Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Indeed less is always more in mastering.
I really appreciate all who've contributed - many thanks.
My question, based on my meager experience and after reviewing the information here:
Is it fair to say (in the iOS context, at least) that one should try to get as much done as possible in creating a "final mix" such that little (or, possibly, nothing) remains to be done in "mastering"?
(In other words, must "mastering" always be a separate process from "mixing"?)
Apologies if this is a colossally stupid question.
@RulesOfBlazon, this. And not only on iOS. Mastering should be done the most transparently you can, perhaps only for a little bit more of loudness. Don't forget that for radio and TV broadcasting, there will be further compression done in the broadcasting facility, so sometimes a good deal of dynamic range will more often than not help your track to stand out in the setlist. If you're doing an album, the entire set should have coherence, with no steep changes in volume and EQ specially between adjacent tracks.
Of course, have in mind this is a general rule, and rules are made to be (thoughtfully) broken, specially in art. Mastering, as other musical processes such as composing, performing, mixing etc., is a form of art after all. Use your good taste!
All the best!
Even though I do it for a living, when it comes to my own tracks I never "master" them. I just get the mix sounding the way I want, and use a limiter to boost the volume a bit more as transparently as possible. I think for most people, this is the best approach, but I outline more about that in my article linked to above.
This thread reminds me of why I'm glad I don't master. My focus has been on trying to eliminate frequency competition and interference. From experience I've learned that having high levels on all my various parts is asking for trouble. When the parts are all put together you'll end up with clipping. Remember amplitude/volume is additive so giving all of the frequencies their space without too much crowding from the get go seems to lead to fewer issues. Having clear vocals seems to be the most crucial element for me, so fitting the other parts around them also seems the way I've gone. EQ can reduce some of the overlap issues in a mix but there are limits. Compression can reduce the highs and lows but is a compromise of the original mix. Adding mastering at a later stage is more of the same. Having some sort of audio perspective of how you'd like things to turn out and using this to guide you throughout the process seems to be the most crucial element. Technology can't save you if you're not clear about your goals. Being able to listen to the parts together early in the process and hearing if they work together has been helpful. If there's a part I really want to feature, I will redo the other parts so they'll accommodate the featured one.
Agreed, I'd say 90% of mixdown issues are really arrangement issues. To much happening at once, or trying to put sound together that just don't want to work together. That's a great insight, thanks.
When I was much younger, I’d get to the stage where I’d think I’d finally “finished” a piece (i.e. finally got tired of tweaking). I’d balance the audio levels, do hardly any tonal adjustments, do absolutely no compression, and call it a master because it was clean and sounded how I wanted, and considered final. Then some time later I’d play it to other people by slipping it in among a bunch of other songs over the stereo. It would always disappoint me that my product is vastly quieter than the other commercially available stuff from cassettes or records or cds. I would then get despondant and divert my attention to getting my tune to be at least as audible as the ones available out there. This pursuit would last a very long time and inevitably end in a slightly louder rendition of my work that didn’t really resemble how I it was when was listening to it and decided it was good. In other words, it would almost always be wrecked by the chasing of the boosting of levels. I still tended to avoid compression on a philosophical level and avoided distorting, so I didn’t have much area to play with. In the end I decided that my first attempt at finalisation were to be my masters and ignore the rest of the world and their louder more strident offerings, I’ll keep my technically clean very quiet ones.
This stance comes from being a professional photographer for my early years, and treating my final mix (what I was calling a “master”) as the negative. I’d get the lighting correct, focus correct, exposure correct, etc to ensure I have a correctly exposed negative. What one does with the negative later is a different activity and would often be done by someone else and in a different interpretation. The chemical act of processing film is not very variable — it’s either correctly developed or not (I know these days there’s hipster techniques resulting in a fairly wide range of ways to process film incorrectly such as stand development, reticulation, etc). The idea is, though, a correctly exposed negative is where one starts the process of making a print. The negative itself is useless for public consumption.
I think these days, people get caught up in the angst of arriving at their final desired mix, and upon realising that it is very quiet, proceeding to “do something about it”.
Like the metaphor of film, good.
I agree @Paul & @Tarekith - getting the mix as "right" as possible first - with levels and EQ is a crucial point.
Also, while it is essential to check a mix in mono esp. to look for phase cancellation issues, as well as to identify mudiness and boxiness in a mix and remembering too that some people will still listen in mono in spite of stereo being widespread - small radios, single speaker output on smaller devices etc. - there is also value in using stereo field separation and instrument placement where possible / appropriate, often by specifically narrowing an instrument's stereo width. That's important across all genres but especially so when mixing classical music where there are "expected" orchestral seating positions. (Not hard and fast rules but some common and assumed arrangements).
The end result if done well may well (should) only require light mastering. That's especially true if a track is listened to in isolation. Mastering also originally took into account the agglomeration of tracks into an album for overall loudness among other issues (let alone preparation for physical media). While we are perhaps, in this sound bite day in which we live, more used to listening to a single, the mastering process across tracks on an album is still a focus for mastering generally. Nothing wrong with mastering an individual track post-mix, but getting the mix as nearly right as possible will mean less of that kind of work.
Again - also, w.r.t. the loudness wars and the overuse of compression and maximizers, it's interesting when one considers mastering classical work in which compression is very lightly used if at all, either on individual instruments or on a whole mix, and preserving dynamic range is highly important such that extremely quiet passages are, well, extremely quiet!
and louder passages are still loud and that comes down to proper mixing first, and mastering far less (certainly in terms of squashing dynamic range). Sadly it's still done even with classical music too. Oh well. 
On the plus side more people are becoming aware of what the loudness wars are and what it does to their music too. I get asked less and less for stupid loud masters, though it does still happen now and then.
I always say this to myself - mixing is not mastering! Mix first and then you master. There is no point in whacking all the effects you have on your mix buss when mixing just to get it louder..
SEPARATION !! Yes separation of sounds. Get this right and you are half way there to getting your mixing sounding awesome. It is easier said than done but if you listen dynamically you will get there. Mixing is an art so you need to buy experience by just learning how to get that separation of sounds and to glue it all together.
Dynamic listening!! There's a concept. Can you follow a particular sound from start to finish in a song? Can you envisage yourself conducting an orchestra? Conductors are masters of dynamic listening. They hear all the parts and so can tell when a particular instrument is flat or behind the beat or just too loud and not complementing the music as a whole. If you can hear all those myriad of parts working together in harmony then your mix is probably ready for the big one.
Mastering! That's the easy part
Do we now have a word count for posts? My above post is truncated
Re: dynamic listening - yes indeed @FrankieJay ! It's an important art and skill for mixing, mastering and even playing in a band or orchestra, let alone just general music appreciation (a subject that I am very much thankful for having been taught in high school - many moons ago now - from an excellent head of music!
)
@FrankieJay +1 on the importance of separation of sounds - I really like how you phrased the idea of Dynamic Listening - "Can you follow a particular sound from start to finish in a song?"
I do this with my favorite music. A lot. I enjoy deciding this time through I'm just going to listen to the drums, or bass, etc. My favorite productions across varied pop/rock/metal genres typically have one thing in common - so much air between the audio tracks you could drive a truck between them.
Which brings me to a simple little question - what's the difference between a producer (in the old school sense, not a one-person beat factory) and an audio engineer (mixer) and a mastering engineer (prep for distribution). Why is it that regardless of the band, you can always tell a Dave Jerden-produced album because of those insanely growling guitar tones - even though, according to at least one band, the guy was barely there during sessions?
Can anyone - from either a mastering (what you expect to receive) or mixing (what you intend to deliver) perspective - inform where the role of "producer" lands in iOS land when mixing and mastering your own material (or mixing for mastering by a third party)? Is it a distinctive step in the process, or more of a holistic, sonic overlord role?
Haha! @eustressor - "holistic, sonic overlord role" - yes - I like that!
It seems from the expressed experiences of many that that is indeed the case, and it appears from the comments that folks make that few who have produced iPad music, even full albums, even professionally - and sold them successfully - engage a separate producer. So, yeah, for many they are their own sonic overlord!
There's nothing at all stopping it being different, except, perhaps, taking the time to find a producer willing to work with you as an iPad musician and then getting into some kind of a contract with a studio or label where a producer gets involved. And, I think that most of us here and in the iPad Musician group on FB tend to do our own composition, tracking and mixing all in the iPad - so, many are not so used to farming out those roles either, nor probably
, taking advice about why our sound should be helped this way or that. Although, again I have heard of folks who have outsourced even the mixing of their iPad tracks (let alone the mastering) as part of the albums they have produced. So, not completely unknown to farm out some of those responsibilities.
Holistic sonic overlord. Yep
Good one!
On a serious note have you tried using reference tracks to AB your mix? Mastering's something i stay well away from, leave it to someone else who's got the ears and the gears to do it.
The term "producer" is one of those nebulous things that's changed so much over the years, it's hard to keep track of. Historically it was someone paid to oversee the creation of an album, keep the band on track, make sure they were performing at their best, liason with the label, etc.
The audio engineer was responsible for running the actual studio. Making sure the gear worked, getting what the artists needed, being the right hand man to the producer for the more technical aspects. Most engineers were hired by the actual studio they worked at.
The mastering engineer handled preparing the recorded songs for whatever the distribution format was, vinyl, CD, etc. Overtime they took on more of an artistic role when doing these preparation, not just fixing issues they heard but often trying to enhance the material a little more.
These days all of these roles are intertwined at times.
Does have a kind of tyrannical ring to it
I like to think of myself as a progressive and a "by the people, for the people" sort, but let's face it - dictators get things DONE. I've usually ended up being the (benevolent?) dictator in many bands past. I start out with good democratic intentions, then the bass player refuses to pitch in and the drummer disappears for two weeks ... One advantage, as you mention, of the Prince Rogers Nelson/Trent Reznor approach iOS affords the solo songwriter/musician.
@Tarekith - thanks for the breakdown, I've always wondered. Now if I could just figure out what the 6 executive producers on "Avengers 2" did for their daily bread
I was going to ask a bunch of questions about self-mastering and objectivity, but just re-read your most excellent mastering guide posted above and realized you've already generously addressed this. Thank you for sharing your pro insight
I’d hazard a guess that less than even one person spending their unemployment time here on audiobus forum is in a position — philosophically, historically and attitudinally — to let what they do be interfered with, impeded and messed about with by some other arsehole with opinions. One of those is usually enough, thanks. Hence, I’d suggest that there’s something about doing it on an iPad that breeds a very DIY approach of doing everything — absolutely everything, from lyricing to musicing to synthesis to recording to video and cover art-working to releasing and tweeting it (that’s what promoting is, isn’t it?). It’s more than ever possible to do the entire loop by one person. Everything. Every step.
The problem, and we all know it, is that we lose objectivity. The upside is that we’re creating “art” and therefore nobody can ever actually say we’re doing it incorrectly. If we were designing, they could, but if it is art, no way, not allowed. So, we’re almost all likely to self-master. My suggestion therefore is that somewhere along the line, we (not the entire computer music community, and not the whole modern digital music industry in general, but just us) need to arrive at a definition of what mastering is, for us. Is it a final mix, stashed away somewhere, or is it an upload-ready entity? Or do be those be both one and the same, for many of us? Doo-be-doo-be-doo? I propose they shouldn’t be, and I would suggest that we separate a final mix master (as canonically neutral as poss) from a medium-specific master (as competitive as you dare).
For me, the final mix type of neutral canonical top-level thing (that isn’t yet “mastered”) is defined as the irreversible point beyond which I call it finished. If I reverse over this, I’m back in the territory whereby I could alter the balance in the mix, alter actual presence or absence of notes or audio, and before you know it, rerecording audio again, changing the lyrics, changing the tune and effectively going back to the beginning and recomposing it. That fluidity needs to be avoided, so there’s a doorway which once you go through, it’s finished, and you can’t go back in. I’m sure we all see the danger otherwise. That’s my archive final mix, but from that I might try mastering for a specific use (which is always digital upload these days, even though I label it GMC as if I’m still doing a gold master candidate for CD), but that’s from my archival final mix and doesn’t ever involve changing it or being in danger of inventing new lyrics, changing the position of verses, sacking the drum machine for turning up late, etc.
For those who know, how about psychoacoustics?
It has been suggested to master using the tools in Auria - when doing this, do you (the experts, you know who you are) add effects onto the stereo mix, but keeping the flexibility of adjusting something back in the mix, or do you say no, that is the final mix and write a stereo mixdown which you then use as input to your mastering session and thus have mastering as a completely separate actuvity.
That's a pretty broad topic, any specifics you want to know about?
A common question. Either way works, there's no right way to do it. Personally I just add effects on the stereo master, but usually my songs aren't pushing the limits of the CPU on my devices. Some people like to bounce to a new project to free up CPU, or just to mentally "move on" from the mix so they can focus only on the mastering phase.
I'd say if you're new(ish) to writing music, there's definitely some benefits to splitting the activities up, just to narrow your focus and keep you from revisiting the mix forever. As you get more comfortable with how your mixes translate to other playback systems, there's no reason you HAVE to make the two tasks mutually exclusive.
Horses for courses in other words.
Indeed, a topic I wonder might be important for the human listening experience, in other words are there techniques (maybe simple ones) to make an instrument, a song, more 'natural' and enjoyable as opposed to 'errors' or unpleasurable frequencies etc.
I have only tried the free SlickHDR vst compressor for example, and seemed to notice a slight change of colour or temperature to the sound, it is of course a science ...
Many thanks, it was the "mentally moving on" aspect that I was most querying, I appreciate your answer.
@PhilW - what @Tarekith said regarding individual tracks - either way works.
However if mastering a complete album it is typical to use (or be given) the mixdown of each track and then master that collection of mixdowns as a whole.
In S1 Pro on the desktop it's nice because it keeps things all in one tool, and changes to the mix are reflected in the mixdowns that appear in the mastering project where one is mastering.
(E.g.: https://ask.audio/articles/mastering-projects-with-studio-ones-project-page )
There's really nothing like that for iOS (yet!
).
I've given this some thought and was planning to line up final mixdowns for my EP in Auria as stereo tracks - any red flags come to mind why I might not want to do this?
This.
Yeah, that's a really nice feature of Studio One for sure. I wouldn't say it was "typical" to master all the tracks of an album in one project though. It used to be more popular when mastering engineers were using DAWs that had EDL's (edit decision lists), but these days I see just as many people mastering the tracks one at a time and just conpensating one at a time to give them the same vibe. As with anything music, there's more than one valid way to do things and a lot of it comes down to your preferred workflow.