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.

Audiophile… or not?

«1

Comments

  • The same as wine tasting then, apparently. 🙂 People being absolutely out there with their judgements as long as they know what they are tasting - and then suddenly going all over the place when they do it blind.

  • @ervin said:
    The same as wine tasting then, apparently. 🙂 People being absolutely out there with their judgements as long as they know what they are tasting - and then suddenly going all over the place when they do it blind.

    😂

  • The test doesn't really mean much, it's just a jump off to state the obvious.

  • This is interesting. I’ve followed his channel for awhile, haven’t seen this one though.

  • There is a very good article in a French Science Magazine of this month (Science & Vie) that explain why it's really bad for your ears to listen to mp3.

  • I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

  • @ALB said:
    I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

    Yep. There is no real silence in mp3. The worst piece of music to listen on an mp3 file according the article is The Bolero from Ravel. Some parts of the song are 40DB and others 90DB but in mp3, there is less nuances and the creshendo are less effective.

  • You may know the saying, but most people use their equipment to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

  • @Montreal_Music said:

    @ALB said:
    I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

    Yep. There is no real silence in mp3. The worst piece of music to listen on an mp3 file according the article is The Bolero from Ravel. Some parts of the song are 40DB and others 90DB but in mp3, there is less nuances and the creshendo are less effective.

    Wow - didn’t know that. Thanks

  • @Montreal_Music said:

    @ALB said:
    I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

    Yep. There is no real silence in mp3. The worst piece of music to listen on an mp3 file according the article is The Bolero from Ravel. Some parts of the song are 40DB and others 90DB but in mp3, there is less nuances and the creshendo are less effective.

    It depends on the bit-rate and encoding. Most people can’t tell the difference between high-quality lossy-encoded material and non-lossy in blind tests. There are a lot of poorly encoded MP3’s out there.

    it is not true that there is no real silence possible in an mp3. This is easily testable. Create an audio file that includes silence. Encode as an mp3. import the file into an audio editing app. There will be real silence in audio.

  • edited April 2022

    @espiegel123 said:

    @Montreal_Music said:

    @ALB said:
    I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

    Yep. There is no real silence in mp3. The worst piece of music to listen on an mp3 file according the article is The Bolero from Ravel. Some parts of the song are 40DB and others 90DB but in mp3, there is less nuances and the creshendo are less effective.

    It depends on the bit-rate and encoding. Most people can’t tell the difference between high-quality lossy-encoded material and non-lossy in blind tests. There are a lot of poorly encoded MP3’s out there.

    it is not true that there is no real silence possible in an mp3. This is easily testable. Create an audio file that includes silence. Encode as an mp3. import the file into an audio editing app. There will be real silence in audio.

    Fair point. I just wrote what I have learned reading the article. I'm not an expert in that domain. The thing that I remember is that the quieter part from the Bolero by Ravel are louder when the sound is compressed.

    The compressed sounds is why we speak louder on the phone and this is why TV ads sound louder than the show we are listening. It's not objectivly louder, but our brain give us this impression. In a nutshell, it is more stressful for the ears listen to compressed sounds.

  • @Montreal_Music said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @Montreal_Music said:

    @ALB said:
    I know that I seem to get greater ear fatigue which makes me want to listen less.

    Yep. There is no real silence in mp3. The worst piece of music to listen on an mp3 file according the article is The Bolero from Ravel. Some parts of the song are 40DB and others 90DB but in mp3, there is less nuances and the creshendo are less effective.

    It depends on the bit-rate and encoding. Most people can’t tell the difference between high-quality lossy-encoded material and non-lossy in blind tests. There are a lot of poorly encoded MP3’s out there.

    it is not true that there is no real silence possible in an mp3. This is easily testable. Create an audio file that includes silence. Encode as an mp3. import the file into an audio editing app. There will be real silence in audio.

    Fair point. I just wrote what I have learned reading the article. I'm not an expert in that domain. The thing that I remember is that the quieter part from the Bolero by Ravel are louder when the sound is compressed.

    The compressed sounds is why we speak louder on the phone and this is why TV ads sound louder than the show we are listening. It's not objectivly louder, but our brain give us this impression. In a nutshell, it is more stressful for the ears listen to compressed sounds.

