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
So sick of all the behringer threads for every 'new' product (not just here, online in general), the outrage is just free promo. Most people, like me, who have strong feelings on how business practices like this can seriously damage an industry just end up looking like old men screaming at clouds.
In reality, the topic is actually super decisive because the people who could never afford/don't value the original product will endlessly try and justify the reasons why Behinger have done nothing wrong, it's just the market, demand will always win, captialism etc.
I recommend people watch this, while I don't agree with every point, Benn really goes into some good detail and explains it really well
Finally point, people on this forum may already have a HUGELY skewed ideas of how much a piece of gear should costs when coming from the world of iOS. One of the biggest costs of developping a product is the time you sink into making it come to life. What Behringer is doing is letting small businesses, full of passion and drive, develop products that are unique and interesting, then they see what works well in the market, swoop in to undercut them with no regard for the affect this has on the industry as a whole. Why anyone who is passionate about music or gear would want to support this is beyond me.
I hate this topic. I understand why people buy berhinger gear (please at least try and buy them used, they will be even cheaper for you!) but if you really don't see any issue in their business practices, you may not really value and respect the tools you use. I get that for a lot of people making music is a passive hobby so this may not resonate but for some, it's a hell of a lot more, so issues like this can hit home and taste pretty damn sour.
Always - but there are specific laws to protect drug development. Exclusive production rights for the first however many years it is, so that development costs are recouped before the masses get a price cut. I don't have a problem with Behringer cloning the old classics, but going head-to-head with recent, in-production and still-being-marketed gear seems a bit... ungentlemanly.
My advice is buy them new, you don’t invalidate the warranty that way.
@knewspeak : good video, and I agree with his proposition. It is possible to draw a distinction between some of the gear (retreads of defunct synths, originals like the Neutron and X32, both of which I have) and the shitty attitudes exhibited by the man at the top.
Copying the Keystep was just lame. I cancelled my pre order for ‘Brains’ , their Plaits clone, not out of principle but because I found an alternative which a) takes up less rack space and b) is actually available (the Antumbra Knit).
The Moog gear is problematic. The ‘studio bundle’ of Mother 32/DFAM/Subharmonicon/rack is very tempting, but it’s also 2 grand. If money was no object, there’d be no contest.
…But it is an object. Bit like buying stuff from Amazon, or using Google, or Facebook. Or an iPad. You know you shouldn’t, but…
…I might yet find a way to get the legit Moog bundle. An instalment plan, perhaps. But if Behringer did a Subharmonicon too… well, ethics is a county east of London, isn’t it?
And you're the Fun Police, presumably? Behringer detractors are, invariably, hypocrites. Unwilling hypocrites perhaps, but still. It is impossible not to be unless you live a very simple life without recourse to any kind of aid. As you're here, via the web, then that precludes you of course.
I like Behringer products. I like them just for them and I like them for the simple fact that more people get to make music than they would if Behringer products were not so cheap, prolific or readily available.
@aleyas I mistook the little knobs on the Moog for jack sockets. Looking again (properly this time) I see it’s the same.
Absolutely. I don’t think they’re competing for the same slice of the market although those who were saving pennies to get the original will definitely buy the cheaper clone and take their family on a long overdue holiday….or spend it on weed. Ah well.
Wait what? Are you saying that people who are unhappy with behringers business practices are hypocrites for being part of society? The fact that I was born in a first world country and am lucky to have the freedoms I do, precludes me from having opinions on ethics? That is a wild take.
The fact that I am privileged enough to have the internet is the exact reason I am able to be more aware of these sorts of issues and I'm able to make a more informed decision.
>
Most hardware synths are expensive for what they are because they're essentially handmade boutique products. That's particularly true of Moog synths where you're buying a handmade luxury item that deliberately use expensive materials. Their business strategy is to be a nice, high end, instrument maker. Moog is a brand item in the same way that Mercedes, or even Apple, is. And honestly, if you have the money, the Moog will be a slightly better instrument because it will be made better and will last longer.
There are a lot of criticisms that one can make of Behringer - but their hardware is cheap because they invested heavily in the mass production of electronics, and they cut costs everywhere they can. They're no different from a million and one other manufacturing companies - it's just they operate in an industry where that's uncommon (not a good thing in my opinion).
Punk rock was possible because you could buy cheap inferior guitars. The next wave of hardware synth music will be possible for similar reasons. Some of those musicians will grow up and buy Dave Smith, or Moog, or whatever - some won't. But most of them would never have got into synths if all that was available were high end niche Moog synths.
The most obvious criticism one can make of Behringer is they're ****s who abuse the legal system to sue critics and they're CEO is a wanker.
Their costs are also low because they don’t carry the research and development costs for the hardware, which gets us back to the pharmaceutical analogy: Big Pharma pays a lot of very smart people to work very hard and fail a lot, which is inevitable when you’re trying to do something very hard like develop an efficacious and safe new class of drugs. Generic manufacturers don’t carry any of that burden. The relationship between Moog and Behringer is similar.
The argument strikes me as being roughly equivalent to "you unknowingly commit minor legal infractions all the time, so you can’t complain that I stole this car."
I have both the official m32 and DFAM and use them as my main live performance instruments. From my point of view as a music creator and performer, it’s good that Behringer has made these instruments — they’re both brilliant, iconic designs that all musicians should be able to access for decades to come.
There are 1000 cheap Fender bass/guitar rip offs (some are really good!) but be it the iconic imagery or ‘authentic’ feel, there’ll never be a substitute for the real thing. If you play a substitute instrument and it’s design/sound becomes a part of your music, you’ll almost always aspire to own the ‘original and best’. It elevates the design from a product to an idealogical form, and that’s when the design becomes art itself and is able to transcend the practicalities of its branding, production and distribution.
Great to see that Moog is as influential as ever to the evolution of music.
I wish they would do the SP 1200 with more RAM
thanks. With that, all has been said!
Hypocrites for being a part of society? Not sure how you arrived there.
Basically copying is a fundamental principle of human learning and human culture. We still would live in the open savannah without copying things from others. Standing on the shoulders of giants, etc. The open source software movement is a good example how central is copying to them: the prerequisite to improving. And that makes the difference.
I see a difference between copying and cloning products or designs. If Behringer would only be inspired by classic synths and develop their own ideas based on them, evolving their concepts. Exact clones that just look a bit different is ridiculous and shameless. But I wouldn’t condemn the customers.
I have a mahoosive list tbh.
Yes but your Moog purchases go towards stuff like a festival blimp and a nice cable rack. You don't get that with Behringer.
>
Not sure that's the best analogy given that big pharma actually takes the results of public research for very little money, patents it and then sells it back to the public (yes it's a little bit more complicated than this, but not in a way that speaks well of the pharmaceutical industry). If you want a better analogy, the chip industry has always been one where copying is rife. It's also been extraordinarily profitable and innovative. Cloning has forced companies to innovate, and the areas where companies have been able to prevent that kind of behavior are also the ones which have lagged the rest of the industry.
No their costs are lower because they're the only synth company who utilize modern/mass scale manufacturing techniques. Moog hand make their synths in the USA - of course they're going to cost a lot more to make. Behringer have factories in China and they make everything from amps to weird little signal testers. To pick just one example - Behringer pay less for parts than any other synth company, because they're deeply integrated into the Chinese electronics industry and they buy at scale.
They clone stuff because there's always a ready market for cloned stuff. Now one can argue about that. I think there are definitely a few things that they have produced where I'm amazed they didn't get sued for copyright infringement. Other stuff where I'm honestly quite amused (e.g. they've cloned Novations Launchpad and people got upset, as if the Launchpad wasn't a clone of the Monome). I think cloning old hardware is a good thing. And honestly if anyone really believes that Behringer's clone of the Moog Voyager has any effect on Moog, then I suggest you sit down and play a Voyager sometime.
>
I mean you've basically condemned 90% of the guitar industry right there...
I can see why you're one of his fans. He's patronising too. I found it hilarious when he waffled on about edgelord this and that with that thumbnail. What makes you think that people who use an ipad only ever use an ipad?
So Behringer has copied the Mother32, DFAM, Minimoog, all of the Moog modules, etc.
Has Moog sued them yet?
Strange how guitar companies will sue (and win) other companies for making similarly-shaped guitar bodies, yet copying electronic circuits isn't as contested?
Given that the planet is roughly divided into the haves and the have nots the fact that a teenager in a ‘developing’ country can perhaps afford a behringer and feel like a rocknroll star in my eyes absolves Behringer from any wrong-doing. Whatever legal loopholes they are using.
The staggering inequality in this world is slowly diminishing, or shall I say the base is shifting although the rich are still getting richer. I’ve played cheap guitars all my life, learned to service them and make them sound half decent. If your choice is to buy moog that’s fine by me but don’t make a fuss, please.
I worked in R&D for one of the largest pharma companies in the world for four years. Your characterization is wildly incorrect, in my experience.
You understand that those are not mutually-exclusive factors, right?
@wim said:
No. All prescriptions cost £9.35 regardless of what drug it is. Or free of any charge to children, pensioners, pregnant women, etc.
>
Hmm. Most drug company research is getting stuff through safety checks/efficacy tests (a thoroughly corrupted process at this point as demonstrated in the Vioxx lawsuits), developmental research (and even some of that relies upon university research), finding ways to vary slightly existing drugs to extend patents and acquisitions of startups (which in the US are mostly spinoffs from public research). There's also a large chunk of the research budget which should really be recategorized as marketing, as it's either getting stuff into journals where doctors can see it, or finding new uses for existing drugs to drive up sales. That's on top of the already huge marketing budgets that drug companies enjoy. Fun fact - as drug companies enjoy stronger and stronger IP protections, actual innovation in the drug industry has declined.
Not in the US unfortunately. And the NHS pays a lot more for non-generic drugs (which is why they only use non-generics if there's no generic available).
The vast majority of the disparity in costs is due to production/distribution advantages enjoyed by Behringer. My guess is they mostly clone not to save R&D, but simply because they know they can sell clones because these are already popular products.
Given that Moog struggle to keep up with demand for their products the idea that they're hurt by this seems wildly overblown.
The Behringer story so far, according to this thread: they ruin creativity and innovation, their staff seem like school yard bullies, they are seriously damaging the industry, their userbase may not value and respect the instruments they use, they have no R&D for the hardware they produce and lastly, they sell pharmaceutical drugs but not cheaply.