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
At the risk of sounding condescending and pretentious, if you don't like the product don't use it. Leave a constructive comment if you must and then find the app closer to your workflow needs.
And to the person who wrote "shitted," actually the correct term is supposed to be "shat."
I got sat on and I got shat on, is different?
The correct way to curse.
But sure. Thank you.. Wouldn’t want to be coarse in my cursing, coming off like a cur.
And what’s with the whole “to the person who wrote shitted” nonsense. You can clearly see who wrote it. It’s ok professor, you can address me directly. You won’t get shitted on, I promise.
Ah @CracklePot it was you. I ought to have known your were the shit disturber again.
And of course it is you again with your “crappy” commentary.
FL can offer and allow whatever they want on their site, but they probably would be doing themselves a disservice if it was too limited. They do have sections for bug reports. There are feature requests and talk doesn't seem to be that limited. Sections have a READ BEFORE POSTING announcement that explains the forum rules. I find it all quite reasonable. If a user acts like a guest in someone's home rather than antagonistic, there should be no problem.
Soooo, there are still people who think their right to "free speech" (the rules for which btw vary from country to country) extends to corporately run social media platforms and company-run product support forums?
It obviously doesn't. But in some specific instances it probably should.
Today, there is a debate as to whether or not your rights extend to when you are standing on Starbucks property.
People do have a right to free speech on someone else's property, and a property owner has the right to toss anyone who says anything they don't want to hear. When has it ever not worked this way? Is the confusion because it's cyberspace?
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts, a mobile phone, and ...
Free speech doesn’t extend to private property or corporations but fuck these corporations with huge reach (and in some cases monopolistic control of markets) limiting or censoring people’s political opinions.
>
I don’t really want to get involved with the usual suspects, so if anyone wants an argument, just don’t bother. I am responding to lovadamusic’s point.
There is no confusion as to the legalities. But your analogy is not really fair, and you know it.
An individual excercising their right to free speech, or somone else deciding they disagree, is a million miles from billion dollar companies using their platforms in politically biased ways. Literally attempting to socially engineer the minds of their users, by restricting what info they can view or exchange. While at the same time claiming to be about diversity and inclusion.
If YouTube and Facebook decide they don’t like what you say, even when such content is absolutely within the law, we’ve seen what happens. This is censorship, by unelected corporate giants, allied with the Left.
>
Exactly. Free speech means allowing views we may disagree with. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are rapidly losing credibility. Where the only voices heard all say the same thing, there can be no open debate. Just people telling each other what they want to hear, manipulated by the likes of Zuckerberg.
Have people considered that YouTube/Twitter/Facebook removing/banning certain posts or individuals etc may just be being overly cautious due to the fact that certain viewpoints and political stances can sail close to the wind legally in certain territories and may be covering themselves so as not to be legally responsible for the dissemination of hate speech by certain people and groups ?
Take for example the leaders of the UK’s “Britain First” group who were given plenty of warnings about their posts and behaviour by social media platforms but who were eventuallly removed because of their inability to play by the rules.
These individuals were recently jailed in the U.K. due to their breaking of the law, should social media companies continue to allow them to make the companies complicit and thus potentially legally liable in the distribution of their illegal hate speech ?
Point taken, but the crux of the problem in your example is the "hate speech" laws.
If the law extends to include private property, why should Rights not also extend to include private property? I understand that there is freedom at stake, but freedom to violate someone’s rights seems ridiculous. Just my observation on this debate.
So correcting peoples grammer is cool but, giving an honest opinion about a product you paid money for is going too far?
As I understand it, the freedom of speech clause in the US bill of rights has to do with protection from legal prosecution by the government. At the time it was written, prosecution for writing or speaking certain views in public was allowed.
While we all cling to that right to speech, there is nothing that guarantees that right to extend beyond dealings with the US legal system. And especially with a private entity one has signed a contract with I.e. that little Agree and Accept button that is so easy to click.
Again, the legalities of what is being done is not the question. YouTube and others are within their legal rights. Similarly, it is right and proper to curtail the freedom of speech when abused by extremists.
But the excuse of denying extremists the oxygen of a global platform is being applied to people who are on the Right of politics, perhaps nationalist, perhaps anti globilisation. Yet no more extreme than the Conservative party. All jokes aside, YouTube wouldn’t dare ban them.
While censoring, Facebook and co cannot give enough time to the likes of Patrick Stuart, who seems keen to tell us all what we should think. The opposing view is being erased, not because it is extreme, but because Zuckererg and co do not like what is being said.
>
Which is just like the EULA of companies such as a Microsoft, which basically means you agree by opening the packet/ installing, that the product might be riddled with bugs and unfit for purpose!
This only occurs with software/ on-line services. It’s like buying a washing machine that sometimes fails to operate, and requires a constant stream of running repairs. Then being told it’s your own fault for agreeing to buy under the terms supplied. It may be legal, but it isn’t fair.
At the end of the day, if enough people want to express views that are legal but which they feel are being censored by Mr Zuckerberg then the market will create and support a rival to Facebook.
^ This.
There is already a move afoot because content creators are tired of having their reach crippled by FB's algorithms and practices.
https://www.vero.co/
I doubt it will get much traction tho
Sure. But that's the equivalent of having designated "protest areas" around the corner and three blocks away from where the action is.
Ditto
I really only come here online.
Don't do any social media or forums.
This wastes enough of my valuable time.
I get that you don't like a big company using their platform in politically biased ways. What I'm saying is that it's nothing new and it isn't going away. We have huge "news" sources here in the U.S. that are clearly biased, and the biggest is arguably a propaganda arm of the current adminstration. If Facebook wants to restrict content based on political views, I know of nothing that can be done about it legally, or in any practical and effective way. Members must decide what they want. Facebook exists because of those who freely choose to use it under FB's terms. In terms of freedom of expression, users will ultimately decide what is acceptable. They can go elsewhere. If the government should become involved to force FB to be politically neutral, it will have to come from a direction I can't foresee.