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
Yeah, it’s very impressive no doubt and I’m excited to see what can actually be done with it.
From the two videos posted though, am I interested in seeing those sort of visuals again and again on different people’s tracks? Categorically, no, I’m not.
It’ll depend, for me, on how flexible it is, how much it can be twisted away from these obvious types of images and into something else completely - how much it allows users to create something unique. I’m excited to see whether it does this as others have now suggested it does.
A quick recording with Video module + some random processing
Will this support live video input (builtin camera, plugged in webcam, video capture cards)?
Apologies if I’m coming across negative. I genuinely am very excited to see what can be done with it. It’s just that nothing I’ve seen so far makes me go wow, sorry but it doesn’t; the results I’ve seen so far look exactly like what I’d expect from a music app which creates visuals. But I’ve not used it yet so these comments are of course based on the examples I’ve seen, nothing more.
When I said obvious type of images, I meant, for example, predefined geometric shapes bouncing, morphing and glitching to their modulation source. Seen it a million times already and a long, long time ago.
I’m just giving my opinion. As I said, I’m genuinely excited to see first hand what it can do. I’m not looking to offend anyone or get into a fight!
As i’ve just said in another post, all I’m doing is commenting on the examples I’ve seen so far. If the examples don’t do it justice, post better examples.
I’m excited for it to be released to try it myself, and genuinely hope it’s as great as you guys say it is.
Maybe someone will post some less generic results?
@Robin2 Can you please give us a few examples that make you go wow?
I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not? If not, what on earth do you mean? Examples of visuals that make me go wow in general? Examples of computer generated imagery which is similar to this function in Drambo, but not this specific function, which makes me go wow? What a bizarre thing to ask: are you wanting to evaluate whether my critical opinion has any value or not?!
Do the examples posted in this thread so far really make you go wow? Are they unlike anything you’ve seen before many times?
I’ve passed opinion on examples which have been posted here, nothing more. If you think they’re amazing, great; then my opinion shouldn’t matter to you. Let me make this very clear: I’ve not said the feature itself isn’t any good - I’ve no idea, how could I and I’m excited to try it - just commented on the examples posted.
Drambo is one of my absolute favourite apps and I think it’s absolutely brilliant but, bloody hell, why does everyone get so fucking defensive when anyone dare suggest that it might not be the absolute pinnacle of genius in all aspects.
And that’s been my entire point all the way along - how much does it allow you to make it your own? If it truly does as you guys on the beta have said then that’s absolutely amazing but if the results always look kinda the same really whoever uses it then that’s not so great.
I can only base my opinion on the examples I’ve seen here today.
The nature of things which make you go wow is such that you cannot describe this and/or that which will make you go wow. That entirely misses the point. Things that make you go wow have to have a certain element of surprise, no? How can you prescribe what’s going to surprise you? Nothing I have seen in these examples so far has surprised me, it just hasn’t.
All I said was that the examples posted here so far here (which are of course all I’ve seen) didn’t make me go wow. Do those particular examples make you go wow? Unless your answer is a wholehearted yes, you know exactly what I mean already. I don’t see why people are getting so caught up on that particular phraseology?
Read back in my posts, I absolutely took your word for it (or rather @Edward_Alexander’s word) way back but others then piled on.
Let me put it this way: Like a modular audio system, a modular system for creating visuals is a set of modules that hopefully allows you to build what's on your mind. If you judge about what you saw then you're basically judging about the creators, not the system.
To quote from my last post to you:
“ Let me make this very clear: I’ve not said the feature itself isn’t any good - I’ve no idea, how could I and I’m excited to try it - just commented on the examples posted.”
Doesn’t that effectively acknowledge that the criticisms made are judging the creators utilising the feature, not the feature itself?
I’ve not posted any opinion on the system itself and have repeatedly expressed the hope that it is as flexible as the beta testers say it is.
Some people here seem to be looking for criticisms to defend against which haven’t actually been made in the first place.