    I think you are confusing data compression (which is what we are talking about) and audio dynamic compression.

    A high bitrate mp3 can have good dynamic range. The issues of dynamic range compression are different.

    It sounds like the article you read may have conflated the two.

  • edited April 2022

    but our brain give us this impression. In a nutshell, it is more stressful for the ears listen to compressed sounds.

    Maybe it’s worth making the little distinction here that it is in fact not more stressful for the ears but rather, if at all, to the grey stuff in between them. (I know, Captain Obvious)

    —-

    I’ve made my peace with the fact that I’m really not an audiophile but can still draw more enjoyment out of my equipment by „placeboing“ myself by reading positive reviews. In a way it’s the same way homeopathy „works“.

  • @PhilW said:
    You may know the saying, but most people use their equipment to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

    😂
    Imagine the look on their faces when they find out the music was produced on someone’s iPhone

  • edited April 2022

    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

  • @PhilW said:
    You may know the saying, but most people use their equipment to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

    👏

  • @ervin said:
    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

    That’s perfect… a new twist on “there is nothing good or bad in the universe but the mind makes it so”.Probably extends to the coffee thread, too. 😉😎🙏

  • It’s like the time (not just once) that I’d spend nudging and tweaking the threshold, the ratio, back to threshold, the attack, back to ratio, the release, back to threshold, and so on for about 10 mins. Then realise the bastard compressor is on bypass.

  • Confirmation bias is something all humans no matter how expert are subject to.

    About 20 years ago, there was a discussion about a particular pre-amp on a pro audio forum. Supposedly, all the participants were pro engineers and producers. This preamp could run on batteries or AC.

    Somehow posted an example of how much better the preamp sounded when powered by batteries. The posted some audio examples to compare.

    About half the people, said “they sound the same”. But there were quite a few people that gave detailed analyses of how details in one recording sounded somewhat better than the other.

    About two weeks later, the original poster, embarrassedly posted that they had screwed up and posted identical files and not different ones.

    A few people still insisted there were differences until someone demonstrated that the two files were truly identical.

  • @LinearLineman said:

    @ervin said:
    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

    That’s perfect… a new twist on “there is nothing good or bad in the universe but the mind makes it so”.Probably extends to the coffee thread, too. 😉😎🙏

    No it doesn't because I'm a wannabe coffee snob, whereas I'm not interested in audiophilia at all! 🤓

  • @espiegel123 said:
    Confirmation bias is something all humans no matter how expert are subject to.

    About 20 years ago, there was a discussion about a particular pre-amp on a pro audio forum. Supposedly, all the participants were pro engineers and producers. This preamp could run on batteries or AC.

    Somehow posted an example of how much better the preamp sounded when powered by batteries. The posted some audio examples to compare.

    About half the people, said “they sound the same”. But there were quite a few people that gave detailed analyses of how details in one recording sounded somewhat better than the other.

    About two weeks later, the original poster, embarrassedly posted that they had screwed up and posted identical files and not different ones.

    A few people still insisted there were differences until someone demonstrated that the two files were truly identical.

    LOL.

    Confirmation bias is also the only thing sommelier courses actually sell to their participants. 🤷

  • For true warmth, I power all of my gear with only volta piles or leyton jars.

  • @espiegel123 said:
    Confirmation bias is something all humans no matter how expert are subject to.

    About 20 years ago, there was a discussion about a particular pre-amp on a pro audio forum. Supposedly, all the participants were pro engineers and producers. This preamp could run on batteries or AC.

    Somehow posted an example of how much better the preamp sounded when powered by batteries. The posted some audio examples to compare.

    About half the people, said “they sound the same”. But there were quite a few people that gave detailed analyses of how details in one recording sounded somewhat better than the other.

    About two weeks later, the original poster, embarrassedly posted that they had screwed up and posted identical files and not different ones.

    A few people still insisted there were differences until someone demonstrated that the two files were truly identical.

