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.

‘Omnichord mode’ as a future standard on iOS

2

Comments

  • Maybe the compromise is a better library of standard features that developers can pull from? I certainly hope creating AU apps becomes easier as we still see new apps where developers say they wanted to develop an AU but it was too difficult.

  • At least hosts should offer alternatives. It’s Ok changing a standard, but many a time have I programmed a sound in the stand alone for it to not play ok in a host. Take a new app like Quanta - try some of the sounds in your DAW of choice. Crafting a sound for hours that then plays like a damp squid in your DAW of choice is such a pain!

  • @Dawdles said:

    @brambos said:

    @Fruitbat1919 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Like the idea of the modular AU system, but it's only problem, is that it's the sum of it's parts, a few updates or no updates, here and there, could make it unstable.

    Yep, but the upkeep for individual apps by small developers could be easier to handle in a modular AU environment.


    Indeed. And the alternative scenario (asking that all devs implement all features in every single app) is quite simply never going to happen. :)

    Bit of an exaggeration ;)

    Maybe a bit, but not much. Because as long as standalone apps are still demanded, people will expect each app to have Virtual MIDI, CoreMIDI (in and out), Ableton Link, IAA, Audiobus (audio and MIDI), Bluetooth LE, MIDI Clock Sync, Audioshare, Files support, bla bla bla. I mean... none of these things are simple drop-in components. And they all interfere and conflict with each other. These are all "basic" features in the minds of users, but even just figuring out an architecture where all these "standards" work together peacefully is a nightmare :#

    Together this big ole heap o' spaghetti redundancy requires massive amounts of development, debug and support time which could be avoided by simply doing it once: in the host. So all subsequent apps can benefit from it. It's a much more realistic scenario, which equally applies to having onboard sequencers, keyboards, XY controls, etc.

    As technical complexity grows (and becomes the norm), modularity becomes the only feasible direction to keep things manageable from a development point of view.

    That's what I mean by getting rid of the redundancy. I'm by no means saying these things are not important. There are just too many of them to keep putting them in every single app B)

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @brambos said:

    @Fruitbat1919 said:
    This is one of the reasons I would like to see hosts have AU midi keyboards, so that they could be switched out for whatever note input interface we desire.

    Indeed. Separation of responsibilities. Keep stuff like this in the hosts (or as separate sequencer modules) so you don't need to have so much redundancy in every individual synth app. It's the only approach that makes sense.

    This 👆

  • edited July 2018
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited July 2018

    Hot take:
    As more and more users move to AUv3, we're going to see less robust user interfaces built into sound generator apps.

    Right now, the hardcore AUv3 market is under 5k people.

    When Synth One adds AUv3, there's going to be an AUv3 Synth with 100,000+ users.

    100k+ users may expand the AUv3 market and awareness overnight.
    (Maybe, it will be the kick in the rear Apple needs to pay more attention to AUv3).

    Additionally, this will hopefully inspire developers to create additional controllers, via Host Apps or plugins.

    We're at the beginning of a tipping point.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited July 2018

    @Dawdles said:
    My thinking on this particular post was that if a dev made a [control of some sort] for one synth, then that mode/page would be relatively easy to drop in to their future instruments too?

    That would be very cool. There are some great developers who are doing just that -- Props to @cem_olcay who is planning on implementing some features of his upcoming ScalesBud plugin into AudioKit Synth One.

    Hopefully, people support his generosity by buying copies of his apps in the app store.

  • @analog_matt said:
    Hot take:
    As more and more users move to AUv3, we're going to see less robust user interfaces built into sound generator apps.

    Right now, the hardcore AUv3 market is under 5k people.

    When Synth One adds AUv3, there's going to be an AUv3 Synth with 100,000+ users.

    100k+ users may expand the AUv3 market and awareness overnight.
    (Maybe, it will be the kick in the rear Apple needs to pay more attention to AUv3).

