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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Gate AUs shootout for live use (stability, cpu load etc.)

supadomsupadom
edited October 2018 in General App Discussion

I’m after an AU plugin to put before my microphone while looping to avoid bleeds from other instruments, especially drums.

I can see there’s 4pockets gate offering

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/noise-gate-auv3-plugin/id1436698776?mt=8

as well as Klevgrand’s brusfri denoiser. Albeit quite expensive and probably more suited for podcasters.

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/brusfri/id1289165912?mt=8

Also WoodnGate

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/woodngate/id1436196516?mt=8

I’m not an expert on the subject so would like to hear more knowledgeable folks giving me some info before I pull the trigger at random apps.

I’ve been quite happy with Noise X within Tone Stack but I don’t want to load the whole TS just for that.

Many thanks

Comments

  • ToMessToMess
    edited October 2018

    gate stops all sound if nothing is over X level of db. This naturally wont help if you want to pass through one sound and eliminate something else at the same time, let it be noise or anything. Brushfri is for first analyzing background noise and then filtering that background noise even when there are other sounds going through it. No idea how this works with stuff like drums, or if it works at all. Best way to avoid bleed is using headphones, closed back ones if its something so critical that open(/semi open) back headphones would bleed through too much.

  • supadomsupadom
    edited October 2018

    @ToMess said:
    gate stops all sound if nothing is over X level of db. This naturally wont help if you want to pass through one sound and eliminate something else at the same time, let it be noise or anything. Brushfri is for first analyzing background noise and then filtering that background noise even when there are other sounds going through it. No idea how this works with stuff like drums, or if it works at all. Best way to avoid bleed is using headphones, closed back ones if its something so critical that open(/semi open) back headphones would bleed through too much.

    Thanks @ToMess I was aware of the difference between the two types. Headphones are not an option unless everyone in the audience wears them ;)

  • OscarSouthOscarSouth
    edited October 2018

    @supadom
    Thinking out of the box -- could you set up some surgical EQs on input channels that are fine tuned to the frequency of the signals you want to capture (and hard cut on the specific frequencies that are a problem)?

  • HmtxHmtx

    I agree a simple noise gate is what you need for looping. It would be too tricky to isolate frequencies, because each song is going to have different loops playing. If you are only using the mic input for vocals, you could also EQ out some of the lows/highs. that wouldn't hurt.

    FAC Envolver has a noise gate, I would use this one just because it is such a solid app and can be used for other interesting effects. https://audiob.us/apps/search/envolver

  • supadomsupadom

    @OscarSouth said:
    @supadom
    Thinking out of the box -- could you set up some surgical EQs on input channels that are fine tuned to the frequency of the signals you want to capture (and hard cut on the specific frequencies that are a problem)?

    Yeah, potentially. I’m thinking that it might be a bit too rudimentary. I was hoping there might be an app that does both, noise reduction but also some kind of eq that the noise reduction might be targeted at. Having said that, a hi hat (which is by far the biggest offender) shares frequencies with vocal sibilants which might not be ideal. I’ll certainly give it a go.

    The noise gate in TS is a simple but also quite an effective affair so I’m sure most of gates will do. Stability and CPU footprint is probably my greatest worry.

  • rs2000rs2000

    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

  • rs2000rs2000

    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

  • supadomsupadom

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

  • supadomsupadom

    @Hmtx said:
    I agree a simple noise gate is what you need for looping. It would be too tricky to isolate frequencies, because each song is going to have different loops playing. If you are only using the mic input for vocals, you could also EQ out some of the lows/highs. that wouldn't hurt.

    FAC Envolver has a noise gate, I would use this one just because it is such a solid app and can be used for other interesting effects. https://audiob.us/apps/search/envolver

    What is Evolver’s cpu footprint? I have maxima and find it quite heavy on the system.

  • rs2000rs2000

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

  • supadomsupadom

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

    Audio looping using (among others) acoustic instruments, mostly vocals and djembe. I play alongside a live drummer which is my biggest concern. I guess also anything coming from the monitors for which in-ear monitor might be the best idea but so far I’ve preferred actual speaker.

  • HmtxHmtx

    @supadom I don't have Maxima. To be honest I haven't really pushed Envolver in a live session.
    Just to test, I loaded 8 Loopy tracks in Audiobus, testing on the 2015 Pro 12.9" . CPU hovers at 16-19% .

    I add Envolver on another AB input and CPU goes to 22-27%. It does seem like a big hit on CPU, maybe because it is doing more than just noise gate.

    so... maybe I have to take back my recommendation. For a simple noise gate you might find something more lightweight. How much of a CPU hit does ToneStack take?

  • rs2000rs2000

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

    Audio looping using (among others) acoustic instruments, mostly vocals and djembe. I play alongside a live drummer which is my biggest concern. I guess also anything coming from the monitors for which in-ear monitor might be the best idea but so far I’ve preferred actual speaker.

    I'd recommend microphones that only pick up little background noise and have to be positioned close to the sound sources. Avoiding noise pickup as much as possible in the first place is the easiest way to deal with noise.

  • supadomsupadom

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

    Audio looping using (among others) acoustic instruments, mostly vocals and djembe. I play alongside a live drummer which is my biggest concern. I guess also anything coming from the monitors for which in-ear monitor might be the best idea but so far I’ve preferred actual speaker.

