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
That's cheating. I wanna see you use all those 24 feet
Ah fucking auto correct!!!
You got me good here!!!
Sorry, we couldn't resist
I remember when i got my first(or actually second, since i had one as a kid for a while) electric guitar a while back. Its a cheap strat copy, pretty much on the same level with cheap squiers. Anyways, i then later got myself a proper guitar and god damn, playing it felt SOOO much easier than the old one. I could play some stuff easily that i struggled with the strat. And acoustic is a whole different beast from electric. So yea, i can kinda see your friends point. Especially if his strat isnt properly set up, has sharp fret ends, stricky(or non existent) coating on the fretboard, crappy strings(or just wrong gauge for his preference) etc
However this stuff applies much more on those new to guitar. People who have played all sorts of guitars for many years arent as effected by this stuff. Like strings bit too high isnt a big deal for professionals, but can make a HUGE impact on how a newbie is able to handle the guitar.
With that line of arguing you could entirely eliminate "better" or "worse " from anything. Why even purchase a quality audio-interface? After all, a cheap behringer interface just sounds "different" not worse.
There are objective measures of sonic quality, and there are subjective. The real challenge for us humans is to express, why we appreciate certain aspects of sound. Or just to describe sound with words at all.
I think the word i am going for is authenticity. The apps that impress me the most are those that sound authentic to themselves.
This is the best discussion this message board has ever hosted. It's got everything! Technical knowhow! Practical insight! App discussion! Philosophy! Humour! Teamwork! Action! Adversity!
Yes, Andy... clearly there are differences that are a matter of taste. And no, I don't know the reasons why some appear to be significantly better than others. If I knew that, I wouldn't have asked the questions in my original post to begin with.
Let me drill this down even more specific regarding EQ. Fab Filter's ProQ2 plugin for Auria Pro was recommended to me. I thought it seemed kind of expensive for an EQ when there are so many others I felt were plenty good for a fraction of the cost.
I also noticed that not only was ProQ2 pricier than most, many of the Fab Filters are several years old. Yes, I'm aware that just because something is new doesn't make it better. But, let me use Photoshop for an example. I'm personally trying to move from Photoshop to Affinity Photo, but the example still works. If you imported a RAW image into Photoshop using Adobe Camera Raw from 10 years ago, it would not develop as clean, noise-free, artifact free an image as if you used Adobe Camera Raw from today. In 10 years imaging software has improved by leaps and bounds.
I'd assumed that the same might be true of audio software, than over time new techniques and advancements in software would produce noticeably better results.
Back to EQ. As stated, I didn't want to throw away cash on a plugin that I might not have the expertise to fully utilize. However, the person who recommended the plugin to me has a good deal of my respect. So, if he was telling me that ProQ2 was head and shoulders above all the other EQs, I had to listen.
I pulled in some clean, recorded field stuff. No perceivable noise. No distortion. The 4-5 EQ apps I already had, did different job on the clip. Some had better UI, others were more lightweight with less hit on the CPU, etc. There were differences in the level of control and the best sound I could achieve with each.
Noticed that several of the EQs seemed to degrade the original sound some. Not by much, but I wasn't able to adjust out the degradation. I was able to shape the sound into something I liked, but my clean original sounded like it'd taken a fidelity hit.
Then, I dropped Fab Filter's ProQ2 on the clip. No degradation. No noise. Stayed clean. When I'd push different frequencies around to where I wanted them, that's all that changed. The sound was shaped and sculpted without any perceivable hit to the original sound fidelity.
I thought, "Wow, this plugin really does live up to the hype. I wonder if the rest of the Fab Filters do too? Maybe I was wrong to dismiss them as pricy legacy?" So, I bought more. And yes, I was wrong to dismiss the legacy component. It made me wonder why the same wasn't true for audio software that's true for audio/video software, ie. that current software runs circles around most legacy audio/video software from 10 years ago. Both in performance and the quality of output.
Since I didn't know the answer to this question, I thought I'd post it here on the forum where there might be a few with enough experience and knowledge to explain the difference. And, for the most part... I got my answers.
I think one of the main reasons that Video software is progressing more than audio software is the particulars of the mass playback devices.....It is the sale of these devices that drives much of the funding for the research needed for progression.
For images/video the resolutions and frame rates are getting higher and higher so the calculations used need to work with more data and need to work more efficiently to still be able to process in real time on consumer devices which is why big improvements have been made over the last 10 years.
For audio the resolutions and sampling frequencies are not changing massively, and todays devices are playing compressed audio with data being removed rather than added, so the good quality calculations that were used 10 years ago are still valid for todays audio.
P.S. I have been in the same boat regarding the FabFilter plugins - Are they really worth the extra ££ ? And have yet to invest....I would rather they were available as AU so I could utilise them in more places in my iOS workflow though.
That makes sense. And the take-away for me has been not to dismiss legacy software. Some things were done right the first time. And, to not judge by cost. Most apps I think are worth far more than the devs can get, and other pricey apps are worth every penny they ask.
