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
finally. thank you!
The combination of the following features: stability, mixed tempos and time signatures on the same track, loop recording (MIDI and audio), take recording/comping, highly-configurable bussing, stability, easy duplication of tracks, stability, sample accurate (or close to it) audio editing and time-line editing, super stable MIDI timing, more, convenient switching between plug-in windows.
Those are for starters. Auria Pro comes the closest, but it is hit and miss as regards stability (very stable for some, not so much for others) and if you have MIDI and audio in a project, you'd better not change the tempo after the notes are in the project -- and only one plugin window open at a time.
The DAWs and similar on iOS can do a lot of things -- and you can do very good work with them, but they aren't on the same level as any number of DAWs and sequencers on desktop systems. What he have is fine for a lot of projects -- and for a lot of projects not so fine -- if one is a pro (which means not just getting things done but getting them done efficiently).
Reaper is 60$?. That serves as a good comparison. My not very scientific thoughts on it:
Would I pay $100 for ANY app? I might. Show me the app.
This type of discussion happens pretty regularly and never seems to go anywhere. Maybe people just need to express themselves and get stuff off their chest.
Without getting into app features and revenue, professional use is hampered by the hardware and iOS right out of the box. How much RAM can you get in an iPad? How many disk drives for redundancy, performance, and storage? What type of peripherals can you use and how many at a time?
While professional grade music can (and has) been made on iDevices, you'll have to deal with those limitations. They can be a fine addition to any studio, but don't seem to be very practical as a basis for one.
Agree completely about the level of creative co-operation and shared enthusiasm in the ios realm ... something deeply human about it ... what makes it so interesting to me.
I'm a fan of Pyotr Kropotkin - the Russian Anarchist Prince ... wrote a delightful book Mutual Aid a factor in evolution in the 1890's ... he was answering the crude competitive notions being applied to Darwin - that we succeed by dominating each other ... pointing out that co-operation, social organisation and integration were equally present in nature ... the more we learn the more right he is. Bit like here really.
And one of the things that really intrigues me about this place is the apps from far away ... especially the Russians who have a wonderful physics-driven approach to sound design and control set-ups. Brain Yoga with deep historical roots.
But it does frustrate the bejaysus out of me that developers work for love and crumbs and seem to have little grasp of how to build their businesses ... in fact are not permitted to by the subservient relationship with Apple ... it's a bit like expecting an uber driver to set up their own cab company.
Marx's industrial proletariat was a product of the steam age and coal ... I'm still not sure what will emerge from the silicon age ... hopefully more than Facebook and Amazon... hopefully it will centre on the enthusiasms and co-operation evident in this forum.
I’ve paid well over 100$ to use AUM like a daw with all the midi tools, audio effects and synths That are necessary to make it behave in a way that is similar to a daw. So i would say i have paid 100$ for a daw, only it is modular and the things are independent of each other, yet totally rely on each other to have any use. (Of course you can argue that AUM is not the only option, but a host of some kind is).
I love this approach of having apps from different minds available to use with each other but i would also support a fantastic daw created by a team that can do all the things we would expect a daw to do.
I would also pay more for synths if the market was there.
I feel like there’s always a chance with iOS instruments /apps in their current state, that they could lose support as the developers may decide to retire at any moment and then the app stops working as updates occur. This alone reduces the value of an app in some ways especially if it is expensive, not knowing if it will continue to work and be supported, and this would be an example of a reason that i wouldn’t spend 100$ on a daw.
I know that with my variety of apps from different developers, some Of them will continue to get support for longer than others but i can a Anticipate new apps along the way as well.
There’s truth to the point that Apple benefits from indie coders without paying them wages, but to consider them subservient is myopic (and to suggest comparisons with slavery is outright offensive). As long as we keep thinking that the sole purpose of music apps is to produce money, we will miss everything else that it produces: community, knowledge, art, solace, weirdness, etc. Most coders—by their own statement—are not here for the money but for the community—not quaint “love for art” but a real sense that community is the only thing that keeps us from truly being exploited. This is what can set us apart from uber drivers and bring us closer to the revolutionary power that Marx perceived in the proletariat. Even if Logic or another killer DAW arrived, the iOS community would still exist and continue to reimagine it in crazy ways. It is already too modular to be wholly consumed by a single app.