    I'd recommend microphones that only pick up little background noise and have to be positioned close to the sound sources. Avoiding noise pickup as much as possible in the first place is the easiest way to deal with noise.

    I actually use a cheap Tom/snare dynamic mic (pulse d606) which isn’t far from the sm58 other than picking up less bottom end, which I cut via an eq most of the time anyway.

  • supadomsupadom

    @Hmtx said:
    @supadom I don't have Maxima. To be honest I haven't really pushed Envolver in a live session.
    Just to test, I loaded 8 Loopy tracks in Audiobus, testing on the 2015 Pro 12.9" . CPU hovers at 16-19% .

    I add Envolver on another AB input and CPU goes to 22-27%. It does seem like a big hit on CPU, maybe because it is doing more than just noise gate.

    so... maybe I have to take back my recommendation. For a simple noise gate you might find something more lightweight. How much of a CPU hit does ToneStack take?

    ToneStack with only noise gate loaded only adds about 7% but you know, it is the uncool IAA ;).

  • HmtxHmtx

    @supadom said:
    ToneStack with only noise gate loaded only adds about 7% but you know, it is the uncool IAA ;).

    I'm hoping TS gets the cool kid treatment soon

  • wigglelightswigglelights
    edited October 2018

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

    Audio looping using (among others) acoustic instruments, mostly vocals and djembe. I play alongside a live drummer which is my biggest concern. I guess also anything coming from the monitors for which in-ear monitor might be the best idea but so far I’ve preferred actual speaker.

    I'd recommend microphones that only pick up little background noise and have to be positioned close to the sound sources. Avoiding noise pickup as much as possible in the first place is the easiest way to deal with noise.

    I’d clarify on that that looking for a mic with a narrow front pattern would help. A drum shield and in ear monitoring would certainly help (but I understand your thought mentioning the speaker preference)
    Behringer has a decently priced and fairly well reviewed comp/limiter/gate unit that has multiple outs - so one could go to your looper and the other to your sound guy.... plus a stand-alone unit removes any load issues from your iPad....

  • supadomsupadom

    @wigglelights said:

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:

    @supadom said:

    @rs2000 said:
    Using a noise gate for noise reduction is a bad idea.
    It works if you have a very low noise floor compared to the signal, but in that case, you usually don't need noise reduction at all.
    It does not work well if the background noise does not have a steady level, and that's usually the case if you have real noise instead of steady sine waves ;)
    I have done many recordings of instruments, vocal sampling and natural sounds, and only two types of processing have proved to be useful for reducing background noise:
    1. A noise-print based spectral denoiser like brusfri. Yes it's not cheap but it actually works.
    2. A downward expander. While a compressor reduces the level scaling above an adjustable threshold, a downward expander increases the level scaling below a certain threshold. That's why a downward expander has ratios of 1:<1. In other words, it turns the signal softer the lower its level is, below the adjustable threshold. This is a (usually) linear process without any hard on/off threshold and without the unwanted side effects of a noise gate.

    An EQ only helps cleaning audio material with no high frequency content from the source .. that's rarely the case.

    Sorry, I think I’ve expressed myself badly from the outset. I don’t need a noise reduction but gate. In live situation the noise is too varied to be identified as a noise print.

    Volume threshold gate with a variable attack and decay is all I need, me thinks.

    OK, I got mislead by the topic I guess.
    What's your use case live?

    Audio looping using (among others) acoustic instruments, mostly vocals and djembe. I play alongside a live drummer which is my biggest concern. I guess also anything coming from the monitors for which in-ear monitor might be the best idea but so far I’ve preferred actual speaker.

    I'd recommend microphones that only pick up little background noise and have to be positioned close to the sound sources. Avoiding noise pickup as much as possible in the first place is the easiest way to deal with noise.

    I’d clarify on that that looking for a mic with a narrow front pattern would help. A drum shield and in ear monitoring would certainly help (but I understand your thought mentioning the speaker preference)
    Behringer has a decently priced and fairly well reviewed comp/limiter/gate unit that has multiple outs - so one could go to your looper and the other to your sound guy.... plus a stand-alone unit removes any load issues from your iPad....

    Yeah, so far I’ve done it without any protection/gate/special measures but I realise that the frequencies that bleed back into the mix are exactly the harsh sounding ones, also because when multiplied over several loops can verge on hi pitch feedback making people wanting to get away from the stage instead the other way around.

    Hardware option is out of the question especially considering the logistics and that a fair equivalents are available and just auto plug themselves ;)

  • supadomsupadom

    @Hmtx said:

    @supadom said:
    ToneStack with only noise gate loaded only adds about 7% but you know, it is the uncool IAA ;).

    I'm hoping TS gets the cool kid treatment soon

    So am I! Same as @Janosax I love the pitch shifting in VoiceRackFX but it’s either that or nothing. In ToneStack you can have a completely different set of effects at a push of a controller button, is super flexible and actually incredibly stable for such a complex app.

  • 9947659832699476598326

    Wood’n’Gate is the king here imo.

  • HmtxHmtx

    ToneStack AU will be amazing for sure.

    You mention voiceRackFX... that reminds me that it seems to have a noise gate built in. I wonder if there is any way to access the settings

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025