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
Bookmarked! :-)
Be sure to see Rim's answer to the thread I've started on the auria forum: http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11087
I've always enjoyed recording in 24/96, and listening to the sessions in 24/96.
My general impression has been that it is simply less fatiguing to listen to for long periods of time.
I feel these articles always seem to miss that point. It shouldn't come down to whether you can double blind tell the difference between them 100% of the time. The only significant metric is whether an entire recording in one format is less fatiguing than another.
Unfortunately, we can't really measure that scientifically as it is about our emotional/psychological reaction to it.
I also want a denser pixel count on my "retina" ipad! People can gruff that the current standard is "good enough" and practically indistinguishable from the better standard, but why not aim a little higher? Nature is somehow capable of doing so, so why not mimic it to the best of our abilities?
That's my take anyways.
Good stuff. Especially loved:
>
I enjoyed this too, linked from the article: http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/08/05/modern-hi-fi-what-really-happened-to-the-high-end-stereo-market/
That argument also always strikes me as an a bizarre quest against the natural harmonics of sound. It may be "overkill" but the alternative might be "underkill".
I don't turn up my 24/96 recordings so I can hear the highest harmonic of a recorded acoustic guitar with the greatest clarity, I would most likely focus on the fundamental of a given tone than any partial…
…BUT, that doesn't mean that harmonic isn't part of the sound of the tone which makes it sound as it does in nature, regardless of whether we can separate it individually from the combination of all the overtones making the sound in a double blind comparison or not.
The argument seems to be that upper harmonics are irrelevant, but without any rational justification. I also believe that is why 16/44.1 can be fatiguing to listen to for long periods of time compared to 24/96, as I think at a subconscious level the mind has to repair the sounds to match up with our experience in nature in real time as we listen. I'd much rather have studies measuring the fatigue level of those experiencing audio "overkill" to those experiencing "underkill", than this attempt to make scientific arguments about what is "good enough".
Reminds me of all the people complaining about apple's "retina" screens as current screens were "good enough", yet low and behold, once I got a retina ipad, I was suddenly able to read all day long without resting, but prior to that with the desktop running at 1200x800px resolution I couldn't read for more than 2 hours without turning it off to rest or nap because of the strain it caused.
The reason was simple, if your eyes aren't perfect, which visual input would cause less strain for your mind to clarify, the one with the highest resolution, or the one with lesser resolution? Applying the same amount of blur to both, the higher resolution will be easier for the mind to comprehend.
I feel the exact same applies to hearing, which is why I simply don't have any care for most of these "technical arguments" from engineers, as they almost always assume that every individual perceives the world the same exact way.
Of course, there is a point of absolutely diminishing returns, but I'd much rather be on the slight overkill to serve all side of the equation than the slight underkill for irrational personal reasons side of things.
You really shouldn't compare visual screen resolution with audio bit depth, or if you should - a retina screen would compare to an old cassette tape
A low resolution screen means you see the pixels. The aliasing can be compensated by anti-aliasing filtering - letting the subpixels bleed over to nearby pixels. But in digital audio you don't hear the "pixels", because digital audio is not a stair-case signal, unless your system is broken. In the process of converting the digital samples (not steps) into an analogue signal, the original/ideal waveform is reconstructed fully, except the added dithering noise, which only raises the noise floor. With 16 bits, this noise floor is still way way lower than vinyl or cassette.
No, what I'm comparing is the way engineers often claim to have "nailed" the truth, while experience and fatigue prove otherwise. Obviously they are technically different, no argument there.
Discussion of upper harmonics and the like have to do with the 96 in 24/96. 24 bit playback is just pointless. I mean, if it's less fatiguing to you, by all means go for it. I'd rather have the hard drive space.
@AQ808
I read an article recently (I believe it was linked from here or one of the other iOS music sites) that showed evidence that the higher inaudible harmonic frequencies present in the higher sample rate (not bit depth) audio files actually hindered the clarity of the audio by introducing unintended emphasis/cancellations when played through speakers.
AQ808, your analogy of your eyes getting less fatigued with a retina screen and comparing that to your ears getting fatigued listing to 44.1 kHz sampled music is flawed.
Your eyes focus by using muscles. They can get fatigued if you work them too hard. Comparatively, you don't use muscles to focus your ears to listen to music. Your ears hear the exact same way whether they're listening to music recorded at a low sampling rate or a high sampling rate.
I don't think so, sonicflux. Your mind processes what your eyes and ears bring in.
Have you ever had your eyes tested where they ask you to read the smallest line you can make out? Well, inevitably I always have to ask, well, there's a very blurry line which my mind can interpret, but it is very blurry. The doctor is always like, whatever, just read it.
Our mind is able to make educated guesses regardless of the quality of our eyes or ears, or the quality of the thing we are viewing or hearing.
Any engineer ignoring the role of perception in the process is full of BS.
Since we constantly make guesses about what we are seeing or hearing, we are naturally accustomed to that process, but it requires brain power to do and is fatiguing. That is part of what things like PTSD are all about, as a person has usually been in a situation where their ability to process reality has been outstripped by the irrationality of an event.
Anything we can do to reduce that amount of guessing is going to cause less stress, not more.
Synthandson, it seems mental fatigue isn't directly scientifically measurable objectively, but only subjectively through a study.
I should also mention that whether the less fatiguing effect for me comes from the 24-bit or the 96khz is irrelevant to me as an end user because that is simply how they have been coupled on recording most devices. To get the benefit from the 96, you've had to take the 24. That's how the devices have been made and commercially standardized.
I'm not going to complain about it as the 24 doesn't hurt a thing, and combined with the 96 khz sampling rate doesn't cause anything bad other than taking up space on a hard drive, but storage gets cheaper every year and will continue to do so. Serious non-issue for me.
...storage gets cheaper every year?Ipads are excluded it seems ;-)
Anyone that has mixed for more than 12 hours knows that ears do get fatigued. At a certain point you know you can't trust your ears any further, you gotta quit and start fresh.
Fatigue can happen with any audio, be it digital, analogue or live. A very interesting article making a very clear point.
Is it your ears getting fatigued or your brain?
Audio levels/exposure time have more to do fatigue than program material. And for sure, passive listening is not at all the same as active mixing.