From a certain perspective (yes, optimistically naïve), what the App store contributes is a standardized, almost seamless platform to match coders and users without the expectations that users are also coders, which is the limitation that wholly open source platforms have. I can’t compile all my apps and write my own scripts, so I’m ok with paying a middleman for that operation. Yes the App store is extra-regulated, but it ensures that every app works as expected and most importantly, keeps it free from viruses and most forms of piracy (the kind that seeks to deceive users, not the kind that challenges IP). Of course Apple extracts surplus from app sales, but at least part of the slice that they take from each app sale goes to the people who check the code of each single app submitted for review (I guess until they are replaced by AI).
I’d like to hear more from experts, but it does seem that completely open platforms such as Android just don’t have the same traction with general users—I would say because of that gap between coders and users, but I’d like to hear more. Likewise, I’m no expert in copyright (or copyleft) law, but as far as I understand, the App store is not necessarily or structurally against open source code (@krassmann kindly say more about why GNU is incompatible with the app store?). Burns audio recently posted the code of Spectrum, and at least part of Atom 2 is open as well. Mirack includes many open source modules (although I hear there’s trouble with some of the fine print about it). Audiokit’s project is laudable in all counts. At this point, the development mechanism of Imaginando is basically crowd-sourcing.
Can we imagine more collective ways of developing apps? More weird and radical ways of making the app store work for us, instead of us working for the app store? That’s where the “sustainability” of the ecosystem lies on.
Not meaning any offence but Marx talked about "wage slavery" ... merely an argument about price from an economic angle... the power relations are near identical in unregulated labour markets ... like uber and freelance app coding. No one gets rich working for uber either... one subsists.
The community, sadly, in no way stops devs from being truly exploited ... Apple makes sure of that with it's 30% and the free marketing to young users etc ... but the community brings comfort, solace, enthusiasm - a purpose ... yes apps really are the opiate of the masses.😊
I think this place has some outstanding examples of collaborative app development ... first and foremost Bram Bos and Mosaic ...triggered an avalanche of creative coding that continues today ... or there's the recent/ongoing development of Blueveek's Atom2 ... an extraordinary iterative process between builder and end user ... bit like a global rugby scrum... just a superb intriguing business.
But there is an ongoing dialogue here between developers and their consumers, users, producers, engineers, composers ... and they are responsive to suggestions and improvements. Quite unique in fact.
Apple would actually love to be able to do this ... to have that organic connection and trust with their consumers ... but they are a big, slow bureaucratic organisation, with secrets and strategies - like the M1 mac running yer ios apps ... surprise everyone!
The biggest reason music apps haven't gotten more traction on Android is it doesn't have the robust audio processing capabilities of the iOS platform. Things like latency are still challenging even after all these years. Another is the fractured nature of the OS platform. There are differences between the OS implementation on the various devices that make it a challenge to keep up with. Think of the turmoil even Apple regularly introduces to audio apps on iOS version changes, and multiply that by probably an order of magnitude.
I believe the pricing tolerance on Android is even worse ... nobody wants to pay for anything, and it's easier to pirate apps.
@krassmann can probably answer more accurately than I, but my two cents: Apple doesn't allow GPL licensed software on the App Store. Open source that is limited for for commercial use is not allowed. Unrestricted usage licenses such as MIT are OK. GPL is not. The reason for this is Apple (not the developer) is the seller on the App Store. They don't want to be put in the position to vet and be responsible for any arrangements between a developer and the license owner.
MiRack only includes modules that aren't limited by a GPL or similar license. In fact, the core MiRack is a fork of the MIT licensed version. The VCV Rack developers changed the licensing on later versions to prevent it's use for commercial purposes without permission, which they have specifically declined to do for MiRack. (Over generalized, but that's the gist of what happened.)
Stability is an issue on every platform. I don't expect any iOS device/DAW to compare with the power of a desktop system/DAW as that is not what it is, but the fact is that it provides 80% of features at 20% of the cost is impressive and usable. I would imagine there are more people like me that enjoy the ipad production experience because it's not purely a desktop/laptop experience.
Personally, I don't see any dev team working around the limitations of the ipad to create a desktop DAW experience that automatically is 30% less profitable than anything they could sell over computer OS.
You started by saying that iOS DAWs are on a par with desktop DAWs. They just aren’t. You can do a lot with the them but they aren’t close to replacing desktop DAWs.
I think I might have paid over $100 for the FabFilter bundle, if I add the Korg synths in there then that's well over the $100 probably closer to $200. Being in the early days before I understood the sales mentality I paid full price for Auria Pro and then a few of the IAPs as well. So, I've already gone well and truely beyond the purchase price quoted in the heading.
