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.
OT Field recordings and Ambisonics
Firstly thanks to @u0421793 for posting here about the update to the Zoom h2.n which now allows it to record ambisonic files.
I had one of these units some time ago, but got rid of it as I felt it's mics were a tad noisy, but for field recordings that's less of an issue (well for sources at a reasonable level) I just bought another and have started experimenting with recordings and processing them in Reaper. After a bit of jiggery-pokery with formats (AmbiX and FuMa - I remember Dave Malham !) I'm getting some interesting results. Will be interesting in conjunction with some binaural recordings (?)
Anyway, here's a montage of recordings I made of a stream, converted to binaural (best for headphone listening). I think it turned out pretty well - from the spatialisation point of view:
Comments
I appreciate this post is OT and somewhat esoteric, but here's a follow-up:
Ambisonics was (in my experience) always difficult to work with / expensive to experiment with, but these days with Reaper and the free tools that are now available such as:
http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/
It's a much more accessible thing, all round, for anyone interested in this area.
Interesting, will try that in Reaper when I get a chance.
I'm interested in this stuff, and spent a lot of time comparing different "Ambisonic" recordings. But, I have to say... I don't really hear all that much difference from a good stereo recording. Even the binaural stuff... though more pronounced in spatiality, don't sound radically different to me from good stereo or a couple well-placed mics.
Still intrigued, but I compared the Ambisonic recordings I could find, to just my old H2 (not Ambisonic) and couldn't hear that much difference in the spatial representation.
I also realized that if I have to go to this much trouble to try and hear some spatial difference, that most users aren't going to bother. I don't mean this to sound dismissive, and maybe there's just something faulty in my own hearing... but the differences I've heard so far have not been that impressive to go to all the extra effort.
@skiphunt, each to their own. Personally, I think a good binaural recording is far more engaging (spatially) than a stereo one (irregardless of mic positioning technique used).
If you want to have a good listen to Ambisonics recordings stuff, here's a good place to download some: (especially John Leonard's stuff)
http://ambisonia.com/
A very good free decoder - the Harpex Player, is here:
http://harpex.net/download.html
(I'm using it on Windows, I don't know if it works on macs)
@Igneous1 I'm not completely dismissing it. I've been interested in spatial audio for a long time. A good decade ago there was a CD that used "3D Sound" that was impressive. I think it was some erotic soft-core porn stuff, but the technique was very good.
I've played with binaural stuff, listened to lots of samples, including those of the Ambisonic nature. But, at the end of the day, for all the extra effort... I don't really hear a spectacular difference from if you'd done the same recording using good stereo. It's a little more spatial if you're looking for it and are using just the right monitoring gear. But for most stuff, the difference sounds subtle to me.
@Igneous1 And, I've listened to your H2N Ambisonic recording above. I just listened to it again using different headphones. And, I don't think it sounds any different that if I used my H2 (that doesn't support the Ambisonic firmware update) in 4 channel mode and moved the mic back and forth. What I'm I supposed to be hearing beyond what you can already record using a couple stereo pairs?
Yeah, I think part of that is my point. Mostly, that after you do specialized recordings, then jump through a bunch of processing hoops, then deliver for general audience, with special instructions on what they need to do to hear the difference... and then the actual difference isn't really that spectacular, it's like why bother?
I would be interested in hearing a comparison of the zoom H2N used in it's native 4 channel stereo pairs, compared with it's "Ambisonic" setting.
It's not that I don't think it's cool to experiment with, but after all the hassle, the payoff isn't really there. And, if you have someone who's not an "enthusiast" listen to it, they're like "what am I supposed to be listening for? It just sounds like stereo to me."
I'm not sure how anyone would directly 'listen to' an ambisonic-b signal on its own. It must require further processing or matrixing to derive the virtual speakers to arrive at a stereo or binaural end point (or virtually any amount of any speakers anywhere) that you can listen to.
The H2n 'surround' format does a bit of internal processing to take its mic array which consists of a mid-side array pointing forward (the other side to the display side), and the X-Y array pointing back (in the direction of the dismay side) and arrive at a quad (incorrect quad, or as Wendy Carlos calls it, 'obvious quad') signal. Either way, you get four equal signals that represent the four corners (ie, worst way of consuming your quad). If you've got a way of actually listening to that in that way, I'd be interested to hear about it. Otherwise, what you'd have to do is choose which stereo pair you wish to listen to - the front LR, or the rear LR. The H2n itself downmixes it for headphones, of course, losing the quad-ness.
