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.
AUM and Drambo multicore WHEN?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What's wrong with the word useless? Yes, m1/m2 processors are practically useless in the case of AUM and Drambo, as the performance compared to iPad 2020 etc, is negligible, that's why multicore is needed, to be able to use m1/m2 processors if not at maximum, at least close to it.
@soundsgoodbro : we understand that YOUR top priority is maximal usage ofmyour M1/M1. That doesn't make developers lazy not to have prioritized multicore support.
Take any other analogy. If you pay for something, you are not interested in how much the person who sold it to you gets, how much taxes he pays and so on, you just buy the product, and it is worth exactly what the seller asked for it. If the seller asked for your "not enough" for the item, then it's him failing to calculate his business project, marketing and so on, it's not my problem, it's the seller's problem. You are persistently trying to convince me that the fact that I paid "little" is my problem, that you bought this software for "little", that I donated to the developer and bought all the extra functionality is also little, you are trying to impose on me a problem that is not really mine. "You bought this software for "little" have to put up with the lack of the underlying functionality of the basic; which is implemented in other daw at that."
Nobody minds paying more. Tell me how much to pay. I don't mind it.
.
I was going to read this thread, but was there any explanation of the technical difficulty of adding multicore?
I had searched about this and it had something to do with processor ‘affinity’ or something?
With this type of topic, sometimes it’s easier for a dev to wait until an update comes at the api or OS level that makes it easier to support, rather than homebrew a solution. Maybe thats a reason.
Isnt aum multicore? It shows which apps are using what cores.
As for developers personal reasons.. It seems this scenes independent developers are driven by their own interests. Its not the same as a job to satisfy customers. Its more like what they like and want to do with their time. Even when big companies create an app it’s impossible to get a new feature.
The point is that a developer gets to decide how to spend their time and what features to add. If multi-core is essential to yiu, you should make your decisions based on purchasing apps that implement that feature.
What is unreasonable is calling people lazy because they have decided that there are other features that their user base will find more valuable OR have determined that it isn't practical for them to add.
You are free to buy the apps that suit your needs. Developers will decode what features are practical and if they are wrong, people will purchase different apps and that will cause them to reassess priorities.
Why don’t you pay for the time it takes to port the app to multicore?.
Developers are lazy, you’re not, you also don’t mind paying whatever so seems like a perfect fit.
Entitled.
Yeah...
Multi-Core isn't a great term for this. Multi-threading is more accurate. All iOS apps make use of multiple cores (allocated at-will by the OS, not the developer). Multi-threaded audio processing support is really the feature we're talking about. That has only been available for a few years.
Audio processing is in some ways linear. By this I mean, the bits have to go in linearly and they have to come out linearly. Think of an automobile assembly line. You can have sub lines for making the parts, but eventually they have to be assembled in some kind of order to complete the final product (the audio you hear). There are dependencies. For instance you can't put the wheels on an automobile until the axel is installed.
Before multi-threading, DSP needed to happen on a single assembly line, done by one worker at a time. The workers in the plant are the cores and the audio thread is the assembly line. Faster workers can be brought in to speed up the assembly line, or slower and lower paid workers can be used to lower cost (heat and battery consumption), but it remains a linear process. Which worker is assigned is all managed by the operating system. The developer has no control over what cores are used or what threads run on which. Other threads can be used for things like UI processing, but they should never interrupt the audio thread. (Think ... asking the assembly worker to stop to answer the door.)
With multi-threading a developer can choose to create sub-assembly lines to speed up overall production. It still has to all come out in order at the end, but now they can try to open up more possibilities for the OS to spread the load than a single thread. Note: they don't get to choose the workers (cores). The OS still does that.
So, they have to deal with managing those threads. They still have to deal with things like waiting for the axel sub assembly to be completed before they can put the wheels on, even if they have the wheels already. That has to be managed carefully and that management takes some overhead. It's tricky to do and definitely not easy to implement.
iOS apps have always used multiple cores (managed by the iOS though). They used to be limited to a single thread that had to be protected from interruptions for audio processing. Now the OS has introduced some ways to split the load into more threads. Multi-Threading support is really the term we should be using, but multi-core has stuck and is here to stay.
(The above no-doubt has some gross over generalizations and probably some inaccuracies. I didn't try to make it exact as it is over-long already.)
If I were implementing my own product, I would first of all listen to all opinions and look at what trends and tendencies exist at the moment and offer the best product possible. That's why you sit in this forum, because apple has made the best product possible and they are trying to develop their technological product by implementing the most possible features in the hardware in accordance with the time. Most of your and similar comments do not call for innovation, they put the lid roughly on the dead, do not ask for and do not want the best of the possible, but bury ideas, in this certainly this forum has succeeded to the hilt.
Cubasis released 12 new kinds of metronome? Oooh, yeah that's innovation and game changer. Made a primitive Halion sampler with ready-made presets and no full-fledged synthesis? That's innovation and success.
