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
I really love this Piano. It’s very inspiring to play.
Press "record" in a DAW. Don't let anyone intimidate you from sharing. Those folks will always be there. They have their own forums... divided by pure notation versus improvisors. @Linearlineman wasn't happy there but has found a home here. We are the most tolerant of all musical forums IMHO.
Thanks.
In ApeMatrix, I don’t have this kind of message. But my iPhone XS is already supposed to have 4GB of RAM (according to Wikipedia).
I added a rendering of the same midi with Pianoteq 7 - DG Bechstein to my comparison playlist, so you might compare how Pure Piano will hold up against a desktop VST. If I have time I'll also add a rendering with one of the True Keys pianos by VI Labs (those are the only ones I own though). Personally, apart from the repedaling that is clearly noticably Pure Piano holds up exceptionally well:
On a 10.7 2017 iPad Pro with 4 Gb of RAM I can load 4 instances in AUM and play them, the fifth instance doesn’t load and gives an error message.
Pianoteq sounds amazing 😮
@richardyot, I agree about Pianoteq. It’s interesting that there is a huge VST battle between lovers and haters on PianoWorld. Many can’t adjust to a purely modeled sound, I guess.
I am currently writing an email to e-instruments support team, to make them aware of some improvements or fixes expected by the early users we are. I think the earlier we send this to e-instruments, the more likely it is they try to fix things. When they will switch on another project, they will be too busy to listen.
Do you have some issues you would like to be adressed ? Please give it in priority order.
It does have a very distinct sound, I can see how someone might not like that. Personally, especially out of the speakers of my piano it sounds fantastic. But so does Pure Piano
Who's playing these pieces? I quickly forgot about the details of the piano and just bathed in the music.
That Chopin Ballade is one of my favorite pieces of music. The other three aren’t shabby, either. There is a strange glitch around 1:30 on both versions. I think Pure Piano actually handles the extremely fast passages with more feeling than Pianoteq.
The mechanical complaint about Pianoteq, I guess.
Her name is Su Yeon Kim, the midi is from the Piano E Competition 2011. Never heard of her before, but I agree the midi recording is fantastic.
Here that’s her Insta I think: https://instagram.com/suyeonkim._?igshid=16pxkkzy7gibv
I have Pianoteq on desktop. It's great fun to play but it never ends up in my final mixes. The sound gets swallowed up somehow, gets lost. Also, something about Pianoteq's attack transients grates after a while. But it is a lot of fun to tweak and feels really good while playing.
Yes, I think PianoTeq was initialy more aimed at playing than recording. This being said, I find it sounds also very good while simply listening. But I confess that I am in the camp of those prefering modeling over sampling for different reasons.
We need more details to call this a confession. Do you like the reduced storage use or something else like the ability to edit small details of parameters or behaviors?
Dish for those that haven't experienced the joys of PianoTeq since it's headed our way.
Now, you've made me want the desktop version. Still, $79 for the base purchase for 2 instruments from a narrow list? Don't make me look.
Regarding modeling vs. sampling technique, you have much more control over the sound when you play, and what people call an « organic » feeling. There are plenty of theoretical reasons for that but the most obvious to me :
So this gives you an infinite number of possibilities while playing in real time and you call feel this while shaping your sound.
For the same reason, you have sympathetic resonance, at sustain level but also per-note level, duplex scale resonance, etc.
Note-off velocity : While releasing slowly the key, you can hear the damper pushing against the string, which produces a different release sound.
The list of real time (ie. performable) controls is much greater than for sampled instruments.
Then you have of course the huge amount of non performable controls, giving you endless possibilities over the piano sound itself :
The last remaining claims where about the sound itself not being as real as the best sampled pianos but the gap is getting almost unnoticeable today with PianoTeq version 7.
As for the price, I think Modartt will do the same as Audio Modeling : a simplified version with a nice introductory price and the possibility to buy IAPs to add new piano models and unlock « pro » features.
Loving Pure Piano. It has allowed me to do my first iOS track that is just piano and nothing else, and gets me very close to the sound and feel my of upright. Can’t wait to do more with it.
Sounds sassy... nice.. looking forward to more... Thanks..
Sweet music..😊
To my ears, a couple of the pianos available in Colossus are the best sounding I’ve played on iOS. (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/colossus-piano/id1122637899). I’ve always thought Ravenscroft was a close second but surprisingly based on the vid above, I really liked the Korg sound the best. But all of these other than Ravenscroft leave much to be desired in the UI experience IMO (Pure Piano excluded). This new app looks and sounds like a winner to me!
@RajahP Thank you!
I like the morphing feature in Pure Piano. But although I found Pure Piano to sound better than Ravenscroft in some or even all of the examples posted here, my own first impression on getting it is that I prefer the sound of Ravenscroft. Thus is just a first impression, more time needed to decide definitively, perhaps
Ravenscroft vs Pure is a lot like the Yamaha vs Steinway debate. They compete neck and neck for top honors but have distinct characters that a musician will prefer.
