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.
cpu hit: AUM vs any major DAW
Are there valid figures available regarding cpu hit? What has the least overhead in your experience?
Comments
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/45708/is-apematrix-more-dsp-efficient-than-aum#latest
That is impossible to measure in any meaningful way on iOS.
Let me rephrase my question:
Did anyone care to run the exact same session (midi clips, apps and presets) within a DAW and AUM?
edit it really comes down to the least overhead needed
My point remains. You can't measure CPU overhead from a DAW. Also, you can't compare CPU readings between DAWs.
First, CPU readings in iOS aren't a consistent indicator of actual CPU usage. They're an indicator of available CPU usage, and available CPU usage varies over time as dictated by the operating system to reduce heat and battery usage. Second each DAW may measure CPU differently. On iOS it's not as simple as some systems call in Windows or Linux where everything is measured the same.
The only useful comparative test is to incrementally load each DAW with the same audio settings, plugins and MIDI source until the sound begins to break up.
For more detailed information: https://wiki.audiob.us/doku.php?id=cpu_load_comparisons_and_testing
BTW, Cubasis has multi-core processing capability that may put it ahead of most other DAWs in some situations. But only testing can tell whether or not that's true in a given case.
Also, even an overload test could have different results based on the type of processing going on. For instance, heavy FX vs instrument use, types of audio routing, intensity of MIDI processing going on, external audio audio processing, number of plugin UI's showing, amount of memory taken by individual and summed AUv3 plugin instances. There can even be variations caused by how well certain individual plugins are handled between hosts.
While I have no evidence to back it up, I believe that host overhead isn't significantly different between DAWs. But that's not my point. My point is the question isn't answerable in a general sense objectively.
An example I personally encountered about what the CPU measurements are telling you: I managed to hit and stay at100% on the CPU meter in Auria Pro and it held things together. Purely audio clips and FX stacked on. It was definitely on the edge and things were feeling like they were about to fall apart.
Where as in Cubasis it shows DSP and CPU measurements and I have never been able to hit those at 100% and still maintain integrity in the sound output. At the same time as things currently stand I could possibly run a heavier load in Cubasis.
In BeatMaker 3 I know if the meter is showing around 80% that I'm going to be in trouble and it will start to break apart, but I have gone a long way before that occurs. Many, many tracks and FX stacked in there.
AUM is different again as I'm set up differently and things are flowing in a different way. I don't recall having 20 - 30 tracks running at once in AUM as by that stage I've bounced the parts to audio and am editing elsewhere.
If you want least overhead, you are possibly going to achieve this in AUM, but there are a number of other things you can't do as easily in AUM when it comes to editing things etc.
And then all these figures will change between specific devices as well. The difference I encountered between and iPad Pro 9.7 and an iPad Pro M1 was liberating to say the least.
My thoughts are that the only real meaningful test you are going to encounter is the one you personally experience as there is no external way to fully compare the different fruits. The user is always in the middle of the experiment.
So, maybe the question needs to be framed around what your desires and aims are. You could achieve almost the same thing in all of these "DAWs" with a little setup and routing etc.
thank you for these thorough answers!
It’s true that these things are tough to measure on iOS but, when I got my 2021 iPad M1 11” pro I wanted to see how far I could push it. The hosts that could handle the most AUV3’s were Cubasis 3 and AUM. Using the same AUV3s in each I pushed and pushed and AUM looked like the likely winner. But, with Multicore processing activated, Cubasis 3 left AUM in the dirt. Funny really, considering how hopeless it was with AUV3’s when it was released.
So, do I get this right that only Cubasis 3 and AUM feature multicore processing? Couldn‘t find any hints at Kymatica‘s website...
I have a iPad Pro 2017 and the multicore in Cubasis does not work with this generation of iPad. Can anyone confirm if it works with AUM and iPad Pro 2017 ?
Where is this notion coming from that AUM has multicore audio processing processing?
(FWIW, many audio apps and plugins are multi-threaded which can result in their code being run on different cores -- but these other routines are typically handling non-audio chores).
Just piggy backing on what he said 😂
No, AUM does not support multi-core audio processing (but hopefully in the future). It is of course multi-threaded though, so the system can decide to use a high-performance core for audio and other core(s) for UI stuff, etc.
FWIW, my understanding from a years old post on a DSP forum that I came across, by a former iOS GarageBand coder, indicated that GarageBand was making use of multiple cores to maximize audio processing. My impression was that he was focused on performance issues…and that they were able to figure some ways to use multiple cores for audio thanks to ready access (at least at that time) to the OS teams.
I gather that GB was viewed as a good demonstration of the power of the iPad.
I didn’t actually say AUM had multi core processing, but my explanation could have been clearer. Also, one thing that is difficult about making videos for iOS is knowing how well things perform on other devices. If I could afford it I would get hold of as many iPads and iPhones as possible so that I could confirm these details.