The H2n's new update also presents a 'spatial' mode, which goes further than leaving the output file as quad. It processes it into ambisonic-b. Thus, you end up with a four channel file, the same as you do with surround, and it uses the front mid-side array and the rear x-y array, the same as with surround, but it firtles with the channels to arrive at a WXYZ signal. The W is the overall sound energy at the point of the mic. The X is the left-right difference signal (exactly the same as mid-side - ambisonic-b is after all an advancement of m-s in that it is mid-side in all three dimensions); the Y signal is the front-rear difference signal, the Z is the up-down difference signal, which in the case of the H2n is a blank channel (it has no way of detecting up-down difference) (which in my opinion isn't such a big loss). This four channel WXYZ ambisonic-b set is packaged up in a format that shall be called Ambi-X (ambisonic exchange). What you'd do with that is process it to your desired end point, not listen to it. If you did listen to it, you'd pick the W and X channels and matrix them to stereo as you would any other mid-side signal.
@u0421793 I do get most of what's being done, and how it's different. However, after trying to get the differences and jumping through hoops to convert and set up monitoring for surround, etc. I'm often left with the question of what's the point? I mean, once I get something that's either true surround, ambisonic, or some form of enhanced spatial effects, etc. And in order for general users to hear it they too have to jump through a bunch of hoops, that they're not likely wanting to bother with... it just seems like an exercise in futility.
I've listened to some samples off a few Ambisonic sites, of mostly fairly boring recordings. I know that I'm losing much of what they strived to achieve with specialized mics, and sophisticated processing, but at the end of the day I don't think it sounds that radically different than creative stereo recordings with decent mics.
I think the approach on the lower end, of that dev "Franz"? can't recall his name at the moment but he's got an app that sounds like a promising start to mimicking the illusion of space in the mix, that you can at least hear in basic headphones without specialized gear or complicated mic arrays.
Do you have some sample links on line that I can listen to with regular headphones, with no extra processing or conversion needed, that really show off the best of what can be achieve using some of these Ambisonic techniques?
I recently started playing with 360VR video as you might recall. After I figured out how to deliver it, I faced the hurdles of trying to get it deliverable to a general audience. After several attempts to talk users through the fact they couldn't view it via YouTube using Safari, but could view stills, but only if they changed some parameter settings, or used Chrome, etc. And tell them how to actually navigate a VR video, etc. Mostly they'd get frustrated and give up or not even bother with it in the first place if they had to do much more than click on a link to view.
This stuff is cool, but delivery of any of this new stuff to a general audienc is frustrating to say the least.
@skiphunt
You've made your point (repeatedly), if spatial audio doesn't work for you (for whatever reason), I suggest you stick with stereo recording.
Dude. You don't get it. I DO dig the spatial stuff. I'm still exploring it myself. I'm just looking for ways it can actually be delivered to a general audience without the need for specialized gear or processing on the user end. I asked Ian specific questions. Not you.
I did go to the site you recommended, and downloaded some of the samples you suggested, but they are only in the .amb format or DTS format... not listenable unless you process them and listen on a surround system. Or try to convert. It seems this is only deliverable in a form where you can actually hear the difference, if you're an enthusiast and want to process and listen on specific gear. Are there others that show off the ambisonic sound without having to process the files locally? I found some on this site: https://ambisonic.info/index.html (can't find them now, but they're buried there somewhere) and I didn't think they were much different than good stereo recordings. It could be they simply lost the effect in conversion for web delivery.
But while we're on the subject... have you compared side by side, "Ambisonic" recordings from your H2N with the regular 4-channel recordings it did before the update? ie. same recording space, same recording, but a difference in the Ambisonic setting and the regular 4 channel setting. If so, do you have a link to share that shows off the difference?
@Max23 Which approach for spatial sound do you find the most promising for general audience delivery, that doesn't require a bunch of specialized processing or an environment/theater set up for surround sound? Something that does the best job creating the illusion of more space, but also doesn't require anything specialized for delivery?
I'm interested in pairing the sound with motion picture and/or 360VR, but also interested in creating visual illusion with sound alone.
I mentioned this before, but there were several soft-core porn audio CDs back in the early 90's. I want to say they were called something like Cybogasm 3D sound, or something like that. I bought one (just for pure research of course)
And I thought the spatial 3D stuff was impressive and didn't require anything special to hear the effect. Not sure what they were doing, but it piqued my curiosity very early on.
I don't have a clear vision of exactly what I'd like to do yet, but I think it'll be loosely formed in 360VR space, but not typical experiential stuff. I'll make some spatial sound that goes with the piece, but not a literal spatial approach, ie. when you hear a bird above, you look up and see a bird. Not that. Just spatial sound mixed in a spatial piece. Not necessarily literally related.
I'd like the sound to sound fine for the piece on it's own without headphones, so it could be experienced online with crappy laptop speakers. But, also have a note that says, "For the full immersive experience, please use headphones." Or something like that. And when they do, it's a completely different experience with contrasting spatial paradigms that both clash and meld together. Sort of like a blend of peyote and mushrooms.
