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
Yah, that is a great way to put it
1. "Analog" is sometimes mistakenly used to denote "good DSP". There is nothing inherently analog about a good oversampling system, or high-quality bandlimited oscillators that are free of aliasing, step-free responses to wild control changes or high speed LFO's - it's really just DSP 101 and not being sloppy or constrained by inadequate hardware of the day (or latency requirements that cannot be attacked by computing power alone, forcing some compromises).
Or to be more precise, there is nothing inherently "digital" about the sound in a good DSP system in the era of 32/64-bit processing, if your frequency response needs are covered by the sampling rate.
2. Recreating various sounds and effects from the physical world was always the bread and butter of digital audio production tools. So I wouldn't say that it's a standout phenomenon that we like to have tape sim, saturators, distortion plugins in our toolbox, just as we like our reverbs and physical modeling synths, or a 20 GB sample-based drumkit plugin for that matter, regardless of any underlying technology.
3. Replicating actual pieces of physical gear: this probably needs no explanation. The gear in question may have been discontinued for decades, and you're stoked how Vangelis used it in Blade Runner or whatnot. It makes even sense for newer gear, it allows you to have multiple instances and it won't take up physical space in your studio and you won't have to worry about bad caps and other wear.
it's incredible how much effort and commitment goes into this, and how much actual scientific work actually happens in academia. Just looking at some research papers about some incredible, painstakingly done recreation of some aspects of a Moog ladder filter feels almost like an exaggeration or a misuse of public funds - but I guess it's still cheap research, and awesome research at that.
4. The zeitgeist: nostalgia, lack of imagination & innovation, established audio engineering practices for mixing and mastering
Yeah, yeah, everything was better in the 80's. Or 90's. Or whatever.
Before the height of the rompler era, some incredible sound design work was done (Eric Persing, et al) to make the best out of the measly ROM space of these uits, resulting in sounds that are still immediately recognizable. If you look at that period, and the future on the horizon (and also products like the Hartmann Neuron, Korg Z1, Yamaha VL stuff) it seems odd how the big marketing machines settled on the analog synth line, and continue to milk it to this day. A lot of nostalgia is clearly manufactured and sometimes it feels like being stuck in the 60's. And some fresh products are insultingly lacking in features, purposely built so for reasons I'm not willing to speculate, but ostensibly physchological in nature.
In a way, it's reminescent of Hollywood's horrible reboots and live action remakes of classical animation films. Surely a synth enthusiast from the 60's-70's stepping out from a time machine would feel utterly shocked to find that synths from their time has not been relegated to a niche for enthusiasts, but continued to be the superstar of flashy new product brochures, and even more shocking when original product design limitations are replicated or made worse.
He/she would rightfully expect to find a vax cylinder phonograph, or maybe a wind-up record player - and would sigh in relief that we haven't gotten further back than the vinyl record players.
There is hope though, as after 25-30 years, physical modeling seems to have picked up again and other smaller developers may be shaking things up. But I'm also not saying that progress is something that should be forced at all costs - but a middle ground should be found with everything in its rightful, organic niche.
5. false marketing, manufactured nostalgia, bad-faith buzzword-dropping
Although these are not mass phenomena (but big brands are also caught doing it), they clearly contribute to the zeitgeist or hivemind that you can't escape, or anyone who is new to the craft and has all the learning ahead, and will end up spreading the same thing.
As with any buzzword, parasites will often latch onto it to milk it. "Analog modeling" has been seen falsely used, and the misuse may be slightly spreading, I've seen it pop up in the most unexpected places where actual PhD's and otherwise respected and well-known members of the industry interacted with the public. And whenever you see "Analog warmth" mentioned, just run. I think I last saw it on a run-of-the-mill digital reverb plugin from a major brand.
We're seeing the same with AI - I think at this moment the absolute worse combination and a major red flag would be an "AI Analog" plugin - I think I saw a compressor or saturator that advertised itself as the first AI one, and guess what, it created the most horrible aliasing ever seen in any compressor released in the last decade probably.
