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.
How do you like your patch paradigms?
Modular synths were mostly patched using jack leads from plug to socket. The normalised patching of synths was to follow - pre-patching 'behind' the panel, combined with breaking jack sockets. This led to normalised synths alterable by switching of panel switches (eg, the Odyssey and the like). Attention was being put into the 'flow' of a patch, such that it can be thought about in a coherent manner, the physical layout of the 'modules' (i.e., lined boxes printed on the panel) suggested a workflow of signal and control paths.
I've noticed that recently I've seriously gone off matrix patching. I used to prefer the idea of matrix patching against the idea of dangling patch cords getting in the way of the knobs. Increasingly I think that matrix patching does not represent the 'notion' of the particular patch in the mind of the user, particularly in the case of examples such as the VCS3 or iVCS3. The pin board patch panel isn't hard to understand, but it doesn't represent the sound or the model of the connections. One pin board arrangement doesn't look like anything different to any other pinboard patch. You can't just look at it and see what it means, any more than you can read a QR code.
The thing is, even though we're using software synths on iOS, a lot of the way the patching is is because of previously established paradigms of how patching goes. There aren't that many novel ones that didn't already exist in the hardware domain. What I'm wondering is, which patch paradigm do you get on with the best? What 'suggests' what the connection or the sound will be when you look at it? Do you like matrix patching or prefer dangling cords? Things like the matrixbrute - I don't think that would prove to be as usable as it first seems, with knobs here and the divorced matrix area over there. Is there further to go with meaningful ways of patching?
Comments
Matrices lack 'directionality' for lack of a better word. You can't read them but need to interpret them, causing a higher mental load than visually following wires, or seeing a chain from left to right.
Edit: one clever example of a matrix-done-right is the midi routing in AUM...
I still wait for drop an d drag mod-matrix in an iOS synth and wonder why it´s still so a workflow killer on an multi-touch device.
Otherwise there are many different ways to make patching a lot faster and more easy. Like don´t have to "waste" slots in the mod-matrix like velocity settings and put it directly under the envelopes f.e.
Since i used 100+ synths across different OS and devices, most synths are very similar in the architecture but very very different in workflow.
It depends of the kind of synth. Modular synth of course doesn´t have/need a mod-matrix but they are really open for whatever you can imagine (also here i miss in iOS things like using several virtual outputs per socket like it´s common on other virtual modulars).
But some powerful mod-matrix allow me things i couldn´t do in the biggest modular (or i would need many many modules and a lot time to achieve a similar modulation) within a few seconds.
Some mod-matrix allow you to use an detuned unison OSC as modulation source. You would need a lot modules and settings to do the same in a modular environment.
Then some genius mod-matrix allow you to use slots of the matrix to modulate the amount of other slots in the matrix etc.
I still like the dials from Mitosynth. It´s a thing which won´t work with a matrix but for this synth i find it a genius way to get really complex modulations going in short time.
So i there is no best solution for me. Some synths just do it a lot better than others. Some are really so bad in workflow that however they sound i won´t use them (hello Korg apps).
Midi learn via 1 (or 2) clicks is another important thing for me.
So while synth can be nearly the same from the engine it can be so much of a different.
Many iOS synths are not there yet. I wonder why?
I forgot another important part......visual feedback.
If i modulate a knob, slider, whatever i prefer to have a visual feedback of speed and amount of the modulation going on.
I even love blinking led´s in virtual modulars.
Well, technically matrix is fine, and I'm not unable to use it, but it doesn't 'resemble' anything in reality, it is more for the convenience of the manufacturer, coupled with one solution for getting the cables out of the way. Looking at a matrix patch of the VCS3 you see a shape of scattered white or green dots. If you saw any handful of random scatterings of dots, they'd all be kind of 'equal', and none in particular would stand out as 'that patch' you're hearing. It isn't a good analogy of anything in particular. If the designer of the synth had chosen to put some modules in different places, the dot pattern would be fundamentally different, for the same sound. This could be improved, I think. The semantics of the dot pattern should convey something 'bigger' than just the nuts and bolts connectivity.
