listen to the slapback, balancing the tempo 
>of the sound(s) rhythm, against the tempo of the delay... and 
>offsetting the two.

[In mock horror] You do it... by... ear?!!!   ;-)

For a repeat that is behind the beat by a set amount, you can use a 
gate delay. (Delay the signal going to the tap tempo input.)


>I've 'wondered' from the original point...  but, when one tries to 
>sync any type of delay... it's pretty much the same factor. This is 
>one case where perfect sync may not be desirable...  but rather, an 
>offset of perfect sync, or slightly faster or slower... but 
>listening to the result to set the timing.

Wandering is fun!

John