6. Someone mentioned workflows, control responsiveness. I think that's a slight tangent from the original topic which I interpreted as the sound qualities from the perspective of digital musicians. And I think that's really a product design issue irrespective of technology or whether it's HW or SW. Hardware can also be digital of course.
That said, what immediately came to mind was the iconic Pultec passive EQ - It's an example of an incredibly solidly designed product, but again, there is no reason why similar designs can't be done in software, and conversely, there have been hardware units with poor and cluttered design.
I hope things go in this direction – there’s so much to offer that could’ve been normalised by now as ‘the way to do it’ – years ago I liked SpringSound, a sign that PM was bouncing back
I think Physical Modelling as a paradigm needs to tear itself from the self-fascinated academic stance of ‘every possible parameter, everywhere, all at once’ and either refine to a control set that makes sense but doesn’t overload the user, or ignore the notion that it is PM and simply ‘make’ instruments that are unique, have good affordances which make sense, but if you look underneath you’d find it is physical modelling making it happen
The Prophecy was probably the last good example of the latter, the VLs (I had a 70m) was frankly too baffling unless your head was into that sort of depth that day
I think a lot of the analogue v digital debate can get muddled up, and what some people mean is actually hardware v software. An example being Eurorack - many, if not most, modules are digital (eg the Mutable stuff is all digital, as far as I know). Some are really analogue, though. But some people think of Eurorack as analogue, when it’s often not.
Some is psychological, too. I saw a video a while back where someone compared a real MI module to a clone, and they’d always believed the clones would sound worse. Turned out, after much testing, they don’t. Similarly the bloke who took an oscilloscope to iVCS3 and compared it to a vintage AKS: waveforms nigh on identical, and iPad much easier to take on holiday!
I’m entirely pragmatic, I think/hope. Does whatever-it-is work in context, do I like using it, can I do interesting things with it? I enjoy using my Moogs, I enjoy using Hilda, I enjoy using Cadence (hardware drone synth thingy), I enjoy MiRack.
I can understand the urge to get away from the shiny blandness of 80s synths and production (though naturally it’s now seeing a resurgence…), and menu-diving interfaces drive me mad if they are too complicated, and I get the urge for textures (hence my love of the AudioThing stuff), but a lot of the fetishisation of analogue seems to be just that: a belief in some special sauce that’ll magically transform things. Most people would be pushed to tell the difference, particularly non-musician listeners.
It gets really funny when you start to get emulations of early digital stuff to get the specific distortions and limitations of it. There’ll be a DAT revival next…
Thought for the day: even Hainbach uses a DAW.
I just love fucking with audio cables all day and trying to figure out what light in my house is causing that hum in the audio. But really it’s because I love driving tubes and analog filters are king
I would argue that a circuit component modelled implementation of an analogue circuit synth design is analogue
Mainly because it’s a valid argument and who doesn’t like an argument on a friday evening
Friday morning! 😡
The sound.
Evening!!!
Some techniques just don’t sound the same in digital: especially audio rate feedback and cross modulation. The digital flavors of feedback and audio rate cross modulation are very nice too; but they don’t sound and behave the same way. (I’m thinking no input mixing; chaotic analogue instruments like Benjolins/blippoo box and instruments inspired by those like the Hikari Duos; and the many analogue modular feedback and cross patching techniques.)
The nonlinearities and imperfections of analogue audio signal paths can be musically desirable. (So can digital ones - I love digital imperfections.) They can be modeled digitally but that still amounts to valuing the sound of analogue.
GAS and gear fetishism is a thing I and many people on music forums have in some form, and analogue is easy to lust for and collect…
Yes, sound is all it is about. And sound is analog, always
There are variants of digital processing as there are variants of analog processing.
Of course not all are created equal.
You may choose from a wide range and mix them, even go cherry picking about which method to apply at a certain part of the chain.
My personal most puzzling experience:
I either play bass through an Audient ID22 (not a high end device, but considered well above average) or through a „primitive“ impedance converter/preamp (with headphone out, a TAB V357 to be precise).
