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.

Public beta for new AU

2»

Comments

  • PoppadocrockPoppadocrock

    Awesome thanks @NeonSilicon

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    I'm rolling out a new beta build that has the defaults set to, 4-pole high-pass, low-shelf, 2-pole notch, 2-pole notch, peaking, peaking, high-shelf. So people can play with the new UI interaction.

    @Cyndilov, if you would prefer a different filter setup for the defaults, let me know. It's a really easy change at this point and it would only take me about 30 seconds to alter it before release.

  • CyndilovCyndilov

    What an honour! I'm not totally sure what I'd prefer honestly, but 2-pole notches over 4-pole is a good call I think. Having the notches before the peakings also make sense. Only thing is that I'm not sure whether 1 notch 3 peakings or 2 notches 2 peakings will be more convenient. I suspect 2+2 but I'll play with it a bit more and let you know if I find otherwise.
    On another note, would a double-tap to turn off a node also easy to do?

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @Cyndilov said:
    [...]
    On another note, would a double-tap to turn off a node also easy to do?

    I thought the same thing because it's the natural thing to be there. Unfortunately, it's a more complex interaction with the other states in the way I have it coded now. It's likely I won't get it in before release, but I'm looking at it for inclusion in an update.

    Let me know about your filter choices after you've had a chance to play with it and I'll update before release.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    Hi folks,

    I've got a crash report from the beta test report for LRC7. The crash is in the document app and not the AU -- makes me dislike having to do the container app even more now.

    Anyway, I can't recreate the crash on my hardware. I'm wondering if it has something to do with language settings or locales. So, if you have the app, can you try and blow it up for me?

    It only requires taping on the NeonSilicon.com link on the first page.

    Thanks!

  • CyndilovCyndilov

    Just tried it, all good for me.

    Also I changed my mind now - 1 notch 3 peakings is probably gonna work better :smiley: But otherwise it's been working brilliantly. I can see myself using this a lot

    How do you envision LRC7 and LRC5 differentiate in their positioning? What would LRC5 be particularly good at that you won't use LRC7 for it, and would one use both on the same track you think?

  • CyndilovCyndilov

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @Cyndilov said:
    [...]
    On another note, would a double-tap to turn off a node also easy to do?

    I thought the same thing because it's the natural thing to be there. Unfortunately, it's a more complex interaction with the other states in the way I have it coded now. It's likely I won't get it in before release, but I'm looking at it for inclusion in an update.

    Yeah I thought it might be that it had to cope with the state of the node before it gets turned off or something like that. All fine either way though, if you manage to put it in later on it can make a nice way to do A/B comparison as a bonus

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @Cyndilov said:
    Just tried it, all good for me.

    Also I changed my mind now - 1 notch 3 peakings is probably gonna work better :smiley: But otherwise it's been working brilliantly. I can see myself using this a lot

    How do you envision LRC7 and LRC5 differentiate in their positioning? What would LRC5 be particularly good at that you won't use LRC7 for it, and would one use both on the same track you think?

    Thanks for the report. I'll change up the filters for the next release.

    LRC7 overlaps with LRC5 a lot. But, it does use more processing (only a little bit), and if you don't have the need for the deeper cuts that are on LRC7 I think it is easier to use the UI for LRC5, especially on small iPhones.

    I probably wouldn't ever use LRC5 and LRC7 on the same track except in one situation. I use EQ before and after distortion effects, so there, I might put LRC7 before and LRC5 after. I do see people using multiple copies of LRC5 together though.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @Cyndilov said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @Cyndilov said:
    [...]
    On another note, would a double-tap to turn off a node also easy to do?

    I thought the same thing because it's the natural thing to be there. Unfortunately, it's a more complex interaction with the other states in the way I have it coded now. It's likely I won't get it in before release, but I'm looking at it for inclusion in an update.

    Yeah I thought it might be that it had to cope with the state of the node before it gets turned off or something like that. All fine either way though, if you manage to put it in later on it can make a nice way to do A/B comparison as a bonus

    Oh, yeah that would be nice.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    I'm getting ready to push the release version of LRC7 to the App Store tonight. So let me know soon if anything is broken.

    Thanks again for your suggestion @Cyndilov. It makes for a much better user experience.

    Also, thanks to Pete wherever you are for submitting the bug report for the crash. I haven't fixed it yet because I can't replicate it. Hopefully I'll be able to figure it out and fix it soon before it causes too many issues.

  • CyndilovCyndilov

    Glad you were open to it! We're lucky to have you making these simple tools with unique implementations. I hope your interest will be back on CuSnP at some point with its deep potentials :)

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @Cyndilov said:
    Glad you were open to it! We're lucky to have you making these simple tools with unique implementations. I hope your interest will be back on CuSnP at some point with its deep potentials :)

    Thanks. I mentioned in another thread here yesterday I think that I was working on an AU that currently would eat 100% of a fast CPU. That's the followup to CuSnP, if I can get the code optimized well enough. I should know more in the next few days.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025