Indeed, but matrix is not like matrix. Of course i prefer some synths which combines that and let me choose.
And another thing i like about Mitosynth f.e. is when i modulate an LFO with another LFO i see a visual feedback how the shape looks.
I also find visual oscilloscopes great to have a visual feedback of the sound i´m playing/changing.
Also visual feedback how i cycle trough envelopes and such stuff.
But if you open an patch with a lot modulations and no visual feedback you have to figure out what´s going on.
If i see what happens i can get faster in the direction i want.
Again things like having "common" things like velocity setting for filter and amp envelopes f.e. direct as knob under the envelopes is a little but very useful thing for me.
So i see it totally different and miss a lot performance and visual oriented things, especially on multi-touch synths.
Some old hardware synths like the Pro-One or Prophet -5 had such an easy to use and versatile way to modulate things in a much more performance oriented way.
But everyone to his/her likings of course.
I´m just a bit picky about that because i experienced all kind of good and bad things while playing with so many different synths the lsat years.
Once you find a better way, you will miss it everywhwere.
I make them myself too but also like to use some good patches and change them to my likings.
But enjoy your small world
Uh, thin skin? Doesn´t take it too serious.
the dangling chord scheme is great to follow your ideas or intuition.
It's unreadable once a certain degree of complexity is crossed (ymmv).
Same with a matrix that covers a limited amount of sources/destinations, as found on many hardware devices.
Something like the VCS3 is already quite ambitous, but at least you got a chance to interpret the scheme in reasonable time.
Which is close to impossible in the dangling chord mode.
I have a synth that started as a modular patch and later was tranferred into a plugin with it's own GUI. You'd never guess that those 2 implementations have anything in common.
Bottomline: you just have to know, what you're doing - so simply bring a lot of patience to aquire the respective skills.
It's a steep (and slow) learning curve in the beginning, but things unfold quickly later
I get what you're saying. Either way it takes a lot of head scratching sometimes to understand (or remember) the signal flow of a patch. That's something that has to be known to understand how to modify the sound, other than just tweaking knobs (which is also a perfectly valid approach however).
S__nV_ox does have that visual representation, including routing, signal flow indicator, and even oscilloscope readout. The other good thing about a flow-chart type representation is it's easy to see at a glance all the inputs that are linked to something like an LFO. If that LFO is modulating more than one parameter, it's good to easily see what's going to be affected by changing it
I wouldn't want other synths to follow that model. I still like twiddling knobs on a nicely designed UI better than just plain ol' faders for everything. But, what would be really cool I think would be if there was a flow chart style alternative view that could be switched to. Something like Model 15 would be so much easier to manage that way.
I got turned off from Model 15 because the patch cables were too convoluted to follow, and cover the knobs. Any cord that stretches to a module off the screen you are on, you need to remember where it's going. Similarly got turned off by real modular synths, for the same reason, deciphering what you were looking was not intuitive at all, it was a rats nest of connections that you either remember what's going on, or a lengthy process of going through the patch. I would try in vain to reorganize the modules, so the patch cords would be shorter and less criss crossed, but to no avail. In general, the more you have to remember, the more that is hidden from your eye, the harder it is to use.
The MS-20 is (although a simpler synth) nice, with the patch bay resembling a flow chart of the synth, and you see the signal flow, with your patch cable customizations. The knobs are in a different spot.
Thor, although not super intuitive to understand when looking at a complex patch, isn't a bad way to do it- It is a semi modular synth, so the normal way it is patched together is on the main page (and in your head, but it isn't that bad; there is only one model to remember). The custom patching is perhaps an improvement over the matrix: customized patching is done in a table, where you only see custom connections that are in effect, and you see the full name of each, source, and destination(s), and the mod amount, all in one place. Admittedly that place is in a different spot, than what it is controlling.