One main thing to consider is that ambisonic-b is effectively a conduit format, not so much a consumption format. Similarly, people read books and magazines that were typeset by other people. Neither end is overly concerned with PostScript code any more, but that is what went between the DTP package and the pre-press PDF from which plates were made. In the early days of DTP we had to get into PostScript (which was surprisingly easy for me as it resembles FORTH in many ways, and that was the programming language I'd learned a decade before). For a while the DTP community was involved in making tweaks in PostScript to get it to behave on imagesetters, but increasingly this decreased. Now, nobody sees the PostScript, and I'm sure most people involved in DTP even forget it exists in the chain somewhere. The consumer doesn't know, they just see the page.
A similar thing is happening with HTML - we're at the turning point where HTML awareness is less required, as a lot of frameworks will allow generation of HTML via components to the point that it doesn't resemble HTML, and soon, we'll be at the stage where if you're a web designer you won't see the raw HTML, you'll see the declarative components with componentised CSS that describe the visuals and behaviour at a higher level. Again, the consumer just sees the web app on their phone, unaware of HTML.
Ambisonics is similar. You consume it as something beyond ambisonic - either plain stereo, headphone binaural, 5.1 or whatever. (Or, if the world would wish to adopt my far more sensible Quasonama approach, that way too). That it came from Ambisonic-b somewhere along the line is or should be not apparent.
@u0421793 if your target listening gear for spatial source are headphone consumption, and you don't want a surround delivery system to be required, do you think a good true binaural recording can create or mimic closely the same spatial listening stage that ambisonic techniques can? Again, judging sound stage and spatial quality from headphone delivery only.
And, if binaural techniques are close enough, or adequate... would a good binaural recording translate better, worse, or about the same when playback is simply stereo speakers than if the source was recorded using ambisonic techniques with multi-mic arrays?
Yes, but particularly with what is happening now (and the stuff I'm working on myself) the headphones can track your motion (if you're wearing a VR snorkel) and as such the binaural feed you get is matrixed out of the full 360° sphere, so you only get the binaural two channel feed that corresponds with where you're facing.
Well, arguably headphone listening is totally incorrect, always has been, and really what should happen is we go back in time to the first of the headphone wearers who chose to listen to music or performances for leisure purposes in a pair of cans, and tell them to stop it - its silly. If you listen to a real live sound, wherever it emanates from is always going to leak a bit into left and right ear. There's almost no occurrence in nature that we'd hear a single sound in isolation in one ear only and shielded from the other. Yet, in headphones, a stereo mix designed for speakers will sound alluringly 'close' and intimate and up front, yet this is not what was intended (unless mixed purely on headphones with fingers crossed that this will somehow work on speakers later). The sound of music in speakers is quite open and airy, more natural, less fatiguing, than the artificially separate and isolated sound of headphones. The trouble is, listening to headphones isn't 'bad' or 'unpleasant', but it is technically incorrect and therefore must be stamped out.
Binaural audio in headphones is a good step forward, as it takes 'you' out of the headphones and just uses the headphones to deliver the sound as if you were listening to the soundfield rather than headphones. Binaural headphoning, therefore, is the way it should all be.
My opinion, of course, but still, it ranks higher than whether North Korea or the West has bigger penises on parade.
I might've hated Digital Performer (a really convoluted DAW) when I learned ambisonics in college, but if I had to choose any favourite memory from using it, it was working with ambisonics to create a 9.1 3D audio mixdown and learning the b-format.
I really wish someone would create some decent ambisonic tools for iPad. It's always been my vision to create trance music using such techniques for the synths given how a stereo mix sounds more "compact" compared to the binaural sound giving the elements better spacing. (Of course, the mixdowns meant for club play would have to be mixed in stereo.). You know how trance music often uses several layers of sound? Space them out! Make them move via automation.
Well, at least I got the ambisonic toolkit website. Reaper's a pretty good DAW for audio mixdown (although I've always found MIDI in Reaper to be cumbersome), so looks like I'll be exporting some of the things I create on my iPad and iPhone and dumping them into Reaper (or at least use that J-plugin format VST shell to get them into FL Studio) for the final mix down.
This thread brought back some pretty fond memories and nostalgia.
Cheers.
I hope you continue your quest for spatially layered trance. That's an awesome idea and I'd love to hear that.
Know what? I'm working on my version of "Baila Loca" off of Sash's "S4! Sash!" album for the inevitible "Cover of the Month, May" thread topic, and I jolly well may just bounce out the stems, transfer over from Documents 5 via iTunes, and mix it down on my PC with some elements getting the ambisonics treatment (whereas other things such as kick, clap, and the bass drop will be mixed normal). It's all about creating that nice space and the contrast between the elements, something that's a little trickier to pull off with stereo mixing.