I was willing to put that investment into the FabFilter bundle and even Korg because they are companies that appear to be willingly supporting their products and updating etc. I'm kind of scared to go through all the individual app purchases to itemise what I've spent...
This is where the price problem for the product is. I want to support Indy development (and I have and do a lot), but there is no guarantee with a lot of this indy development that the support is going to be there for a lot of the apps when iOS goes through it's inevitable changes and the environment changes. I'm not having a dig at the devs. I love their work. Just pointing out a fact and so I don't have major expectations on what they deliver down the road.
So, at the moment with a lot of the apps it's the price of a beer or two at the local...that's OK as I don't expect to have to consume that same beer in a couple of days or weeks or years. It provides something for me in the short term that I can use and find enjoyment with here and now. As do a lot of these apps. I'm happy to throw in a tenner or so for a few weeks or months of enjoyment. Professionalism might be a little over rated...I would like to think that some of these DAWs and great apps might be around for a long time, but these days I don't know what that really means. The tech changes pretty quick and a lot of this stuff becomes outdated.
We're involved in this because we all have found something that is a) pretty special and b) provides an environment for us that gives us inspiration. For some it also provides an affordable way in to creating music. I know that was a motivation for me a couple of years ago. It absolutely made more economic sense at the time. Once you're in then you realise that the workflow can lead you to interesting places as well and then the touch screen environment just takes you that step further.
I can't speak for developers and their motivations. Why they price a certain way or why they even start down the road in the first place. But, I would think that we're all in this for other reasons than just economic reward - and that to me is the "music industry".
@dvi love of art is not quaint.
Here's my take on this whole issue...
Another question we should be asking is, how would the M1 mac change iOS music platform and pricing.
you can now run iOS Apps on the M1 macs.
let’s take Cubasis 3 for example. people want it have to vari audio, sampler track, AFF support, audio warp etc on the £50 app when most of these features are only available on the pro version of Cubase which is over £100.
Now the question is, would steinberg add these features to Cubasis, knowing they’d lose money on Cubase ? because people with M1 MAC would surely go for the £50 app.
If there comes a way for iOS DAWs on M1 to run mac audio units and vst, companies like Fabfilter, IK Multimedia etc might definitely also not want to lose money and decide to sell apps on both platforms at the same price.
i feel things might get even trickier if logic pro is ever ported and they sell it for the same price as on MAC.
there will be issues if apple also decide not to make it free for those who already own logic.
if it’s ported and other major plug-ins developers jump on board, they might sell their-software at mac price, not everyone on audiobus forum would be happy about that.
what would happen to our indie developers who have helped shape iOS music platform with £5 - £20 apps?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice thing that Apps become cross-platform between MAC and iOS, lots of people are happy about it, but are we ready for the changes in cost that might happen?
For me, iPadOS is not the same as iOS.
The advantage of iOS is that it’s always with me.
IpadOS is like a laptop (rarely with me outside the studio)
A laptop that can’t run Ableton.
The M1 will bring Ableton to ipadOS eventually and hopefully at least an Ableton mini to iOS.
Oh, by the way....I happily get involved with beta testing...so, for me it's about community and working together. Not about throwing piles of #**t at people who don't quite get their apps right on target. If the developers feel they need to charge more in order to make a living out of what they do that's not such a bad thing. If a developer is getting involved in this to make money then they should be planning that from the start...business planning and all that stuff...there is a process to going along that path and for anybody into making wonderful apps for us to play with there is a community here that is willing to work with them to make dreams a reality. We potentially have here a massive incubator for all sorts of projects as things like Drambo and Atom 2 and all the other wonderful apps that appear have shown. Truly blessed we are.
I think you're replying to the wrong person. I never stated any of those things. I said you can make music seriously with them and they provide 80% of the features of most desktop DAWs.
You wrote: “ What does the current environment not have for music-making? I see a few holes but nothing that would stop anyone from making music seriously.” My response was to that statement.
Saying that something has 80% of the features of desktop environments is kind of meaningless to the question of whether the iOS tools are complete enough to satisfy the needs of pros...some of those missing features are critical for people working professionally.
I acknowledge in my post that one can get a lot done with what we have on iOS. I suspect that anyone that thinks that the iOS DAWs are as satisfactory as the better desktop DAWs hasn’t worked professionally or spent time in pro studios or with people making their living fro professional work.