Then you wonder why projects abandoned ? Really why, you rejoiced 12 sounds of metronome in Cubasis 3 as a mana of heaven, did not ask for new and really necessary functionality, two years of audio buses can not be implemented in Cubasis, well it's normal, just developers are so poor that can not do it, it's very hard for them, we are all very much worried about them.
6 years since AUM was released and you're going to tell me about prioritization of features? well really why make something better, everything is great as it is! 3 years Drambo, can't still implement plugin delay compensation, which was promised last year in unfiltered Audio plugins description, well just drambo developer is collecting money for food, he has nothing to eat, that's why PDC is not implemented yet...... Multicore in AUM and Drambo? Come on, YOU'RE asking for too much, ask for one more metronome sound.
Great write-up, thank you. Now it all makes sense. Multi-threading audio is not a trivial task and might even be detrimental, I believe, even if implemented right. I’d like to know more about how existing apps that do use multithreading, use it for. Because it’ isn’t throwing more “cores” at the audio thread, it’s to delegate very specific tasks of the audio thread to other sub-threads, and weaving the result back into the main thread. At least that’s the impression I get. Not many tasks are suitable for this, so sometimes a single main thread might be better.
You are completely misrepresenting what has been saod. No one said it would not be nice to have multi-core support.
The disagreement has been whether the lack of the feature is due to laziness which was your claim.
People disagree that it is due to laziness.
By the way, your boss wants you to go get a PhD and still do your job. He'll give you an additional .05 per hour.
Please name me the innovative updates to AUM over the past three years? What exactly super innovative and powerful things have been implemented in AUM in the past three years? Other than bugfixes and support for new operating systems? I may not be aware of it and there are a lot of innovations and features that were not there three years ago, but I don't see them at all.
AUM, it's a mixer, even if it was innovative in convenience and stuff, but it was like that 6 years ago, 6 years ago Carl, it's now 2024 and we have the iPad m2 and Logic Pro. There's an iPad m3 coming, and what's the point of it if 80% of DAWs don't even support multicore? It doesn't make sense.
oooh, never heard of "flood" before, wut dat?
Thanks for the explanation @wim, it’s nice to have some well articulated rationality around here at the moment…
@soundsgoodbro : moving the goalposts. Nice. Now, you’ve shifted to whether developers are being “super innovative” whereas it started because they were lazy.
Was there some sort of promise I missed that AUM would be anything other than what it was?
There is no obligation from a developer to be super-innovative. If an app doesn’t suit your needs and aesthetics, don’t buy it and buy the super-innovative product you want.
I've been PM'd by a knowledgeable user that my analogy is all wrong. I don't think so, but I also know this person is smarter than I am. So take that post with a huge grain of salt!
Anyway, I'm not going to visit this thread again as even though I've blocked the OP, the obnoxious tone still leaks through. I hope the rest of it goes better though.
So what are the features they implemented that are so much more important than multicore? Which are certainly more important than that, besides fixing bugs and supporting new versions of the OS?
You are very skillful at twisting other people's words and making up your own meanings, you are very good at it, you could get the #1 flooder badge on this forum. Well, at least you make me laugh, and that's great).
Bro… stop whining and take a breath. Everything will be ok.
I really hope you're not just another developer who is currently dying from not having enough to eat, so he can't create. If that does happen, hope things get better, peace!
Maybe if you started posting in all caps they would understand, this is some important stuffs and they’re not doing it right?
@soundsgoodbro : your priorities are not necessarily everyone else's. You want to take better advantage of your hardware. Great. No one begrudges you that. Developers not having your priorities doesn't make them lazy.
And there is no obligation for developers to continue to innovate. It's great that some do. I buy software for what it can do -- not for what I imagine it might do in the future if the developer were in lock-sync with my desires.
Do you think that would really help? Somehow you are too bad for the people of this forum if you think they can see exceptionally only caps...though....
So apparently the developers of Mirack, Cubasis, logic, AEMS and mts are wrong to introduce multicore into their products? After all, they have already done it, and according to you, few people need it? Yes, they are not lazy, but everyone else is not lazy either, they just don't prioritize stupid "multicore" which is not really needed.
What? Who said anything about it being wrong for developers to choose to implement multi-core. You made the accusation of laziness.
Different developers have different priorities WHICH IS GREAT!!!!! Some developers have decided multi-core support is a key priority. That is awesome. Other developers have different priorities which is also awesome. And they all will watch to see how things pan out and learn from each others' experiences.
FWIW, Cubasis' multi-core support comes with a fairly sizable latency penalty -- and was pretty buggy when initially released. They are also not a one-person developer like most iOS developers are. AUM and Drambo are single person companies. Drambo has had tons of ongoing development and lots of features added that benefit every user - not just those with the latest and greatest iPads. AUM doesn't generate tons of revenue and the developer has done a great job of maintaining a very stable reliable platform that is the envy of many developers.