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
😅.... everyone’s thinking - ‘that face reminds me of someone’
Apologies, not sure what happened to my comment above. Fabfilter Pro Q is already exceptionally lean with regards to its processor load in Zero Latency and Natural(Minimum) Phase modes (Linear Phase is intended for mastering where processor load and latency are of minimum concern).
On that basis, I'd suggest that AU3fx-PeakQ is something you'd want to purchase 1.) to support the developer (that was my motivation) and 2.) is something you need in simple use cases.
There is one negative aspect to AU3fx-PeakQ and that's that it doesn't feature a variable q low pass filter. But AUM itself has this feature which I believe should be loaded before AU3fx-PeakQ (and the equivalent high pass filter, post AU3fx-PeakQ for the most flexibility). Shelving filters and low and high pass filters do very different things.
Pro-Q will save on processing slots in AUM but the above setup is just as good as Pro-Q and for many people, this will provide Pro-Q type abilities at a far, far lower cost (you've effectively got six EQ slots, which is more than enough for the majority of EQ tasks).
The intro cost is £3.49 here in the UK, so even if I never ever use AU3fx-PeakQ, it seems a small price to pay to support a developer who's critical to my use of iOS for audio production.
"I totally want to support the dev BUT strictly, and exclusively, on my own detailed terms, which are as follows" is one of my favourite vibes here on the forum. 👍
Actually laughed out loud at this one. ABF is truly a special place.
As always, the cheapskates come out to haggle over $4 apps. Get a fuckin grip
It is definitely some sort of logic, I guess!
Back to this plug-in - I bought it, and it instantly felt like a good decision. I love when that happens. Straightforward, subtle, presets are nice springboards. I'm a simple guy and can't really fuss with much more than sequencing and recording stems until I upgrade my iPad (which keeps me from spending money), and this is exactly what I need for my EQ needs.
Are the rest of Kymatica's auv3s this good? I always forget they do more than AUM and Audioshare, and am willing to buy them piecemeal for my needs instead of waiting for a bundle
@j_liljedahl
I just noticed that a single instance of AU3fx-PeakQ in an otherwise empty session in AUM with no audio passing through adds a 4% CPU load. I tested Pro-Q 3 under the same conditions and the CPU load still registers 0% (loaded and activated with 6 EQ bands). On the desktop (recent reasonably specced hardware), Pro-Q instances running in Zero Latency mode also add negligible processing hit.
And if you add extra tracks and add instances of AU3fx-PeakQ to those tracks, each instance adds a further 4% CPU hit.
This doesn't seem right as you should be able to load digital eq's to every track of a 24 track production with under 5% processing hit on reasonable hardware.
I’m running an M1 iPad Pro.
@timelining if you like this one, yes they are all this good.
My favorite is AU3FX: Push, really easy to use and actually helped me make sense of adding compression on tracks. The side-chain is easy to set up and dial in (only tried in AUM, not sure in other apps).
Space and Dub are equally good, just solid bread and butter apps that get the job done with no fuss and a minimal interface.
On iPad you can’t measure cpu hit this way...
Try and compare 24 tracks with FF eq+comp and 24 tracks with PeakQ+Push. You may even need more tracks, or throw in other (more demanding) plugins. The point is to check with which one can your iPad be maxed out earlier.
Buying these apps is not a big ask, considering many of us use AUM everyday and haven't paid anything for upgrades over the years. Support the work of others even if you don't need or use them, if you value what they have done for this ecosystem.
You really can't judge how much time the individual plugins are taking by looking at the DSP meter. As an example, if I take one of my EQ's and look at the CPU usage with all of the filter bands set to use a single biquad and then compare that usage to the same EQ using multiple 8th order filters, the displayed DSP usage doesn't change. I can guarantee that the second configuration is using significantly more processor.
About the only way you could get a good comparison would be to use the Instruments app from Xcode and sample a running session that included the EQ's processing the same audio streams.
If you're not going to buy it, just don't buy it and move on. When you come and make a series of posts as to why you won't buy it then don't be surprised when people respond about the absurdity. Hell, I just wasted $4 of my life replying. I want a refund.
I have all of their “big” apps. AUM, Audioshare, and BitWiz. I haven’t tried their effects yet but the reverb seems to sound amazing. Would you recommend all of them?
I've done some basic stress testing, and my results suggest that PeakQ does offer lower CPU usage than Pro-Q.
PeakQ is exactly what you would expect, and hope for. A multiband parametric EQ, with a spectrum analyzer, and support for entering values using the keyboard...and lower CPU usage than Pro-Q, and an interface designed for mobile devices.
I tested on a 2017 iPad Pro 10.5 inch. With one high shelf active per instance, I could comfortably use 48 instances, with one copy of KQ Dixie running through them. With all four bands active, it's closer to 45 instances.
I tested Pro-Q with high shelf only, and also with Pro-Q copying the bands from PeakQ. Pro-Q uses more CPU with one band, and it also increases more in CPU usage, as you add bands. Compared to PeakQ, there's also a larger increase in CPU usage when the AU window is open, and when its spectrum analyzer is turned on.
10/10, perfect app, would recommend.
I have no need for it unless @j_liljedahl gives it some special flavour to differentiate it from TB and FF 👨🍳
If you don’t have those or wanna tip the man like J then jump in though!
Well I’ve tested with audio projects of mine by swapping out Pro-Q 3’s for AU3fx-PeakQ and the total CPU load is greater with AU3fx-PeakQ. It's possible that the graphics side of Pro-Q 3 is heavier on an older iPad Pro. I tested on an M1 iPad Pro.
@jonmoore Interesting. Well like I said, I loaded as many instances as I could, until I heard audio glitches. So maybe your DSP indicator is incorrect, as @NeonSilicon suggested, or maybe there's something else going on. I could upload the AUM projects, and you could see if they behave differently on your M1.
The only thing I can think of is, maybe you didn't copy the settings over exactly? PeakQ's bands are all on by default. Or maybe buffer size could have something to do with it, I don't know...
Entertaining discussion! This is a steal at $4. I'm glad it finally made it through Apple and I look forward to the others in the pipeline.
That said, I like to read comparisons between similar apps regarding their different UI's and features and, to a lesser extent, performance. I value learning more than I value justifying my purchases.
I haven’t compared their cpu usage (but would be surprised if PeakQ uses more cpu). However, the problem with reading DSP % is that iOS devices do cpu frequency scaling. They constantly adjust the cpu speed to save energy. Unfortunately there is no way to check the actual current cpu speed.
Again I’m reminded I should add a per-channel or per-node dsp meter in AUM, then one could actually compare different plugins, as they run in the same render cycle. Unless iOS changes cpu speed in the middle of the audio render call, maybe it does.
Not that I did any name calling but if I did it wouldn't be out of malice. I'd probably just say this person is a dickhead or something like that. Not because I'm trying to be offensive, but just in the same way I would say, that tree is a White Ash, that car is a Ford, that person is a dickhead etc. If I tell someone what I think something is, it's not name calling. And if someone comes along to educate me and prove me wrong, e.g. that Ford is actually a Chevrolet, then I would happily admit I was wrong.
Maybe different devices look at different factors when setting the CPU speed? I wouldn't be surprised if temperature and battery are taken into account.
But otherwise, the "load as many as you can of 1 AU, carefully adjust the settings, and then use them in standard ways" method seems to work for comparing two AUs, and for ballpark estimates, on the same device. Maybe the amount of RAM could be relevant?
It would be interesting to see if people can at least get similar measurements using the same project file, on most devices, when an attempt is made to minimize confounding variables. I'm trying to develop a workflow that allows me to have a few MIDI tracks and synths going at the same time, with mixing tools applied, on an older/cheaper device.
🙏🏻👍🏻
So I did some per-node DSP peak measurements in AUM, at 512 buffer size. One PeakQ and one Pro-Q with 4 bands, in a channel with Animoog Z as source and plain speaker out as destination. The peak % shows the maximum amount of time used during any render cycle since the last second, as a percentage of the full buffer duration:
However it varies while running, sometimes they were almost equal (1.42 vs 1.44) etc.
It also matters if a node is the first node in the first channel or not, probably because iOS ramps up the CPU for each render cycle so the first node to process takes a bit longer.
Summary: Pro-Q 3 is really well optimized and there's no reason to choose PeakQ before it because of CPU demands!
Thanks for looking into this. And it's good to know that the core point I made earlier in the thread, that Pro-Q is really well optimised (as are all the Fabfilter range, some have expensive CPU cost but they're running CPU intensive processes).
But I also stand by the fact that when Pro-Q is running in Zero Latency mode, PeakQ and Pro-Q are like for like, if you set up Pro-Q with two variable Q slots with a shelving filter at either end (with the same dB per octave settings). And on that basis, with PeakQ, you're getting a really decent basic digital EQ for very little money. Pro-Q of course surpasses it in a wide variety of ways by there's a huge price differential between the products so that's to be expected.
@j_liljedahl Thanks for the information! I'll have to casually repeat my experiment during the process of creating music, and otherwise assume there's not much of a difference.
PeakQ has an iPhone version, and it works in portrait mode, so that's new and exciting.
You are free, I am free etc etc. It's not my job but it is my nature to be open and honest. I won't apologise for that as I think it is a good quality. It's up to you and your strength of character whether you will throw an I've been attacked fit or take it for what it is, consider it (like actually consider it) and move on.
I'm pretty right to decide when it's enough but to be honest when I see something and I have an opinion on it I'll generally state it. Doesn't always go well because people don't seem to like honesty, especially when it is something about them. Remember though, it is, just like yours, only my opinion. I think something in the realm of a lobotomy is required not to judge others. Imagine you are at the coffee shop and someone says something you find rude. Does you mind completely ignore it or do you think that was rude? That's judging, based on your own interpretation of the world. We all do it. I just say it out loud more than others. If you can't handle the revealed version of something that you yourself would do, maybe use it as an opportunity to reflect on how you could be less judgemental. Like the way you judged the developer in that their pricing was not appropriate. Many people disagree with that and to me it seems an unfair thing to put on the developer.
Its not your job to judge his pricing model.
My opinion is that what you are saying is ridiculous. To me it's like walking into a Ford dealership, telling them, you don't drive Fords but really like the company, tell them you want to support them by buying a new Mustang but that you will only buy it via a price or method of purchase that they don't offer, and one that you have decided is fair because it fits your personal view of the transaction taking place.
It's not really supporting THEM if it's on YOUR terms is it?
I honestly don't care what you say about me, but can you please stop freaking my cat out?