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
Time to bring out the popcorn
I'm also new to the IOS department and used both Cubasis and BM3. Both are really cool, but both have foibles that drive me nuts. The short list of negatives for me is a testament to everything they do well. I love them both, but here are my criticisms.
BM3
Does not have Freeze tracks
Poor autosave and somewhat unstable
Melodic midi instruments are not treated separately from banks, making editing multiple melodic instruments in a bank pretty fiddly.
No mix busses, unless you load into the same bank, but there are aux sends.
Fiddly midi and automation editing for those with fat fingers.
CUBASIS
No triplet grid
No mix busses
This. In fact, all three major DAWs has pros and cons regarding MIDI:
Auria - pros: non destructive grid, swing and groove quantizing, humanizing, lots of MIDI tools (legato, randomizing etc), 960 PPQN, ability to see and edit multiple tracks at once in the piano roll, full automation support, export and import, comprehensive grid with tuplets etc, cons: NO MIDI AU support, no loop record support, no MPE, bland interface, no scales support;
Garageband - pros: scales support, MPE support, 960 PPQN, loop recording, fantastic user interface, extremely easy to use, grid with triplets, swing, unparalleled built-in instruments with advanced, generative, humanized grooves, cons: automation can be written but no edited, no import or export MIDI, no AU MIDI support
Cubasis - pros: full AU MIDI support (rozetta etc), loop recording, full automation support, thoughtful and beautiful interface, export and import, cons: 48 PPQN, no MPE support, grid is lacking tuplets and triplets, no scales support, limited MIDI editing and selecting tools
It's pretty much a tie nowadays. And it's always subjective: for some people, Auria's bland interface is enough of a deal breaker, for others, Garageband's lack of automation is enough of a deal breaker, for others still, Cubasis' 48 PPQN is the deal breaker. Also, it's kind of natural for @brambos to rave about Cubasis, since he's the developer of Rozetta, which Cubasis was the first to support - and only as of now.
Yes, I forgot BM3 - because I don't know how to use it yet!
Which iOS device are you using? Some of the suggestions here may not apply to your setup.
@SevenSystems said let's keep things in perspective. So let's!
First, do any of these comparisons help with answering @therockalternative's question? Do These deep (and valid to the expert) qualities make a difference in doing the job The OP is trying to do?
Second, from reading many DAW threads I have never seen a clear winner in these debates. The more advanced members, in their individual and collective wisdom, often seem to use a combination of two or three of these apps to meet all their needs.
Third and lastly, it seems to me the inherent limitations in the hardware and software iOS platform, and the constraints of time, money and specific objectives often cause devs to make decisions which limit or extend certain aspects of their product. All the apps discussed here have staunch supporters. For me Cubasis is the end of the world, because I can easily use it to make my music, it is very forgiving, has more than decent effects, is stable, allows for easy collaboration, and the dev is always here! Perhaps @LFS will weigh in here. I think, knowing Lars, that he would not claim Cubasis to be the best in every circumstance, or totally deep to the nth degree in every area. But he might say they are working on it. I have heard Auria characterized as difficult to use, less stable and lacks a cool look but the more advanced users gravitate toward using it if not solely than in tandem with CB or other apps. Like the OP I don't have iOS 11 for the freebie GB. In other words, I think every master operator ( we know who you are!) posting here operates within the system when possible and around it when necessary. In the end are we not grateful these devices exist in the remarkable way they each do? And aren't we all cognizant that in this virtual world devs must struggle mightily to anticipate and satisfy our individual needs while making a product that appeals to a wide audience of these same individuals? Anyway, as usual, my two cents worth. Peace, brothers and sisters. This is an awesome party!
Also try turning the metronome off and doing some tempoless expressive Solo Piano recorded as MIDI and see how much it chops it up in strange ways due to the low MIDI resolution.... All those other things you mentioned really don’t affect me though.
For me the important spiritual difference between GB and Cubasis is I can connect a Cubasis Synth or Drum Loop into Audiobus as a source and use those sounds wherever I want.
GarageBand is all take and no give.
No, in fact I was triggered by the "GB is leaps and bounds better when it comes to MIDI" remark. Turns out that commenter was talking about the built-in smart instruments of Garageband - which are in fact absolutely brilliant, but I wouldn't describe those as MIDI features per se.
Fair enough.
You should be able to download a prior version of GB on older iOS devices right?
And then there’s MultitrackStudio, Audio Evolution Mobile, N-Track 9 Pro, Music Studio, FL Studio Mobile...
I don't think you read all my replies, since I have an older iPad I do not have access to garageband
I’ll preface my statements with trigger warnings next time.
The MIDI editor tool buttons come optional, see them as helpers. You're free to use them, but all editor work can be easily and fully done without using them.
Actually, we think Cubasis‘ MIDI editor to behave pretty straight forward, but it‘s up to you to judge, of course.
In case, you've missed our MIDI editor tutorial, please find it here:
Best,
Lars
@LFS yup I missed that. Forgive me for my short attention span sometimes.
I really haven’t been using Cubasis for midi anyway except for timeline recording of midi or audio. For programming I never got into Cubasis but I do like the precision of its real time quantisation and no nonsense clip trimming and arranging. There it best in class there unequivocally.
But on another note for programming in 2018, scale mode is really essential.
Of course, I will not take part in the DAW vote, but clearly have to disagree here - without offending anyone.
The mixer, effect and routing solutions and available options in GB and Cubasis are obviously very different in terms of features, concepts, appearance and usability.
Best,
Lars
Indeed.
Hey Lars - thanks for chiming in. I understand these discussions can sometimes seem adversarial, but that's not the intention. I would just say a couple of things in the spirit of constructive feedback:
The point I was making is that essentially the mixer in Cubasis is still very basic - it does do a couple of things really well, but essentially it doesn't really give you much more control over your mix than the mixer in GB IMO, I mean you can set levels and panning per track, and add effects and that's about it (and you can do the same in GB).
One thing I do really like is the permanent readout of the fader level - that's a really useful feature.
But on the other hand there is no means of grouping or bussing, which means that adjusting levels in a busy mix is just unnecessarily time-consuming because you have to adjust 20 + faders instead of just 3 or 4 as you would if you could group tracks. It also means you can't use bus compression and more advanced routing. I don't think side-chaining is available either (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). So in terms of mixing I really don't see much there that is better than GB, except maybe the ability to solo tracks and have proper AUX sends (admittedly important features).
One thing that would IMO make the mixer a lot more useful would be the ability to (optionally) set the faders to take up the full height of the screen, rather than just half the screen as they do now - you could then make much finer adjustments to the levels.
Well I come from Cubase and bitwig/reason on pc. I just wanted another environment so cubasis is a natural choice. It's not based on anything really. Beat maker 3 I tried, not Arturia but I think cubasis is where i'll start.
After spending some time with Auria, I'm going to give it a go.....I have been working with daw's on the pic for years and auria has very similar military tendencies where Cuba seems just confuses me....I have not dug too deep into it yet but if it allows me to edit midi notes' I think it will give me what I need
Xequence MIDI workstation has rock solid midi timing and that is like pixie dust to me!
Or allow to edit their numeric values by keying in and also by tapping and swiping up/down - like it is done in Micrologue’s header bar where we can tap and swipe up/down numeric values to twist knobs/faders.
Also, it is being hard to set/reset values in Automation Editor using the lines or the scroll bar on the right. Let us edit their values and also double tap to reset to default such as 0 dB, Center pan, etc.