@u0421793 It's an interesting question. I don't think anyone has totally nailed it. One of the reasons is there is expectation for software to emulate hardware, ie., physical things. Like one thing I haven't seen on soft synths is having several different views, with copies of the same controls, in different arrangements, depending on the task you're doing. Like Thor- on the mod matrix patching table page, what if, when you decided to patch LFO 1 to control say, the Oscillator PWM, you had a little window fill with a copy of the LFO's controls on it, like rate, shape, etc, and another window, with copies of your Oscillator knobs- pitch, shape, etc. It would be like a detail/isolated view, of the connection you just made.
I mean, for a long while I was thinking the same as Max23, I thought that routing through a matrix was so obviously better than dangling drooping cables. After all, in wiring up a studio full of rack gear, the addition of a patch bay or two is a significant improvement to organisation and utility. Similarly with networking, you have Ethernet patchbays, and it'd be a ludicrous situation without them. A lot of the more capable synths I've sought out over the decades have favoured a matrix approach, from the Oberheim Matrix 1000 synths I collected back in the 90s, to the Novation Circuit now – still definitely a matrix synth at heart.
However, and this is only recently, I'm starting to see the matrix as a separation, in a way that splits thinking about the patch into two 'types' of thinking - one with the shape of the settings laid out on knobs or sliders, and another separate one with the connections as a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is only the pattern it is because of where we had put the column and row headings, and I don't think this conveys the semantics of the connectivity. I wonder if we could do better - have a connectivity graph that means, at a glance, something about the way we're getting that sound. Patch cables, much though I don't like them as much [1] actually draw lines from block to block in a more meaningful way (assuming you know which block is where and what it does) than a separated grid elsewhere.
I think what I'm getting at is that synth patches are more than two dimensional, but also not regular count-up quantity lists of similar types, and yet we've habitually mapped them onto a two dimensional grid as though it were a tick-box shopping list or stock-checking sheet. I'm convinced we could do better, not in physical builtable reality, but in the layered dimensions of visual and touchable graphics.
[1] (although my first synth was a self-built uncompleted later to catch fire Digisound 80 with the patch cables etc on a replicated layout of the knob part.
Which is quite a significant difference when it comes to cognitive load when programming synths.
From my perspective with an app like the 'vox or Reaktor the flow of the signals through a patch is much easier to distinguish when you can move all the pieces, the components and the wiring so that it makes sense to you as the patch designer. It can also end up in a confusing mess but at least you have some say in that.
No, it's not about knowing how the matrix works. Matrices are quite intuitive. The issue is that all you get as visual feedback is a "dot" in the matrix. The dot itself has no meaning, no direction and no inherent value. You have to interpret the location of the dot and derive its source and destination from the edges of the matrix. This leads to the higher mental load as opposed to just following a wire from/to known locations on your synth.
Absolutely, a mess of wires on a typical fanatical modular is also, well, a mess.
the Model 15 sounds fine, but it's a modular dwarf
Check this page, where the list of modules mentiones only additional ones of version 4 and leaves out 1-3.
That stuff is really hard to decipher if it's not your very own setup and you're familiar with what you used in which position.
http://sonic-core.net/joomla.soniccore/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=127&lang=us
(tap/click on the 'features' tab)
There are also other ways like f.e. Roli Equator synth.
If you click on any of the modulation sources the GUI will highlight all the destinations/amounts of this source.
It works the same with adding new modulations.
It also has a traditionell mod-matrix if you want.
But from all ways i prefer drop n' drag.
Again i ask me why we have not much (if any) iOS synths with that.
It's almost like patching a cable.
Drop a line from a slot in your matrix, LFO, envelope etc. to your destination. Then set the value directly on the destination knob with a visual feedback.
That is a major jump and fun (for me) in workflow compared to the regulary setting of values in a mod-matrix.
Like said, there are many ways.
I just find many iOS synths not really multi-touch friendly when it comes to these things.
Time that someone change this.
I would have liked Tera for an example of a superimposed rectangle of a previously occluded chunk of synth suddenly appearing in mid air, were it not for both the fact that I couldn't see it all along anyway unless I took some kind of action, and also the fact that the keyboard goes dead when I do see that snippet of synth panel (which really renders the whole exercise useless). On paper, I like the way Tera does the patching. In reality, why can't I just see it all at once, and hear my tweaking? There aren't any easy solutions.