Pure is my new fav... the lower right corner of the user interface let's me get pretty close to
a heavily "felted" piano for percussive experiments and the Cinema Piano (top middle) saves
the time of adding a massive reverb. The "reverse" and "pad" effects put it into the synth zone. For $14 everyone should show this new developer some revenue since there are a lot
more behind this one... It's like SWAM but priced to our habits. Ravenscroft only drops to $18 when on sale.
@McD, this $14 price is 50% intro, so similar to Rav. Seems like from what @Paulo164 said that the devs will possibly add sympathetic resonance and maybe pedal noise control. That would perfect it.
One obvious improvement would be to add volume control from your midi keyboard. Its very clunky at the moment seeing you have to go into settings to change volume. Another bug bear to me is the limited velocity curve adjustments - we need to be able to slide the Low, Center and High markers to the left and right as well as the current up and down,
I am confident about a pedal noise control as it is simple to program but I would not expect true sympathetic resonance which requires much more rework (though I would love it and would pay an IAP just for that).
Totally agree. I feel the velocity curve is a bit limited, like in Korg Module where you can only move 1 point but in a different way. At least, they should let the center marker move to the left and right.
Do not hesitate to write to the support team. They are receptive to user feedback.
No. The first note continues to be processed and the sound of the 2nd note is just mixed into the output. And the 2nd note can be a different recording if the app has "round robin" code using multi-samples. There are also samples for ranges of volumes in layers. Blending between layers might also be involved to get closer to the real recording... but it's always a recording so the
qualities of the room and the mic are in the DNA and the model can makes these attributes adjustable too.
True. The model treats the 2nd event as striking a string already resonating but I suspect it would be hard to "hear" this distinction in a blind test. We might try when PianoTeq arrives.
I know you have it but it should be a blind test to see how much the model is represented in
the audio.
True. But note, a good sampler product can record these events and trigger them on "MIDI Note Off" events and I think Ravenscroft and the others do that. The SFZ Salamander includes release samples, I think. The SF2 probably doesn't but I'm didn't look yet.
But most of us that owned a piano are used to these parameters being fixed. It's what gives the Steinway and the Yamaha their voice.
True... it's only a matter of time before sampled instruments are just deemed to large to bother with... maybe 10 years? We'll see.
I'll bet they price it with a similar model to the desktop but I hope you are right.
Hi @McD ,
I mostly agree on most of your points here except maybe this one.
If waveforms where simply added when striking a note several times (in a short period), I think we would quickly ear a saturated, inaudible sound.
Here is the moment I spread my knowledge in maths (I beg your pardon for that...) : if you assume that a waveform is a random variable following a Normal law of standard deviation s, then adding N waveforms together creates a bigger waveform whose deviation is sSqrt(N), N being the number of times you strike the key.
For example, if you strike the key 4 times in a row, the amplitude is doubled.
If now you assume that the waveform is not a noise but roughly a sine wave, then correlation between each repeated waveform is even bigger and the resulting waveform amplitude diverges even faster (sN in the worst case).
In our former example, striking the key 4 times could multiply the amplitude by 4.
For this reason, it can’t be the way you describe.
As for « round robin », okay but it’s very limited and this needs additional sample storage that limits the size your main and only sample could be. In the case of piano where there are no articulations related to performing gestures (like on violin, flute, ...), round robins are almost useless.
But I agree that most advanced sampled pianos use very smart scripting to get close to what a modeled instrument would do : virtual resonance, velocity layers morphing, etc. which are all features claimed by Ravenscroft for instance.
You are assuming that mixing 2 audio tracks doubles the peaks.
Your math is sound but this one assumption:
waves be additive in a mix doubling the output volume is wrong
How can we have all 3 pianos play at once and they just fit inside each other and create
a more complex sounding piano (with some awful phasing issues that cancel out whole frequency bands in the mix).
Try your master project with all 3 playing and see if it still sounds like a piano but with some
artifacts that require mathematical discussion regarding phase canceling issues.
(I hope the developer appreciates this discussion of their excellent product).
Personally I could live without pedal noises but sympathetic resonance seems like a nice
update to request.
Have you heard of Hermode tuning? Colossus has that and it's based on the fact that computers are involved. You can't make a Hermode tuning piano without building in blazing fast motors. It adjusts the 3rds of chords to be in tune in realtime.
http://www.hermode.com/index_en.html
I think an audio mixer compares wave forms and uses the average of them all at any given
point in time. Since they can cancel it seems like simple addition but it's an addition and a division so the resulting waveform output is not totally clipped and crazy.
What reaches or ears is always a coherent waveform that has input from all the tracks.
Making sure the subtle effects in the various parts are not lost is the engineers true art...
carving out spectrum for those important details.