I interpreted that as a genuine question aimed at understanding what you think would be impressive, in order to reference those examples to see if such techniques could be demonstrated with the app. I didn't interpret it as asking for a description of what makes you go "wow" so much as an invitation to point to video examples of what you're thinking. It's pretty easy to grasp what you don't like about the examples. it's much harder to guess at what you would like.
Kind of like if you had said "I hate pop music" and someone asking "OK, what are some songs you do like?"
One could throw up many examples guessing at what you mean and not get anywhere close. I thought it was a question trying to narrow that down. In a helpful, not combative way. Of course, if you don't know of examples, that's understandable.
I hope you don't mind my uninvited thoughts.
All I meant was that none of the examples posted here so far were things which I hadn’t seen before. Having seen Imaginando VS and Alexander Zolotov’s visual apps as well as others, it seemed to be very much more of the same type of thing - great fun but with a very limited visual vocabulary in the final output aesthetic.
You can’t blame me for judging based on the examples posted when that’s all I have to go on.
There are app creations which are absolutely amazing but they, for me, fall into the category of artworks by the developer rather than creative tools for the user. By that I mean that they are wonderful things but the results always look or sound pretty much the same regardless of who uses them. As such, the only person who can really use them with any sort of authenticity is the developer, the creator of the system behind them. My fear was/is that this feature might fall into that category.
Anyway, I certainly agree with your last statement, I truly hope that I am blown away by it when I actually get to experience it.
Thanks @0tolerance4silence : I assume it’ll be in the next major update
Don’t mind hearing your thoughts at all @wim.
I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly than I’ve tried to multiple times: I can only pass an opinion based on what I’ve seen posted here. Those examples didn’t make me go wow (I’m so sick to death of that phrase now) because they weren’t anything I hadn’t seen before. Nothing more, just the turn of phrase I happened to use based on the few examples seen. I didn’t cast shade on the feature as a whole.
What I think would be impressive is if it were doing something I hadn’t seen before. But trying to define something you haven’t seen before, trying to define something you aren’t aware of yet is rather difficult - that’s fair isn’t it? How can I tell someone how to brilliantly surprise me?
What I would be impressed by - and hopefully will be impressed by - is if it allows you to do things other than just the glitchy shader thing and the 1980s Top of the Pops video effects; if it allows you to use it in ways it’s not been designed for to produce results that go against its standard output. If the results are always immediately identifiable as having been made using this feature in Drambo then, for me, it’s of limited appeal.
Now, others have already assured me that it does allow that sort of freedom and I gladly accepted that way back in this thread. So, to, after that point, then be asked what does make you go wow seemed facetious because I had already gladly accepted what @Edward_Alexander had said and crawled back into my little box to wait for it to be released.
Plus, as I said, what makes me go wow in what context? It’s an incredibly general question even within the realms of this discussion - in music videos, in computer generated music visualisation specifically, what?
So, for those who are for some reason so desperate to know something that made me go wow (and to illustrate how I don’t think it actually helps illuminate this discussion at all), one of last things which did so was a video someone had made for some metal band. Someone posted a link to it on this forum. I am absolutely not a fan of AI but this was an AI generated video and, I have to admit, was extraordinary. That made me go wow. And it helps this discussion not at all! (Sorry I can’t remember the details…it’s here on the forum somewhere…lots of morphing imagery, terrifyingly brilliant!)
I see tools like this in the same way I see synthesizers. There are only so many components of synths. Those components (or the way they're implemented) can lead to people creating music that we like or hate. What I see here is a comprehensive set of tools, with a lot of work put into making them accessible. I doubt there are unique tools here that would be likely to drive visualization in radically new directions. But maybe, by making them more accessible to the average person, something new will come out. More likely not. There are only so many break-out artists around ya' know?
Paint, canvas, brushes, guitars, violins, synthesizers, drums. They can all be used to create stuff we like or hate, are tired of, or are blown away by. (Well except for cowbell. Nobody ever gets too much of that.)