Don’t get me wrong, we’ve got some great tools...if IOS DAWs were at pro level sufficient to replace desktop DAWs... you would see pros abandoning their desktops for iPads...because they are all about saving money ... and the iOS tools are often much cheaper.
That this hasn’t happened, tells us something.
One can get pro quality results with theniOS tools but that is different from saying the DAWs are pro quality.
Wow. 👏
You're implying a lot from that single sentence and misconstruing what I wrote. I never invoked "pros" in any of my comments. I'm referring to the general iOS music maker, much like those on this site, where picking up a single iPad and knocking out some tracks in the park or recording hobby projects for self-release is preferable.
Pro musicians have been known to use the iOS environment to compose, arrange, and sketch ideas so that's a personal preference thing. Obviously, anyone in the professional industry where the 20% matters (mixing, mastering, orchestral composition/recording, etc.) isn't going to use an iPad as the brain of their studio. There's no reason for that as they would likely have tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-grade gear plus a studio to work in, depending on the level of "pro" referred to.
Many thanks for this, @wim. So much for me to learn. What are people’s general feelings regarding what I take to be two different approaches to open source, a controlled alternative that ensures sustained free software (GNU) vs. a less regulated, more “open” but also susceptible approach (MIT version)? Is the fact that only MIT is allowed in the App store an advantage or a limitation?
The VCV Rack / miRack situation is instructive. The base VCV Rack started off MIT licensed, therefore able to be used for any purpose. However, the project initiator didn't actually have that open of a mindset. He pictured being in control of who made derivatives and for what ends. He did not agree with the idea of an iOS version and especially did not agree with it being a commercial release for profit. That (and other issues) led to an ugly public disagreement and eventually to changing to a GPL license at some version.
So miRack ended up needing to fork from the latest version of the MIT licensed code base. It continues to only be able to include modules that have compatible licenses.
So, from a developer standpoint, it's important for developers to choose a license that reflects their vision for the software they've developed. Otherwise ugly things can happen. On the other side, it's even more important for developers using open source libraries to really understand the implications of the license.
It can be a minefield. For instance, recently someone claimed that miRack used a version of module code that wasn't open licensed. The developer didn't think that was the case. Hopefully they resolved things amicably.
As for whether allowing restricted license open-source in the App Store is a good idea or not. I tend to think that it is not. If that were to happen then Apple would ramp up the scrutiny involved in the review process to really obnoxious levels. Lawyers don't come cheap, and that would be reflected in the cut Apple takes. They don't care about working fast either, so the review process would be extended. Developers would have an unacceptable burden of proof if Apple decided to reject, which they would do without hesitation. It would be ugly.
My motto is
If I want it, I’ll pay for it
That said, I would buy a $100 daw if it was fully tested and full featured from the jump.
Half the DAWs I already have I payed $50 or so without IAPs on top so it’s not that different
If one of the big boys dropped a new DAW like Ableton I would be all over it
When you total Cubasis purchase price + IAP you get in 100$ territory. Many of those Cubasis IAP would come stock on a PC DAW.
Same for Auria and probably other IOS DAW. (Only have Cubasis and Auria.)
I don’t know the details but in a way I can understand why someone wouldn’t want their open source code to end up in the AppStore. Apple store is a closed system, and they get a huge share of every sale. It’s very ,much the opposite of open source and collaborative.
What if the apps using the open source software were free?. Still would be a problem because it’s a closed “market”. If you could offer an iOS app made from open source code outside the AppStore, there probably wouldn’t a problem. It’s abusive and it’s hindering the quality and development of the platform.
>
I could argue Apple's share is not a "huge" share. They provide a secure and performant distribution platform and act as the seller, thus insulating individual developers from far more hassle and legal/tax exposure than you probably realize. The 30% still frequently quoted around here is in fact now 15% for developers making less than $1 million in the App Store. In most distribution scenarios, 30% is typical for a retailer, plus 40% to distributors. Of course there isn't the same overhead for software, but just kind of putting it in perspective.
It wouldn't matter if the apps using the open source software were free if such usage violated the license agreement. For instance, if the license said it could not be used "without express written permission" and that permission wasn't given.
I can't say I agree. But I'm not here to get in an argument, so I won't bore you with my reasoning. I do think there are many ways the App Store is hindering the development of the platform, but none of them have to do with open source licensing restrictions or Apple service fees.
The biggest crime of the App Store, IMO, is that you can’t charge for updates.
I would buy an IKEA lamp for $100 if they named it Dogfährt.