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
@blueveek : could you please add a way to type in the length of the sequence. While I appreciate that many EDM folks work in chunks of 4 and 8, a lot of music is constructed of longer sections and it would be so much more friendly to type in one's target number of measures.
That would be nice indeed...
the + - could also exponentially increase the sequence length (with optional copy/duplicate of recorded events).
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256 wouldn't take that many taps to get reach 1024 bars
Hey I just had a shower thought; that + - switch is exposed in Atom’s parameters right? What about modulating that with a RNG in Drambo? Have the (multiple if you like) patterns already laid out, but the RNG would determine random bar lengths each cycle.
It depends, I usually start by making it 1 bar...
...and expand from there
But then again I 'paint in' the notes most of the time when I start and once the piece is a bit longer I record some noodling.
(It's the same procedure when I use Trackers, program first, play later).
I've not done super in-depth diving into the config files but I'm pretty sure the default number of bars can be configured?
Cheers!
Or Specific bar lengths!
edit: I just looked and it’s not exposed. Would that be possible Victor? @blueveek
I do agree that being able to 'type in' values could be handy like just double tap on the number of bars and just type it in.
Same would go for most of the numerical values in Atom 2.
It just feels so intuitive to double tap on a number/text and type in a value that I miss it in Atom 2.
(Then again there are plenty of apps where keyboard input is missing so I've kinda gotten used to the endless swiping).
If text-input was easy to add I'm quite sure @blueveek would have added it already.
(Text input requires some kind of 'sanity check' of the entered values to avoid errors and crashes).
One way to implement 'long' recordings would be to NOT set the default length until a recording is stopped and then round the length to the nearest bar boundary and then when loop is NOT enabled an option to record past it.
When I'm using the LPPro 3 with other DAWs theres this nice 'Fixed Length' button to set default bar length between 1-8 bars.
(I've honestly not checked yet if it already works with Atom 2...).
We should remember it's a one man project done on spare time...
Atom 2 will eventually get there
Simpler solution...
Have *2 and /2 buttons immediately below the + and - commands
Even easier, long press (or double-tap) on the number of measures to allow typing in a number. Even x2 and *2 end up being quite a few taps for structures that aren't powers of 2 long (which for some people are quite common). Particularly if you don't want to think about the most efficient way of betting to 24 using +, -, *2 and /2. If someone wants 12 measures or 24 (super common section lengths) or 20, it is more convenient to just type a number.
Wow, that was fast! And thank you for the tips and the zipped files as a workaround. The Capture MIDI thing sounds very interesting.
@espiegel123 is right... but.. if you add/subtract a couple of bars before using the *2 command you would open up all of the following ranges...
2 / 4 / 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 / 128....
3 / 6 / 12 / 24 / 48 / 96....
5 / 10 / 20 / 40 / 80 / 160...
7 / 14 / 28 / 56 / 112 / 224...
one of these is bound to be pretty close to your target. AND... you get to practice your ‘powers of 2’ mental arithmetic at the same time.
Is there a way to have multiple tracks simultaneously with only one instance of Atom2 ? “A la helium” ?
You mean like this...?
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/comment/947476/#Comment_947476
(it was added in the 2.0.7 update)
Exactly this ! But how do you do that ? I just spent 20 minutes trying to find by myself but…no way…
Long-Tap on the Add to select which midi channel to add notes to.
But currently there is no way to select which channel to edit or select notes on, select & delete applies to all midi channels.
(This will likely be available in a not too distant update).
This is a yet "unofficial" hack that abuses the MPE mode. What you need to do is make sure the source emits on a dedicated channel, or long-press the "Add" button for the advanced options which include the note entry channel. For now, you'll be able to see and edit all channels simultaneously.
Addendum: MPE is fundamentally incompatible with using MIDI channels as track filters. Atom was built from the start to support MPE, crucially: in every host which doesn't mangle MIDI, so it stays away from what I personally (uncritically) consider to be an anti-pattern in MIDI routing. Furthermore, if you're looking to force a makeshift Cubasis-like, linear DAW-like, experience in AUM, if the genre you're composing permits it, I challenge you to maybe try something else instead. AUM is nodal and encourages modularity and experimentation, and Atom tries to play into those strengths instead of working around what some might perceive as limitations in an "incomplete DAW". I encourage you to try structuring your song into reusable chunks, the smaller the better, building a grid of patterns to play, stop, layer, and experiment with. Try building an Atom orchestrator to sequence your sequencers and build song parts this way. Then maybe orchestrate your orchestrators
Use pattern switching for on-the-fly variations, and so on. I know this might seem unusual at first, especially if you've never done this kind of thing before, and especially if you don't have a supported Launchpad controller for example, but just give it a try and who knows, maybe you'll end up preferring it.
It just seems a lot simpler to be able to type it directly. IMO, the fewer obstacles the better. And letting the user by able to type in requires no additional widgets in the main u.i. Double-tapping (or long pressing) the measure number is a pretty common convention -- so pretty discoverable imo.
Victor @blueveek or @tk32, I think these addendums would helpful if they were added as foot notes to the manual.
I was blind…now I see…thanks a lot…
I do understand your point of view. The orchestration of patterns was my most expected feature in Atom1. Now it is available on Atom2 so I think I will try to build something this way. It is just more “mental” as an approach.
Agreed! I should be using mine more.
