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
I'm using MultiTrack DAW (harmonicdog) I think its aac tho
Hm, thinking longer about it
You could try taking the 192 aac blow it up to aif edit and then compress to 320 Kbps MP3,
If you really need MP3 as end result
It will surely sound better if you don't compress the shit out of it if you have to compress a 2nd time = don't use 192 Kbps again...
Have a try.
(This actually makes some sense, aac sound better than MP3 with same Kbps )
It's not ideal but maybe enough to work with have a listen ...
Uh oh
That's sub iTunes quality
I don't need an mp3 as an end result anymore. Im just wondering if I can take the 192 m4a aac files and edit them and end up with something decent. Maybe there's some restoration possible? Not sure exactly
If the format doesn't matter just convert to wav aif and stay there
There is no fix for lossy compression what's gone is gone hence the name
(Audio compression tries to make some clever assumptions of what you won't be able to hear anyway but if you further mess with the audio these will be different things ...)
Careful with the bull in the China shop
Probably a good idea. From there the converted to wav will get uploaded to itunes and other stores which I'm assuming probably do their own encoding so the less I mess with it the better
What kind of edits are you referring to, exactly? Other than file type, how will the before-edit files be different from the after-edit ones?
And what will you do with the files after editing? Sharing with many people?
Oh oh oh
This will sound as bad as your own results of recompression ...
Never never do this
Converting to compressed audio should always be the very very last step
So all your audio is compressed already, you won't create new uncompressed audio that plays along with the already compressed stuff?
Just start over again or skip it.
There is no fix for this.
Lesson learned: don't work with lossy compressed audio, if you are not absolutely sure about what you are doing.
Every so often I have to master something for a client and all they have is an MP3 or AAC mixdown (sometimes just a 128kbps MP3!). It's never ideal, but sometimes you just have to work with what you have. Converting to wav or aif before you do anything else is the best option as stated already. You lose or gain anything doing this, but at least you'll be working with a non-compressed file from here out. Avoiding any more conversion to MP3 or AAC is obviously idea, but even if you have to, it doesn't mean the song is ruined.
Some times you just need to work with what you have and let your ear tell you if it's just not working At least it was an AAC originally, so slightly better than an MP3 anyway..
No.
And if you asked:
That's a definite "Yes".
i'm wondering, how come you're missing the lossless originals for the audio you are sharing on a retail outlet? What happened to them? Did you create the original audio?
I have a feeling, however, that this situation is not so much about a professional working with a client. I think this is far more likely to involve private individual who set a task for themselves, which they are unable to complete for a number of reasons,, one of which is a lack of basic information. This is not their fault of course, but nevertheless it's still a large enough obstacle to ensure the result is much worse than it could be.
It is unfortunate, I just hope somebody, hopefully the OP, learnt something useful from this thread.
@Tarekith
Thx for joining the conversation. Always nice to see you around.
That's simply the point and current encoders are way better than when the format was in it's infancy
(most people who claim to be able to hear the 'difference' are just hunting artifacts)
On very high quality vocal recordings some lossy formats start to get slightly annoying, but that kind of sound is absent in most contemporary stuff anyway, let alone top40, R'nB and all that.
You can't edit mp3 (or any streaming format) directly, even if it looks like that.
It's always unpacked and re-encoded.
If the stuff is crucial in regard to quality, the customer will provide high res data - in all other cases it doesn't matter.
For personal fun I've used Stevie Nicks vocals cut from an 80kbit stream, and that was usable in a mix context.
That's what I expected but wasn't sure of. Thx for confirming.
Human speech doesn't need much data, probably won't sound great but enough to recognize who is speaking and what has been said. That's why telephones work. Speech doesn't have much frequency range. And the human brain is trimmed like hell to recognize speech.
That's why ppl think they hear "ghost voices" in random noise, it's the brain trying like hell to make sense out of random noise by trying to find patterns it knows...