The V357‘s analog output reveals parts of the signal that the ID22 simply swallows, they are gone.
Digitizing the V357 via ID22 didn‘t change the result.
Finally I modded another TAB as a pure headphone driver (bridged the impedance conversion), to be monitoring with the exact same circuit, still the analog unit is superior.
Which leaves the quantization process as the only difference.
Btw the difference isn‘t subtle at all and I wasn‘t biased in any way when first checking it.
In fact I was convinced the track would deliver the same audio impression as monitored.
Which it simply doesn‘t, so whenever I want to enjoy the plain bass I just plug the cans into the neighbor socket.
Take his videos with a grain of salt. When you have high gain, heavily distorted guitar tones like he usually records, there are less differences in parts of the signal chain, but that’s not always the case.
Also, move a mic around a speaker while wearing good isolating in ears or headphones and you’ll hear a whole plethora of sounds as you move that mic to different places.
I personally stopped watching his videos because all of the screaming, etc got to be tiring, but there were some things that appreciated about his information. Just understand his viewpoint is one viewpoint and stylistically he sticks to one area. Nothing wrong with that, but statements of “fact” are really just one opinion.
I was more obsessed with analog when I didn't own one. I tended to obsess what I didn't have, lol.
After working up to being able to afford analog synths, and buying some, I was satiated. Tried the new Jura modeled analog plugin on the MPC One and decided not to buy after the free trial period expired. I'm actually more interested in the digital sound engines on that machine than the VA ones - sure I had a play with the Oddy and Moog plugins but I realized I'm analogued-out.
Analogue is for pensioners who couldnt send a text.
( joking )
I’ve been trying to avoid buying any more VAs, especially not mono ones. I did succumb to TB Lowtone though and am glad I did, it surprised me and I’ve been getting some great sounds out of it. it’s a bit more than a VA with it’s FM and all those filters and oscillator types. In truth though, along with VAs, subtractive analog synths are a bit rinsed for me. the breadth of sounds you can get from digital is so much vaster and more interesting in comparison. I do feel the need to take anything I make with digital out into the real world at some point in the production process though, often through an analog filter. I have a Pro 3, a Pulse 2 and a Mopho for that job.
There are a lot of nice digital multi effects boxes with professional level converters that impart a similar level of magic imo, so it doesn’t have to be a filter or even analog. Just have to get it out of the box. for me, this adds a lot, especially when working with feedback and the like. Nothing in the box comes chaotically close enough.
@dspguy I appreciated that post.
I just clicked away from an iPad synth I was interested in because it was described as an "analog subtractive synth" with no mention of "virtual" or "emulation". I've seen posts where newcomers think analog = hardware of any kind.
I think the obsession with virtual "analog" gear comes from the inability to afford the OG, mostly. A Pultec EQ for $19 US? Sold! Skeuomorphism is important in this scenario. And then comes the defense of the purchase- "no one can hear the difference in a mix".
I like both analog and digital but I mostly stay away from virtual "analog" plugins because they mostly sound nothing like analog gear. There is awesome digital gear and there are awesome plugins that do awesome digital things.
I have wondered at people who buy analog emulation plugins, who brag that such and such a mix engineer is all ITB now, but who simultaneously hate the sound of modern pop music. Those things go hand in hand, the sound of plugins = the sound of modern pop.
I believe the reason Digital Musicians are obsessed with analog is trace memories of our organic past.
In the Great Conversion the Makers had difficulty completely filtering all traces of molecular/cellular organic memory from the upload. Some technicians have proposed a software fix in the form of a Trojan horse virus, but so far controlled beta test results have not been satisfactory and have resulted in random visible pixellations that would surely cause proliferation of divisive conspiracy theories. The last thing the Overlords want right now is yet another reformat and reinstall.
We have to find a definition of "analog" because the sound of my fart is analog.
Anal log is a little more than just a fart…
I completely agree with his findings. I have been a metal guitar for 35 years. I sent lots of time and money experimenting with guitars, picks, strings, cables, pickups, pedals, amps, cabinets. I have come to the same conclusions on my own.