Regarding the Fab Filter plugins... I felt the same way. They're more expensive and are sandboxed within Auria. That also kept me from buying. But, during the recent sale... I decided to take a chance with just one. I think Timeless 2 was the first one. I like a good deal and budget apps as much as anyone, so I was skeptical. I think what pushed me over the edge was downloading their desktop demos of their complete bundle. I watched the short demo videos on their site, then played with them in Logic. I didn't expect them to actually perform just as well within Auria on iOS, but they do. Function and UI looks identical, as well as the quality. They're worth it to me, but YMMV
I ended up with Timeless 2, Saturn, Volcano 2, and ProQ2. I'll likely get Pro L next time I have some spare pesos.
I have been tied to a timeline in a DAW for many many years, and have only recently been freed from that restriction, for the time being it is not somewhere I want to tread again.
Once i want to start recording finished pieces again that may change, but for now it's not for me, so i probably don't need the top quality EQ anyway
With audio synthesis/manipulation it always comes down to what do you want to do.
For example: aliasing is bad, right? Well not necessarily - in some situations it can give you some really nice rough sounds.
24 bit sound is better than 8 bit, right? Well tell that to all the bit crushers out there. It just depends on what you're looking for.
If you want a low pass filter to just eliminate all the high pass filters (with or without the curve), then a Moog filter is terrible. They're not particularly accurate - BUT, for audio purposes they create what a lot of us think is a really nice sound. Their 'inaccuracies' 'improve' the sound. Not something you can objectively measure.
The FabFilter EQs is great if you want to manipulate particular frequencies without affecting other frequencies (surgical mixing in other words). And contrary to what somebody said earlier in this thread, you can objectively measure that. Put that on a synth and we probably wouldn't like it because that's not what you're looking for in synth filters.
However, some EQs are preferred by mixing engineers, despite being less accurate, because the other things they do to the sound make it sound 'better'. A lot of beloved analog stuff really isn't that good by the objective specs, but maybe makes better recordings overall.
One other factor is how manipulable filters, oscillators, etc are. Sugarbytes stuff is impressive because it can be modulated in all kinds of crazy ways.
Often you can create really nice sounding oscillators/filters - but the tradeoff is they are less manipulable. For example creating a digital filter that can do fast frequency sweeps without blowing up is hard (I bet the FabFilter stuff wouldn't support that for example). Creating a square wave oscillator that can do pulse width modulation (or hard/soft sync) without aliasing - hard.
Exactly, One mans trash is another mans gold......
@u0421793 what app did you use to create that sinewave? I didn't know there were any analysis apps that could read audiobus.
;-)
Yep, there are some
The app that generated the audio into audiobus is (round of applause) KORG iM1 by KORG INC. https://appsto.re/gb/2phL5.i
The app from audiobus (as an effect, so I could still hear the speakers) is MC Oscilloscope by Sascha Bienert
https://appsto.re/gb/2IKVN.i
@OscarSouth I agree on the TRB5 for specific solo stuff (fusion comes to mind...), but I'd prefer a passive P or J bass anytime, given it's neck(!) does the right thing in punch and resonance (which highly depends on the type of strings used)
These simple instruments almost effortlessly fit any mix and still offer a lot of expression to the player because of their sensitive response.
High quality instruments like a TRB are often hard to embed in a band context.
it's the same P-Bass (Mexico 1998) $350 with a similiar style, playing some strange melodic stuff covering most of the fretboard,.
1st one tracked under IOS bwith a high quality Telefunken preamp and Audient converters (bypassing the instrument input), 2nd one via the instrument input of an ioDock One.
Both unprocessed, except a slight level adjustment of track 1.
@Telefunky exactly. My three workhorse instruments are an 87 MIJ Fretless Fender Jazz, 87 TRB5 and 91 Status Graphite (can't remember model name, one with normal headstock). The Jazz gets 80% of the work (everyone loves fretless and it's a Fender .. ultimate smoothness!) followed by the Yamaha (I get a lot of requests for solo technique stuff and it's the instrument I use for iOS stuff, which I also get occasional requests for). Finally I use the Status for funkier or heavier stuff.
For the record, I'm not really any kind of "purist" as it might have sounded. I was only curious about app design and observed inconsistencies, etc. Mostly interested in the art that goes into sound software design.
As for my own taste, I love destroying the sound and finding something beautiful within the rubble.
For those who dig my photography, I'm not a purist either. I run saturation up to the point just before clipping and hyper-exaggerate most of what I do. Some love it, others don't at all. Doesn't matter because ultimately all that matters is that you dig what you did. If others dig it too, then that's just icing on the cake.
Thanks @u0421793
That oscilloscope is going to be very handy.
I feel very wrong about even mentioning myself in the same post as a reference to Steve Vai, but similar experience. When I went to buy a bass amp, I wasn't sure enough about what I was looking for to invest heavily, so I tried some lower end gear hoping to find something to tide me over. For laughs I plugged in to a $90 Danelectro practice amp. To my shock, it had just "that sound" I was looking for. With almost nothing to lose, I took it home.
Over the last 10 years nothing has caught "that sound" inside my head like this little ol' thing. I keep coming back to it thinking surely I've come to my senses. But no, this is the one. Even straight out the headphone jack it has the perfect bass tone I'm looking for.