Definitely. It would be beneficial to have more reference material that carefully articulates the philosophy and deliberate design decisions that drive Atom. It's clear that some users will feel right at home from the start, and that some won't –– just like with any piece of software. And I don't necessarily think that Atom should try to fit perfectly into everyone's workflow; in fact, I think it's impossible, and I'll inevitably optimize for some workflows more than others. The hard part is being able to balance the work required to build that reference material, with the work required to build Atom itself
Here's my personal take on the same theme as Blueveek's brilliant and eloquent footnote...
...and on the topic of reference material... please hold me accountable here. I'm slacking slightly with the latest manual update, but it IS nearly ready.
I am sorry. It is very different to say "this app is for people that work in chunks of 16 bars or less" than to say that preferring not to work in clips is somehow erroneous or backwards.
The notion that someone is being a Luddite by not preferring to work in 16 bar chunks is ... just (for lack of a better) wrong.
There is nothing wrong to say this app is for people that want to work in small clips...but implying that working with short clips is musically superior just strikes me as being off on so many levels.
Not suggesting anyone is a luddite...
Simply that it's not the Atom ethos.
Sorry if this comes across as argumentative, but you literally said "If you want to make your Atom clips longer than 16 bars... you're doing it wrong."
Given Atom's capabilities, it really would be a shame, imo, if it is really only intended for music constructed of 16 bar or shorter parts.
I’m still struggling with having one master instance of Atom 2 triggering another so it selects different patterns within multiple slaves. Is there a simple explanation or could somebody put up a patch on Mosaic because I’m scratching my head. Please and thank-you!
Yeh, I was hoping that Atom would fit into my live performance aspiration of being able to loop entire song section performances, but I'm getting this vibe of 'if your music ain't in micro chunks you're boring'.
For an all-singing all-dancing clip launcher that even includes settings for nonuplets, it seems odd that specifying a number of bars, or being able to set an empty clip to record from bar 1 with a single command are not worthwhile concepts.
Maybe Helium would be a better fit, though it doesn't seem to be as refined, and oh yeh I don't think it will cope with my 3/4 song. Helium is for folks who only like 4/4, and I don't fit the Atom ethos. Back to the drawing board I guess.
I don't see the harm (or the implied offence) in helping reiterate the original design ethos of this innovative plugin.
Atom2 is an app that presents new ways to create music. It challenges traditional approaches. To get the best out of this app you have to be comfortable trying new workflows - even if you later decide this doesn't fit your particular composition style.
It's strengths are not as a long-form multichannel monolithic midi conductor. But that doesn't mean you have to use it the way we say. Misusing tools can often be more fun and inspiring than using them as the creator intended.
For example... There's a guy out there using atom2 scripts to turn his launchpad into a sequenced light show. No music involved.
I'm also sorry that the humourous tone of my 'Atom manifesto' was slightly lost in translation.
I don't understand why it keeps becoming a battle between long vs short clips.
Where I keep coming back to on this topic is that Ableton Live, the most widely used clip launcher, by default behaves in a "record until you press stop" workflow with its clips. It is undeniably a faster workflow (i.e. fewest number of steps from idea to recording) than having to set your clip lengths prior to recording. And that is true for whatever length of clip you are aiming for. I find these things extremely detracting when they must occur each time a new clip is created. Loading a preset with 100 empty bars is also an extra step so does not change the underlying problem. For the record, I only use atom for short clips (less than 16bars).
I also think that this small change would additionally make atom the most essential piano roll for longer clips, while only improving the intended workflow for short clips, so it just seems like a no-brainer to me.
This all being said, I'm not saying this change has to happen right now. Prioritize it however you see best. The things you have added recently (like black box cc recording) were definitely more important. I just don't understand why there is such opposition to the idea in general. Open to hearing any thoughts you have on the above points @blueveek
I have great respect for you, but something about what you are expressing doesn't sit right.
There is no harm (your word) in your saying what you said. But it is irksome nonetheless to be told " "If you want to make your Atom clips longer than 16 bars... you're doing it wrong" or "...you have to be open to new workflows". I get that it was intended to be humorous, but it comes across as a humorous way to tell people they are closeminded...rather than humorous with no other implication.
I hate to belabor the point as I think Atom 2 is excellent and Vic is both a top-notch developer and a good listener.
It feels like you continue to imply that those that don't work in 16 bar or less chunks are close-minded and not willing to try new things. And that implication, in my opinion, is what rankles. We get it. You think people should think in terms of 16 bars or less.
One can be open to new workflows and still find it needlessly limiting to have to pre-determine your clip length or find it cumbersome to not be able to directly enter a clip length without repeatedly tapping the + and - buttons.
It is Vic's right to decide that he doesn't feel it would be worthwhile to make the suggested/requested changes.
But please don't imply that closemindedness or lack of openness is at play. Whether you intend to give offence or not that implication of closemindedness is insulting.
You could simply have said "Atom 2 is optimized for working with small clips and working with longer clips isn't really part of the plan". (To which my reply would be that I believe Vic said back before Atom 1's development was suspended that Atom handling longer clip lengths was coming in an update .)
I think Atom is great and some modest changes in this regard in my opinion would make it even better and more flexible.
And I commend Vic on the amazing listening he has done as people request and suggest things not initially contemplated. So, please don't take this as a criticism of the app or the developer.