60 to 70% of the metal guitar tone comes from the speaker for live sound and the mic and placement obviously when recording.
Long live the uncertainty principle, it manifests diversity.
I love both analogue and digital, they complement eachother. Best of both worlds.
I know from visual art, every person perceives color slightly differently (gamut range and differences in chroma). With the sound is almost the same, just on a different frequency range.
What I’m saying, it’s not just about signal chains (mic, amp, speakers) and room acoustics.
It perhaps isn’t directly comparable but as a guitarist I’d never accept a digital impersonation of a guitar no matter how good it is at its job. I’m more forgiving towards a synth emulation because the input methods remains the same aka keyboard.
Despite being an avid digital user I can see why someone may value higher a sound produced by a bunch of transistors as it physically comes from that source as opposed to a pretence (a lie) of it happening.
Perhaps another analogy might be a clean voice vs something going through an autotune..
..or to take the analogy even further a conversation with chat gpt against a conversation with another human being.
There is a difference even if often non perceivable.
I understand what you’re saying and agree that in some metal, those findings are true. However, Glenn does not express that his findings are true only in metal, he states them as fact across the board in the way he presents.
In other styles of guitar, other parts of the chain (including the player) can make a far bigger difference. Try playing or recording jazz with a Jackson through a laney, Randall, Marshall jcm amp, etc and see if the speaker is the only thing that makes that not work. Rockabilly, traditional country, folk, funk, etc, same deal. I’m not saying this styles are better than metal or anything like that, just that running through quite a few heavily distorted gain stages does negate other factors.
You are actually very wrong here. He constantly says that he is a metal channel and his testing applies to metal guitars only.
So have I, I keep on saying metal to make it clear what I am talking about.
Multiple gain stage does minimize those factors to the point were they are almost negligible. Did you see the video where he as that guitar that can switch pickup from the back on the fly. The pickup change can be heard but I would say make 5% change to the sound.
I myself tried a bunch of pickup. And it was a huge waste of money. Again in a metal context, I don't play jazz or country.
I’m just going to give you a few clues and gloss over a lot of technical details.
Analog typically means high-power devices… usually tubes. They sound best and have the most desirable
Distortion effects at high volumes. High volume requires a lot of power in the power supply design (i.e. 100 watts or more for example). This power is needed to source large current flows for the bass end which requires the post power. Digital designs operate on scaled down copies of these analog circuits that just use low power waveforms and tag on a power amp as a final stage that’s external to the device. As a result there’s no tube distortion so the digital world went wild added algorhythms that model the “real stuff” of tubes and their massive power supplies.
For our world of headphones and studio monitors that are run at modest volumes we love accuracy and analog tube distortion (which can also be described as “sweetness” or creamy and not grungy or metallic). Tube distortion provides the sounds that made the rock guitar heroes Gods. Nothing quite sounds as good as Stevie Ray Vaughan and his mastery of every element in his tool chain from strings to pickups to pedals to amps and speaker cabinets and their carefully selected drivers: everything analog and no digital amp can quite match the tone… but they can provide a modeled version of the tone that frankly is probably good enough for most of us but for the Guitar God it doesn’t provide the same response, tone or latencies of the real gear.
Digital solves a million problems with this finicky and expensive world of analog hardware but it tends to throw out the actual physical details that are crucial to the artist… the audience can’t tell the difference. In the world of Stage performances the benefits of digital include:
So, digital has many benefits but for the musician the way a tube breaks up and how the speaker scoops the mid range is so important top that musicians tone that they won’t accept the modeled results and acceptable. They often have to accept a rented tube amp while on tour for artists that can’t afford trucks of gear so they just accept a rented Marshall or Fender model that gets them closer to their desired tone and produces a good compromise for their fans.
Analog has the characteristics historically of the Stradivarius for violins, the Steinways for Pianos and Gibson for guitars… instruments that were perfected and defined the proper tone for their performance category. Using modeled examples of these sounds at 1/100th of the cost is a gift for the stuggling artist or part time musician with a day job.