When I'm famous and playing stadium gigs I'm gonna have a huge rack of bass equipment powered up and looking awesome ... but nothing plugged into it. Hidden back behind it somewhere there will be my little Danelectro sweetheart doing the real job.
The general sound quality of most apps is outstandingly fabulous, sublimely ethereal, splendidly heavenesque. Im joking they mostly blow goats. Sad. I thought going into this ipad game that there was something more than the plasti-tone bull hooey that im hearing. Several of the big (hyped) groovebox apps that cost more than a cup of coffee, leave me shaking my head. Give me a clean, accurate sample damnit, and let me destroy it. It must be difficult to get decent sample quality into an app but then i listen to the Yonac steel guitar app and say hey man thats pretty good. Im talking virtual instrument type sounds here. Still hopeful about the future of it all.
How does this make any technical sense?? Where in your opinion, does an iPad App differ from a Desktop App in the context you just described. Or are you one of these experts that compare iPad to hardware devices?
Technical sense i have little of. Ears i have 2 of. A clean accurate sound is self explanatory.
Buy satisfactory high-quality samples or make your own. Maybe the apps you've bought have disappointed you, but it's still a viable platform for 'destroying' samples.
Maybe you should think about how and why a "clean accurate sound" sounds the way it does. Does it have to do with audio bitdepth/samplerate, processing engine, or maybe you should just use an external DAC with a good Headphone Amp.
iOS lacks storage, CPU and RAM compared to desktop. None of these factors have anything to do with the workflow you've described.
This is one of the most interesting and informative threads I have come across. I found it searching for info on ProQ2. Thought it worth reposting. The entire thread is worth a read and certainly new thoughts almost two years later would be valuable. Thanks @skiphunt , this made my 5AM insomnia worth it! @Processaurus gave this gem of a post on aliasing:
"Interesting topic. Like me, you may not hear a 320kbps MP3 on its own and say definitively that it is an MP3, but can hear a world of difference when directly comparing it to an original, uncompressed .wav or .aiff file. Digital sound quality, and digital sound degredation can be subtle.
With soft synths, it has been touched on before, one of the main keys to sound quality (not character) is avoiding digital aliasing. You get aliasing with digital synths, unless you are clever, because you are confined to doing your math 44,100 times per second. Seems like a lot, when, say, an A is at 440 Hz. You can, after all, reproduce a very nice sine wave in a system that has a hundred samples dedicated to each cycle of the sine wave. but unless you are playing sine waves, the note will have many harmonics, so if you are using, say a sawtooth wave, you'll have a second, quieter sine wave-like harmonic at 880 Hz, and a quieter third harmonic at 1320hz, 4th, 20th etc, all the way up, well past the limit of human hearing at 20kHz. They will start to get pretty ragged, with only a few samples to describe each cycle of these high frequency sine waves. Your harmonics will go up past the sampling rate of 44.1kHz, and in these harmonics is where the bad sound starts, because you can't describe a harmonic at say, 39kHz, at all, in a system with its resolution at 44kHz. You get nyquist aliasing, which is a repeating error, an unwanted lower frequency overtone, totally unrelated to the note being played, that is created by the repeating errors in the 44kHz system resolution, not being able to describe the 39kHz harmonic in a satisfactory way, because the harmonic wants to be repeating at a frequency that is in between the samples. Each succeeding 44kHz sample is hitting different cycles of the harmonics, at different points, sometimes when its climbing, sometimes at its peak, sometimes when it is falling, but in a repeating way. How often the pattern of errors repeats decides pitch of the unwanted, lower tone produced.
indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_nyquist.shtml
If a synth has aliasing problems, they show up in the high notes sounding weird, and especially in slow pitch bends on high notes. There will be weird, unrelated overtones mixing in, and bending the opposite way.
Designing a soft synths is not as simple as it should be. The way some designers deal with it is brute force, internal oversampling, so the aliasing is so high and minimal, as to be negligible when you downsample to 44.1kHz. The way others deal with it is "band limiting" which is by not producing waveforms with any harmonic content over 22kHz, so there are no harmonics being generated in the first place, that would cause the aliasing artifacts. They do this by painstakingly recreating say, a sawtooth wave, with many seperate sine waves, one for each harmonic, up into the limit of human hearing (about 32 harmonics). These all get mixed together to approximate your sawtooth wave. It takes a lot more computer resources.
Side note, our audio interfaces have a sharp brickwall filter at 22kHz, so that all audio being accepted into the analog to digital converter will be band limited, and not contain harmonics that would cause aliasing. Same phenomenon.
The way the software designers deal with these issues decides the purity of the sound. There are a lot of clever people with a deep understanding of digital audio figuring out workarounds to get nice sounding synths. And there are some that haven't gotten there."
Thanks @Processaurus, great explanation.
I agree w @PhilW about Sampletank. Aslso Syntronik, Beathawk, Farageband.. All of Crudebytes app, Gadget, etc. So much great stuff . I think Stagelight though does have that “iOS” sound.. thin..
@Processaurus : Which products do you make?