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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Do you make it standard practice to use a limiter on new synth and effects plugins?

2»

Comments

  • SamuSamu

    @NeuM said:

    In the case of Apple, they need to look into making an adjustable hard limiter their default on every new track in GarageBand. That would solve one big gap.

    It would be enough with a master-track in GarageBand...
    ...total overkill with a limiter on each and every track.

  • el_boel_bo

    @NeuM said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeuM said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeuM said:
    I'm thinking I'm going to make it standard practice after having problems with Caelum Audio's Tape Pro. On both iOS and desktop using Tape Pro as an Audio Unit I've had massive feedback or distortion problems which very nearly cost me a speaker or my hearing.

    Bitter ear-ringing experience is teaching me to not trust any developer to properly implement safety measures for their audio software.

    Do you automatically add a limiter before you trust the performance of your plugins?

    Have you contacted the developer to report the issue?

    Guess I could try again. ...Sigh...

    Hmmm….Is this a common/known issue with this app?

    Was on my list.

    I honestly don’t know. There’s no user forum on the developer’s site and I’ve not seen anyone else bring up this issue here. Anyone else who uses Tape Pro… now’s your time to speak up if this has happened to you also.

    What triggered the feedback?

    Applied Tape Pro to a sampled instrument track (which was not playing at an extreme volume level by the way) and this massive popping sound nearly took my head off when I hit the play button.

    If it were a large pop and then the channel was dead until you removed it, deleted the plugin, or restarted the App, then that would likely be caused by a floating point error. That could be caused by a sample value that the plugin didn't handle well. Could also be cause by an algorithmic error in a plugin that doesn't usually get triggered.

    Software has bugs. In audio software, bugs can make loud noises. Even without bugs, moving an EQ in one plugin can trigger an effect in a plugin down-chain that makes things get very loud. That's why I suggest always having a hard limiter of some sort on your monitor outs. It's also why I prefer Reaper, Ardour, and Mixbus on my Mac. The single feature of having a monitor channel with effects slots that don't change the main mix is really useful.

    What do you mean by hard limiter? Aren't there still peaks that can break through? I thought that was the reason by the existence of auto-mute apps such as Cerberus Audio's Ice9. Anything like that on iOS?

    Any sort of hard clamp. The simplest and most efficient is a straight clip above a set dB level. You don't ever actually want to hear this anyway, so it doesn't matter if it sounds bad. Actually, it's better if it does sound bad. I have one I've written for myself that I use when doing development of new algorithms. I'd release it, but it would never make it through the App Store review process.

    Thanks! What would you recommend for those of us who can't code our own stuff? ;)

    Not every limiter/compressor would work. You are right that peaks can get through on limiters because of the way the envelope tracking comes in. In AUM there is a hard clip node that clips at 0 dB. This could be useful but I like to be able to set the level I want to clamp at.

    Note that your audio interface does have a level it's going to clip at too. That's why I also suggested the external volume control path above.

    Yeah! Ice9 allows the user to set the threshold/barrier level. Not even sure that's being developed any more.

    As for your other suggestions: (Un)fortunately, most of the time I'm going to be operating with nothing but the iPad and headphones. And though AUM use is definitely on the cards, that leaves issues with other DAW :(

    Looks like there's a space for an interested developer to jump in...assuming it is doable?

    In the case of Apple, they need to look into making an adjustable hard limiter their default on every new track in GarageBand. That would solve one big gap.

    AndSteinberg for Cubasis ;)

  • SamuSamu

    @el_bo said:

    AndSteinberg for Cubasis ;)

    Cubasis already comes with a brickwall limiter that can be enabled on the master buss if/when needed ;)

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

  • el_boel_bo

    @Samu said:

    @el_bo said:

    AndSteinberg for Cubasis ;)

    Cubasis already comes with a brickwall limiter that can be enabled on the master buss if/when needed ;)

    Thanks! But as already mentioned, it might not be up to the task of catching the kind of excesses we’re talking about

  • el_boel_bo

    @NeonSilicon said:
    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

    What is it about hard clipping that might make it better at catching such peaks that might be missed by a BL?

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:
    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

    What is it about hard clipping that might make it better at catching such peaks that might be missed by a BL?

    Any sort of limiter has an envelope follower of some sort and this can delay the clamping on the peaks. A brickwall that uses lookahead can offset this. The brickwall limiters that are designed for the master channels are probably going to be good for doing this and you could always test them by sending an audio file through them with known peaks and see what they do.

    Hard clipping is just a circuit breaker on the signal. An individual sample above the set threshold will be clipped to a set level. It's not possible for any samples above the threshold to get through.

    You could probably do this with a wave shaper too. Just set it up to be a 1:1 response up to the limit you want and then go flat horizontal after that.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Samu said:

    @NeuM said:

    In the case of Apple, they need to look into making an adjustable hard limiter their default on every new track in GarageBand. That would solve one big gap.

    It would be enough with a master-track in GarageBand...
    ...total overkill with a limiter on each and every track.

    Since they haven’t added a default visible Master track by now, I don’t think it’s ever going to happen.

  • el_boel_bo

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:
    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

    What is it about hard clipping that might make it better at catching such peaks that might be missed by a BL?

    Any sort of limiter has an envelope follower of some sort and this can delay the clamping on the peaks. A brickwall that uses lookahead can offset this. The brickwall limiters that are designed for the master channels are probably going to be good for doing this and you could always test them by sending an audio file through them with known peaks and see what they do.

    Hard clipping is just a circuit breaker on the signal. An individual sample above the set threshold will be clipped to a set level. It's not possible for any samples above the threshold to get through.

    You could probably do this with a wave shaper too. Just set it up to be a 1:1 response up to the limit you want and then go flat horizontal after that.

    But the Lookahead is where the latency is, right? Does hard-clipping introduce any noticeable artefacts on the way up to zero?

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:
    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

    What is it about hard clipping that might make it better at catching such peaks that might be missed by a BL?

    Any sort of limiter has an envelope follower of some sort and this can delay the clamping on the peaks. A brickwall that uses lookahead can offset this. The brickwall limiters that are designed for the master channels are probably going to be good for doing this and you could always test them by sending an audio file through them with known peaks and see what they do.

    Hard clipping is just a circuit breaker on the signal. An individual sample above the set threshold will be clipped to a set level. It's not possible for any samples above the threshold to get through.

    You could probably do this with a wave shaper too. Just set it up to be a 1:1 response up to the limit you want and then go flat horizontal after that.

    But the Lookahead is where the latency is, right? Does hard-clipping introduce any noticeable artefacts on the way up to zero?

    Yeah, the lookahead will introduce latency of however much time you look ahead.

    A pure hard clip won't change the signal at all below the threshold level.

    There are other ways to approach this too. I've played with an effect where I used a bezier curve based waveshaper that instead of just mapping the input signal to the output using the waveshaper used a configurable attack-release envelope follower to set the output level from the waveshaper curve. This is sort of a tube emulation like response but it can get much more extreme and weird because the waveshaper curve can be set to do lots of responses, including fold-back. Setting a 1:1 curve up to a soft knee on the wave shaper and short attack and release times with this is going to be very much like a brickwall compressor that can't give an output above the clamp level. It also won't introduce any latency. But, it won't be completely clean for any signal.

  • pedropedro

    I’m buying barkfilter an maybe tb barricade.
    While we’re in compressor-land, what should I get for sidechain compression?
    Currently working on a mashup, how to best duck one track for another? Lots of automation, but which app?
    Advice much appreciated, as always 🙏

  • el_boel_bo

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @el_bo said:

    @NeonSilicon said:
    Auria Pro also has a brickwall limiter on the master. I don't know how good it is for this task, but it is probably fine.

    AU3FX:Push has a clip option on the output.

    There are limiters available to do this. The brickwall types are probably going to add some latency because of lookahead and they are going to be a bit more processor intensive. But, you should only need one on the output channel.

    The advantage of the hard clip path is that it takes almost nothing processor wise. My little AU to do this is really only one line of code per channel for the DSP and it's all vector processing.

    What is it about hard clipping that might make it better at catching such peaks that might be missed by a BL?

    Any sort of limiter has an envelope follower of some sort and this can delay the clamping on the peaks. A brickwall that uses lookahead can offset this. The brickwall limiters that are designed for the master channels are probably going to be good for doing this and you could always test them by sending an audio file through them with known peaks and see what they do.

    Hard clipping is just a circuit breaker on the signal. An individual sample above the set threshold will be clipped to a set level. It's not possible for any samples above the threshold to get through.

    You could probably do this with a wave shaper too. Just set it up to be a 1:1 response up to the limit you want and then go flat horizontal after that.

    But the Lookahead is where the latency is, right? Does hard-clipping introduce any noticeable artefacts on the way up to zero?

    Yeah, the lookahead will introduce latency of however much time you look ahead.

    A pure hard clip won't change the signal at all below the threshold level.

    There are other ways to approach this too. I've played with an effect where I used a bezier curve based waveshaper that instead of just mapping the input signal to the output using the waveshaper used a configurable attack-release envelope follower to set the output level from the waveshaper curve. This is sort of a tube emulation like response but it can get much more extreme and weird because the waveshaper curve can be set to do lots of responses, including fold-back. Setting a 1:1 curve up to a soft knee on the wave shaper and short attack and release times with this is going to be very much like a brickwall compressor that can't give an output above the clamp level. It also won't introduce any latency. But, it won't be completely clean for any signal.

    Thanks, again!

    Your waveshaping shenanigans are way past my pay-grade, unfortunately ;) I need simple.

    Currently looking at TB Barricade and AUFX Push. Don't really have a full-scale limiter app which could be used outside of Cubasis, so I'm definitely leaning towards TB's offering.

  • PynchonPynchon

    I always use a limiter in my master bus.

    It's not only about testing new plugins. Sometimes, things can go wrong due to some bug in an app.

    If my speakers break, I can buy a new pair. But my ears are irreplaceable.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Pynchon said:
    I always use a limiter in my master bus.

    It's not only about testing new plugins. Sometimes, things can go wrong due to some bug in an app.

    If my speakers break, I can buy a new pair. But my ears are irreplaceable.

    Exactly.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025