Me? I'll just be happy if I can throw a visualization up there that'll make the inevitable lame d-dorian funk loop that seems to come out every time I create, a little bit less boring. 😂
I apologize - I used too many words as always, and obscured the point. All I was really trying to inject was that I didn't see RS2000's question in the negative light that it seemed to have struck you.
fwiw, I never took your comments as anything other than saying you're tired of how people have used visualization tools over the years since they came out. I'm a sucker for a typical viz, but I can totally see why anyone could get tired of that style. I don't think this is likely to change that, but you never know.
Certainly wasn’t expecting Drambo to develop in this direction, an all in one audiovisual live show machine! Can’t wait to try it.
I sympathize with the comments about the visual style. But that's what this kind of visualization is about! You can't expect a modular system like this to produce groundbreaking music videos. It's aimed more toward things like live projection. A way to produce attractive visual effects that are synced to the music at a concert.
What makes me go "wow" isn't the visuals themselves, but the integration with Drambo and the modular system itself. That's something I haven't seen before. And I'm sure, like everything else in Drambo, it can and will be used to create unique, beautiful, experimental visuals that nobody is expecting.
As for the remark about AI, of course it is easy to be wowed by something new. But once you've seen a bunch of AI videos, the gloss wears off and they start to look the same as well—all that weird morphing and non-euclidean geometry. I'm more interested in stuff like this because it is closely integrated with the creative exercise of the user/artist rather than curated post-generatively.
Thanks @wim and @offbrands for your kind words.
I think that this discussion touches a core concept of modular synthesis, be it audio or video.
Why would I even use such a toolbox? Just to have some sound or visuals?
Probably not. There are many synths and sample libraries out there, with millions of sounds, ready for use in music production.
And there's a ton of images and video material out there too, that can be a good source for remixing into my own visuals, if that's all I want.
I can only speak from my own viewpoint here - what drew me into modular synthesis long ago was the moments when I had a sound or a sound creation concept in mind and I wanted to find out how to get there by playing with the Lego box, so to say. Playful sound exploration has been a lot of fun for me.
It hasn't been much different with visuals during the development of that part of Drambo. I guess that most of us in the beta team first had to learn what a shader is, how it is different from classic computer graphics and how to go about making an image real that so far only existed in our minds. I found it much harder than getting my head around audio, and it's still the case, and I have to compliment @giku_beepstreet for how much thought and effort he put into making this complex concept as accessible as possible. And what we have now in the beta is the result of many rounds of refinements, including the rejection of concepts that didn't work well or caused too much confusion when using them.
So when this visual toolbox will be released one day:
It's certainly not as easy to use as audio, and I would highly recommend to start with existing simple examples first and see how others did their magic. I would also recommend to take your time to learn, like with any program that lets you develop visual art by using algorithms.
In a nutshell, unlike old school computer graphics that let you place a color pixel at a certain X and Y coordinate, a shader wants a formula to calculate the color for a given X and Y coordinate.
It sounds simple but I'm still working at getting more fluent with this concept, and I'm far, far away from the great shader coders who are used to describing all kinds of shapes with mathematical formulas.
But although writing code in Apple MSL (Metal Shader Language) is possible, we've gone a long way to try and avoid messing with formulas and only stick with modules that provide useful basic building blocks for generating an image, using different shapes and masks that can be combined in million ways to make visual art, and a set of processors to manipulate these, all with as many modulation and routing options as possible, as we know it from audio.
This has been especially difficult, because not every signal type can be used for every type of modulation (there are low frequency/audio rate signals and shader-level signals that are totally incompatible with each other by nature), yet @giku_beepstreet has done his best to embed them into a concept that strives for the combination of power and usability, and to provide a large palette of basic building blocks and presets to make something even if you don't have anything specific in mind.
Hey @rs2000 - will this be operable in the AUv3 version, or is that too intense?
Video processing ( motion detection + feedback rack)