    “it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - probably not Mark Twain

  • “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…. Well…er… that ain’t gonna happen”. George W. Bush
    “You mean the election wasn’t rigged??!!” Anonymous

  • edited April 2022

    @ervin said:
    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

    I forget who it was, but a big time US producer of hit records was talking about how Clive Davis (served as head of some of the world’s biggest record companies over a period of about 5 decades) would complain about every song ever recorded and insist that changes were made for him. The guy eventually decided to bullshit him with a ‘new’ mix that was in reality the existing one without changes, and was told it was a huge improvement. Eventually a few other producers (unnamed) caught on and did the same thing…

    Can’t remember who it was did this. Anyone else know who it was?

  • @LinearLineman said:
    “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…. Well…er… that ain’t gonna happen”. George W. Bush
    “You mean the election wasn’t rigged??!!” Anonymous

    Haha, classic.

  • @michael_m said:

    @ervin said:
    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

    I forget who it was, but a big time US producer of hit records was talking about how Clive Davis (served as head of some of the world’s biggest record companies over a period of about 5 decades) would complain about every song ever recorded and insist that changes were made for him. The guy eventually decided to bullshit him with a ‘new’ mix that was in reality the existing one without changes, and was told it was a huge improvement. Eventually a few other producers (unnamed) caught on and did the same thing…

    Can’t remember who it was did this. Anyone else know who it was?

    All studios need a “bullshit box”. :smile:

  • @jolico said:

    @michael_m said:

    @ervin said:
    Closer to the topic, we once offered to assist some self-identifying audiophile friends in blind testing some of their more esoteric ideas for better sound - things like tying a knot on the speaker cable exactly 20 cm away from the box, put some weird plastic film under the CD when played, that sort of thing.

    What we actually did was nothing. We pretended to change the settings as requested, but in reality the before/after versions were exactly the same every time. Needless to say though, the guys claimed to hear enormous differences in the sound when they thought the setup was different. And when we admitted to the prank afterwards, they refused to believe us. 🤷

    I forget who it was, but a big time US producer of hit records was talking about how Clive Davis (served as head of some of the world’s biggest record companies over a period of about 5 decades) would complain about every song ever recorded and insist that changes were made for him. The guy eventually decided to bullshit him with a ‘new’ mix that was in reality the existing one without changes, and was told it was a huge improvement. Eventually a few other producers (unnamed) caught on and did the same thing…

    Can’t remember who it was did this. Anyone else know who it was?

    All studios need a “bullshit box”. :smile:

    Especially for someone who seems to interfere as much as Clive Davis did. I know he discovered and signed a lot of great artists, but it seems like he was a bit of a control freak in his later years. Wish I could find the article, but I can't remember who it was told the story.

  • @michael_m said:
    I forget who it was, but a big time US producer of hit records was talking about how Clive Davis (served as head of some of the world’s biggest record companies over a period of about 5 decades) would complain about every song ever recorded and insist that changes were made for him. The guy eventually decided to bullshit him with a ‘new’ mix that was in reality the existing one without changes, and was told it was a huge improvement. Eventually a few other producers (unnamed) caught on and did the same thing…

    Can’t remember who it was did this. Anyone else know who it was?

    I'm not ashamed to admit there have been a few times in the 20+ years I've been mastering music that I've had a client not able to make up their mind what they wanted after multiple revisions of a perfect mix/master, and I send them the exact same master as before and suddenly it's magically different and perfect. :wink:

  • @Tarekith said:

    @michael_m said:
    I forget who it was, but a big time US producer of hit records was talking about how Clive Davis (served as head of some of the world’s biggest record companies over a period of about 5 decades) would complain about every song ever recorded and insist that changes were made for him. The guy eventually decided to bullshit him with a ‘new’ mix that was in reality the existing one without changes, and was told it was a huge improvement. Eventually a few other producers (unnamed) caught on and did the same thing…

    Can’t remember who it was did this. Anyone else know who it was?

    I'm not ashamed to admit there have been a few times in the 20+ years I've been mastering music that I've had a client not able to make up their mind what they wanted after multiple revisions of a perfect mix/master, and I send them the exact same master as before and suddenly it's magically different and perfect. :wink:

    You know, I find this with my own music… if people comment positively on it it suddenly sounds better to me. If I get no feedback it starts sounding worse. There is a judge inside that recognizes when something is really good, however. No one has to tell me in those cases. It’s the borderline tracks where it’s maybe yes, maybe no.

Sign In or Register to comment.