Looper Problems

Jason Scott said:
Right, and I get that as a primary use case. I was just thinking out loud regarding the fundamental reason why the Looper's output remains unaffected when placed at the end of the chain.
Click to expand...
Because there are no effects following it.

It is literally un-effected (not a spelling error ;)).
 
Just as a follow up, I have never been happy with the sound of the looper on the AFX3. I took my Boss looper (which sounds great) to my friend at Cambridge University. He took a look inside the Boss and found that the AD-DA converter inside runs at 96K twice the amount of the AFX3. So I wasn't mad, there wasn't anything wrong with my ears, the effects were not in wrong order, there was no need to show picture of my setup, the volume wasn't wrong the AFX3 looper is simply inferior. An upgrade for AFX4.... or maybe some of those who "think" they know everything have a better solution. Harse yes but I do find Mr moderator those whom know least generally profess to know most and WASTE peoples time.
 
Last edited:
Chrit Shaw said:
Just as a follow up, I have never been happy with the sound of the looper on the AFX3. I took my Boss looper (which sounds great) to my friend at Cambridge University. He took a look inside the Boss and found that the AD-DA converter inside runs at 96K twice the amount of the AFX3. So I wasn't mad, there wasn't anything wrong with my ears, the effects were not in wrong order, there was no need to show picture of my setup, the volume wasn't wrong the AFX3 looper is simply inferior. An upgrade for AFX4.... or maybe some of those who "think" they know everything have a better solution. Harse yes but I do find Mr moderator those whom know least generally profess to know most and WASTE peoples time.
Click to expand...

So in a blind test, you think you'd be able to correctly identify a sample recorded using the Looper vs. the same audio recorded without using the Looper, both at 48 kHz?
 
Chrit Shaw said:
Just as a follow up, I have never been happy with the sound of the looper on the AFX3. I took my Boss looper (which sounds great) to my friend at Cambridge University. He took a look inside the Boss and found that the AD-DA converter inside runs at 96K twice the amount of the AFX3. So I wasn't mad, there wasn't anything wrong with my ears, the effects were not in wrong order, there was no need to show picture of my setup, the volume wasn't wrong the AFX3 looper is simply inferior. An upgrade for AFX4.... or maybe some of those who "think" they know everything have a better solution. Harse yes but I do find Mr moderator those whom know least generally profess to know most and WASTE peoples time.
Click to expand...
Your friend could tell that just by looking? That's strange because Boss' own specs for their loopers state:
Data Format: WAV (44.1 kHz, 16-bit linear, stereo)

Looper pedals always use the lowest possible sample rate and bit depth because that allows longer loop times (reduces memory requirements).
 
Testing not looking, PhD in electro analysis and Professor at Cambridge using latest technology analytical equipment. The pedal ‘apparently’ has various data on the prom chip confirming rates.
 
Testing not looking, PhD in electro analysis and Professor at Cambridge using latest technology analytical equipment. The pedal ‘apparently’ has various data on the prom chip confirming rates.
 
Jason Scott said:
So in a blind test, you think you'd be able to correctly identify a sample recorded using the Looper vs. the same audio recorded without using the Looper, both at 48 kHz?
Click to expand...

yes. Everything has its own characteristics, we all can. That’s why we use Fractals instead of zoom pedals right ?
 
And how did he "test" the PROM? A PROM contains binary data and it would be virtually impossible to determine what the sample rate is by looking at this binary data for a variety of reasons:
1. Usually the PROM is soldered to the board so reading the data requires unsoldering the PROM, cleaning all the pins and inserting it in a device programmer and performing a readback.
2. Assuming you were able to read back the data figuring out which bytes represent the register settings for the clock generator is next to impossible. You would need to have an identical unit with emulation capability and load the readback data on that unit and sniff the registers.

A rational person would simply go the product's website and look at the specs which only takes a minute.

I'm sorry to tell you that your friend is simply wrong. Looper pedals always use the lowest sample rate and bit depth they can get away with because this lessens memory requirements. Memory costs money. All Boss loopers use 44.1 kHz, 16-bit sampling. That is a lower rate and bit depth than the Axe-Fx.
 
FractalAudio said:
And how did he "test" the PROM? A PROM contains binary data and it would be virtually impossible to determine what the sample rate is by looking at this binary data for a variety of reasons:
1. Usually the PROM is soldered to the board so reading the data requires unsoldering the PROM, cleaning all the pins and inserting it in a device programmer and performing a readback.
2. Assuming you were able to read back the data figuring out which bytes represent the register settings for the clock generator is next to impossible. You would need to have an identical unit with emulation capability and load the readback data on that unit and sniff the registers.

A rational person would simply go the product's website and look at the specs which only takes a minute.

I'm sorry to tell you that your friend is simply wrong. Looper pedals always use the lowest sample rate and bit depth they can get away with because this lessens memory requirements. Memory costs money. All Boss loopers use 44.1 kHz, 16-bit sampling. That is a lower rate and bit depth than the Axe-Fx.
Click to expand...
That’s why he’s paid £300k a year and most of use probably aren’t. Some people are simply cleverer than others. Not me, but some.
 
Chrit Shaw said:
That’s why he’s paid £300k a year and most of use probably aren’t. Some people are simply cleverer than others. Not me, but some.
Click to expand...
"Well, he makes a LOT of money, so obviously he's right."

:rolleyes:

And yet this is DIRECTLY from Boss' own website:

"You can also load WAV files from your computer directly into the RC-3. The RC-3 accepts 16-bit/44.1kHz WAV files of up to 1.7GB in size."

44.1. Not 96.

And let's think about this for a minute - what consumer pedals use 96 for their sampling rate? Heck, how many recording studios use 96? But we should believe that a $200 Boss pedal uses 96 for their sampling rate. Sure they do. Even when Boss says that they don't.

Another thing - are you playing this looper pedal thru a high fidelity system? 44.1 is CD quality. The AF3 uses 48. How would you possibly hear the difference that 96 can make?

Your buddy must have an odd sense of humor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom