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
Gadget though is minimal subset of many synthesis types, although in one package.
Think your determination to focus is admirable @Matt_Fletcher_2000, may it reap you rewards
Really want just to add my 2cents, or maybe one.
Despite all the synthesis method out there keep in mind that nowadays most synths get a pretty traditional subtractive stage. The few examples that come to my mind with no proper subtractive module are: microtera, strng and mersenne.
In theory, a sound synthesiser should be capable of creating any sound imaginable. This was what we were told on television programmes in the 1970’s while Chicory Tip or Stevie Wonder prodded a synth for a few seconds. These are the same television programmes that a decade later told us that Compact Discs are indestructible and will last forever.
We were lied to by our album covers. No synthesiser is encompassing enough to recreate the fine nuances of any sound imaginable, especially the imaginary sounds. The use of synths back then went two ways: creation of novel sounds never heard before; and synthetic replication of sounds that already exist such as musical instruments, or coca-cola bottles opening. It really depended which kind of synthesist you were, which led to what kind of pile of gear you assembled, which led to the biases in design by synth manufacturers of the stuff they went on to sell to their customers.
Later, we had the whole “can imitate any sound imaginable” television coverage all over again when the Australian marketing (and sometimes engineering) company Fair light introduced their computer musical instrument, the imaginatively named CMI. It was basically a tape recorder, with computer memory in place of tape. It cost more than a house.
I think it is worth bearing in mind that although people are saying hardware synths sound “better” than iPad synths, I’m skeptical of this. I have collected, owned and sold a good many hardware analogue vintage synths myself through the decades (and still have a few left, which I must now sell), and I’m dubious that they sound so different that a casual song listener will notice. It’s like in photography, we obsess over fine differences in lens resolution, film grain, Dmax depth, developer tonality, and a bunch of other stuff. We buy hideously expensive little lenses for vintage cameras. The general public? They honestly can’t tell the difference between stuff I’ve shot on medium format and stuff I’ve shot on my Sony Android phone or a pocket digital camera. If I’m honest, mostly neither can I, if it was a shot I haven’t seen for a few years.
Don’t be under the impression that all vintage gear by definition sounds better. It doesn’t. A lot of the late 80s early 90s was filled with sounds from the Korg M1, 01W, Yamaha DX7, the Roland Jupiter range and descendants, and so on. Many of those are partial analogue and partial digital in varying proportions. Many of those which used PCM samples were actually only running them at 32KHz, not 44.1KHz.
I used to have an Oberheim DMX drum machine (and the getting sound into proms thing). I know it was a much loved machine but seriously, I grew to not like it much at all, and the time spent on it was not proportional to what I got out of it. I think it was only the fascination that I knew exactly how it worked that made me keep it so long (it uses 6 bits of an 8 bit DAC on each board, but these were com pan ding DAC circuits, which was quite a clever wheeze). I didn’t like the sound. I sold it and was glad to see the back of it (which has some weird molex connectors there, by the way). Now, if you look on eBay you see how much they get, and those high prices are frankly ridiculous.
Spot on. Infact some of the synths like the DX7 was so well known for the noise levels of their outputs, it practically became part of the sound
Also don't be confused by output level. Some hardware synths are just louder
lol
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minimoog-knob-set-USED-/271794512385
I think the camera analogy is a good one. It depends on what you want to do with it.
If you're taking a standard, medium wide, medium depth of field, shot of a group of people on a sunny day - then it's highly unlikely anyone is going to be able to tell the difference between your iPhone shot and your expensive SLR shot.
However, if you want to really have a distinctive depth of field on your portrait shot, or you're in low light conditions, or taking something ultra close up or whatever - you need the gear for it. The basic iPhone camera will seriously struggle.
Same with iOS synths I think. Depends a lot on how you want to use them, and how far from 'bread and butter' sounds you need to stray.
I need me a set of these glued onto my iPad
Cool - only $2.5 per knob !
I love how people are changing the knobs on some of the Roland Aira gear. Silly I know, but it's maybe a modular fetish thing
There are some synths with higher quality programming than others. For instance, Viking and kq minisynth sound quite different. Kq to my ears sounds like toy, while Viking sounds quite good.
However....
Knowing how to program whatever synth you have will yield better results than collecting tons of synths and not knowing what you're doing, from a sound perspective at least. Then there's what you do musically with the sound you make, an entirely different thing. Stevie wonder has always had people who program amazing sounds and such, and combined with his amazing musical mind, legendary results.
Check out the audionowcast podcast, the host and one regular guest both work (or still do in Rob's case) with Stevie wonder, and all of the original panel on the show worked with him at one point in time. Amazing stories. On One of the episodes in the past year or so, Rob Arbittier talks about how he originally started working with Stevie wonder, and it's a fascinating story.
With all that being said, I am in the process of selling one of my basses and plan on funding a moog sub phatty when it sells. I use a novation xio live right now (and have gotten away from using my iOS devices in my live rig for the time being because I wanted to simplify things), but I'm thinking that I've always wanted a moog, try to get everything to sound like a moog, from my xio through imini and viking , as well as any other synth for bass, so time to get a real one and get down to it. I played a voyager at my friend's studio and it was very different (in a good way) than the mini V vst and imini, which both sound great.
Now, summing up, a great, cheap way to learn synthesis is to get Thor and then go through all of these:
https://www.propellerheads.se/blog/thor-demystified-1-the-analogue-oscillator
The page seems to be down right now, but it looks like they're maintaining their site. Well worth the time to go through it.
Wow! That's a lot of good info. Thx. I'm surprised this thread has made it this far without jumping the shark.
Regarding KQ minisynth sounding like a toy & being ugly... I agree. This was one of the first synths I bought because I didn't know what I was after, it was cheap at $1.99, and universal.
However, it is also AU which I didn't even know what it meant at the time.
Also, I don't like the sound of any of its presets either. Very generic.
But this is where the original question came from... I started playing with changing all the "spaghetti" wires and turning all the knobs without the slightest clue what I was doing. The sounds either went all noise, or silent, or started to get thicker & more interesting.
Then, I'd load that interesting sound as AU in an AUM, load up a second instance of KQ minisynth into another AUM channel to mix with the first one, and then a third... pretty soon this "toy" with the ugly interface was sounding amazing and the possibilities seem endless.
I began to wonder how far someone who actually knew what they were doing could sculpt using the same method. And, if THAT is what you're REALLY buying when you purchase one of the sexier synth apps, i.e. Someone who knew what they were doing went in and did all the heavy lifting for you, instead of all the guesswork and happenstance I was employing.
It's a good idea to look back into the DX7 days. People paid good money for DX presets as the synth made it as difficult as possible to program your own
Some of the well known DX programmers were just amazing with what they could do with that one synth!
Even synths like the Prophet 5 in the right hands could stretch to make sounds most would struggle to attain.
I'm no slouch when it comes to programming many types of synthesis, yet it's still fun and helpful to delve into a different synthesis architecture now and again. Mastering one synth is a great thing to do, but you can still learn much from delving into others.
Be it iOS or PC or hardware, be it subtractive or any other method - synthesis just rocks my world
Very valid points. In real life situations the differences can be masked completely.
Many Eighties hits were made on the cheapest of synths that only sounded great through fx and some great skills in mixing and recording.
That's the thing , I was involved in some pro level studio work many years ago , and the attention to detail was astonishing . But nowadays after a track has been mp3'd and uploaded to Soundcloud all that work would be wasted . Which is where it works for ' knock any old rubbish out ' artists like me lmao
And me
Love me some hardware sexiness though, but more than happy with my iOS synths
I think that bbc synth music documentary is fun to watch (forgot its name). When you hear some of the old cheap analog synths that they used to make hits with, it shows how silly it is to believe iOS synths can't do the same.
I do love some hardware though, just moves me in a different way.
Yep... And to be honest I think you need to take your own view on what "sounding great" is.
Limitations can be harnessed very creatively - producing their own magic. Imperfections can become the "character" that gives the music its charm. LoFi isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I would say that someone who really has deep sound design and production skills can make amazing sounding synth-based music with just a few of the iOS synths we have today - even turning some of the limitations and quality negatives into positives.
The Gorillas 'The Fall' album is a case in point (reportedly made on an iPad). It makes a virtue out of how basic and raw apps like Bassline, Funkbox and iElectribe can sound. The whole package sounds fantastic to my ears - I was listening to it just the other day thinking just this.
Yeah and the line between synth and sound source is now so blurred as to be irrelevant to music making. I now never think, o it's just another synth app. I try to see my whole iPad as just a great instrument and recording environment all in one.
I agree sort of. I have many iPad synths, plug-ins on my Mac and a bunch of hardware both vintage and new. I think the iPad running a good synth through a decent audio interface sounds pretty good. But like other commenters, I haven't found an iPad synth that sounds quite as good as my NI or U-he plugins.
There is one major thing I find that both iPad and plug-ins lack that the hardware has. You can play hardware and really know it. I can do things while playing, for example, my Roland SH-1, that I just can't reproduce on software. Not the sound so much must the way it's played and the way you can use the controls as part of the performance, the immediate feedback, it feels like a musical instrument. But I am a piano player with formal training. In the eighties I was running my Casio CZ-101 through all kinds of effects and trying to be Jan Hammer, so the sterility of plugins and generic MIDI controllers really bothers me.
An example. Playing the same patch on my DX7 has a totally different feel and experience then playing it on DEXED using the DX7 as a controller. Maybe it's in my head but it effects the music I make.
I love the iPad instruments that use it as a new expressive instrument rather than as another version of the same plug-in from the Mac. Those never sound as good.
I've begun setting up my Moog Sub37 as a controller for soft synths as it's knobby as it needs to be for a controller. I haven't tried w/ an iOS synth yet, but I'm sure it could be used there as well. Latency doesn't appear to be an issue when controlling soft synths in my DAW...maybe w/ iOS? Would make for an interesting test at some point. But, it does really add to the feeling of playing the instrument.
One thing I should mention is that the simulated or synthetic user interface of an iOS synth really does affect how a person gets on with it. I say that not just as an ex- designer, but there’s a significant “feel” one gets from the way a visual layout assumes, moves, responds, and this isn’t to be sneezed at. A layout that puts things in unexpected places vs one that puts things where you think they make sense, removes an impedance to usage. In user interface design there’s a phenomena called “affordance”, which is where something that looks like it should do a thing, does the thing.
This is why people are currently complaining about flat design everywhere (not just on iOS) — I see words on a panel of pastel colour — what do I do with it? Read it? Touch it? Move it? Eat it? What? What? Just tell me what to do with you? What are you? What do you want me to do with you? Tell me, tell me, tell me. Why you no mean something! Why?
If you go up to your front door, and open it, how did you know that bit of the wall was a door? How did you know where the handle was? How did you know what to do with a handle? Door design affords going through it in a way that a wall doesn’t. Handles afford grabbing and possibly turning or pushing or whichever shape it is. You just know, unless it’s not designed correctly.
However, there’s a lot of design that has to be the way it is because it mimics or honours a past physical synth, such as iVCS3, iMS-20, and a few others. Whatever was weird or clunky about the original interface has to be that way for the i-version too. On the other hand, we have entirely made-up synths or sequencers mimicking nothing at all, but still have wooden panels or screws on them. That’s a bit weird, the iPad doesn’t need screws or wood any more than it needs floppy disc icons to save files, or traffic signs still need a picture of a 1950s steam train or an 1890s bellows camera or people won’t know what it means. On the other hand, Skeuomorphism (even fake) sidesteps the often baffling results from flat design. It’s not that bad, especially if the app manufacturer doesn’t feel brave enough to do a totally flat design without falling into usability traps.
I think the best thing in many synths is to get ones that feel good on a glass screen. I know the one has nothing to do with the other, in terms of getting a good sound out of it, but I personally think it has a lot to do with how you think it sounds and how you respond to using it (or “playing” it, I think they call it).
I like the minimal number of tools approach, glad to hear you've pushed Gadget so far, as that is my main bet getting into all this. Curious what your top picks in the FM, granular, and drum categories are, as I agree whole heartedly that Mersenne sounds great!
Very this and I think it gets to the question (answer?) the OP is prodding at. Yes, with most any single subtractive synth you can create a 'deep bass' or 'bubbling pad' or 'big stab' or 'short pluck' or 'swelling lead' or... The architecture of the synth will determine how easy it for a person to create those sounds and the particularities of the hardware choices (or component algorithms) will determine how it sounds.
There are certain types of sounds you simply can not create on a synth lacking particular features. For instance, certain types of 'evolving' pads require multi-segment and/or looping envelopes, two filters with LFO control and a delay on the LFO time. Some sounds require LFOs that will trigger on keypress instead of being locked to an internal clock. Some sounds require the LFO time itself to be modulatable. It's gonna be really hard to make certain synth drum sounds without very fast envelopes. I think you could find a very fully featured synth that might be able to cover most of those sorts of possibilities (thor? eden? mito?) but there's still something to be said for the synth's basic tonal quality and as has been mentioned above several times that quality is very variable.
Pretty sure the analogue synths used in many 80s hits weren't cheap, especially compared to what you can get now. Each member of Ultravox had to invest every penny they had into each synth (as an example).
Yeah not all. Even the cheaper analogs were not cheap, but some of the cheaper and quite basic synths were used on many synth hits from bands that had little money.
If you listen to some of the really basic analogs of the time, they were quite thin sounding. Not the phat sounding beasts we all think of when analog is mentioned. They were noisy and many suffered from cheap pots and sliders.
So yeah 'cheap' should have been cheaper instead. The principle is the same though. Play a good iOS synth through the right gear and you will be able to make sounds just as good as the hits from the Eighties. If you use similar analog desk and recording methods, the gap of sound gets even closer.
As many others have said though, using the old gear is more than just for the sound, it's also for that emotional feeling. I'm not saying though that hardware and software are equal, just different. I truly do not believe iOS synths are not able to be used for professional recordings.
^ Indeed, many revered vintage analogs were shockingly bad, build-wise. Especially the SH-101 & MC-202, the latter of which felt like it could snap in half if you merely glanced at it wrong.
I agree that iOS definitely now offers many pro-level studio apps. Hardware fetishism is largely hyperbole, as people so often forget the sheer amount of overpriced crap that dominates it. When I consider the prices I paid 20 years ago for some gear (or even desktop plugins 6 years ago), the fact that iOS can provide such fantastic offerings for £4, £8, £10, even £20 is astonishing.
The only thing I have left from my hardware studio days are a set of powered monitors. Got to say though my iPad synths sound good through them, just need a good controller to get that knobbly feel when playing.
What I’d really like is if iVCS3 had more realistic knobs. I mean, they all have a shiny reflection in it, but it’s not a shiny reflection of me (not even naked). What would be a huge improvement would be if, when I start up iVCS3, it briefly takes a photo of what it sees, and uses that as the reflection in the knobs. Even better would be if it senses tilt — pitch, roll and yaw (which iVCS3 already does as a knob controller setting) and uses that as a dynamic distortion map for the reflection. Imagine how much better it would sound then.
202 for sure but I've had the same SH-101 since 1986. Played a ton of shows with it—didn't even have a case for it for the first 20 years or so! I've had it repaired twice in all that time.