    Additionally, this will hopefully inspire developers to create additional controllers, via Host Apps or plugins.

    We're at the beginning of a tipping point.

    I so want an:

    ‘I’m hardcore AUv3’ - t shirt ;)

  • Modular design clearly sounds like the smartest approach for now and also very exciting. Bring it on!

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Dawdles said:

    @[Deleted User] said:
    Modular design clearly sounds like the smartest approach for now and also very exciting. Bring it on!

    If you dig constant app/view switching and more potential problems in to equations then yeah, bring on more separate function per AU :/ But that was always my number one bugbear on ios.... now suddenly people crave it? Someone needs to make a totally new AU host that actually justifies and feeds back in to all this modular enthusiasm. AUM isn’t really built very well as an environment for what people have evolved in to wanting to do with it now since AU picked up pace...

    It’s down to the host. View switching in a well done host should be as seemless as view switching in a standalone app. Hosts need to improve for the real benefits of AU to be felt.

  • @Dawdles said:
    ;) Room out there for both improvements :)

    Is there, though? It seems like the tide is going in the opposite direction, and two respected Devs have confirmed that in this thread.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Dawdles said:

    @ksound said:

    @Dawdles said:
    ;) Room out there for both improvements :)

    Is there, though? It seems like the tide is going in the opposite direction, and two respected Devs have confirmed that in this thread.

    Dunno. But Spacecraft is best thing I used on iOS in a lonnng time. Purely down to how fun it is to jam in it’s ‘all in one’ interface and treat it like any hardware standalone instrument. I have a feeling Drambo will hit me the same. If Spacecraft didn’t have the sequencer inside the app it’d feel totally different experience if using external sequencer AU and multiple windows and view switching and all that junk.... it’d still be cool but different experience and different results. Like it’s great in AUM, but for other reasons. Sometimes you gotta go backward to go forward..

    I don’t get that. Here are two pics of Spacecraft. One in host one standalone. Major difference?


  • edited July 2018
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Yes, if you only want to use one app at a time, obviously it's more efficient to have it be an all-in-one app. But once you want to start running multiple apps simultaneously (which is what 90% of the people here do most of the time), using self-contained standalone apps results in far more clumsy app-switching, instability and nasty inconsistencies wrt connectivity than using those same apps as AUv3 in a host.

  • If this no stand-alone model is the future why has it not disappeared in the desktop world?

  • @Dawdles said:

    @Fruitbat1919 said:

    @Dawdles said:

    @ksound said:

    @Dawdles said:
    ;) Room out there for both improvements :)

    Is there, though? It seems like the tide is going in the opposite direction, and two respected Devs have confirmed that in this thread.

    Dunno. But Spacecraft is best thing I used on iOS in a lonnng time. Purely down to how fun it is to jam in it’s ‘all in one’ interface and treat it like any hardware standalone instrument. I have a feeling Drambo will hit me the same. If Spacecraft didn’t have the sequencer inside the app it’d feel totally different experience if using external sequencer AU and multiple windows and view switching and all that junk.... it’d still be cool but different experience and different results. Like it’s great in AUM, but for other reasons. Sometimes you gotta go backward to go forward..

    I don’t get that. Here are two pics of Spacecraft. One in host one standalone. Major difference?


    I’m saying that it’s nice to have the spacecraft sequencer inside the app. Not as a separate AU. Like it’d be nice to have an omnichord keys mode inside a synth. Not as separate au. And how drambo will probably be great because it can work nicely as a self contained space.

    It’s just a workflow/focus thing. Unless a host comes along that somehow performs view switch miracles and makes super fluid organic routing possible then I want apps to be as selfcontained as possible. Why anyone would want to use two apps for something that one could potentially do inside itself is beyond me. It just promotes necessity for all the worst aspects of iOS workflow.

    Yes some apps need their controllers as part of the AU itself to be true to use concept. As seen though this is possible. The same is true of having any midi input device if desired. So in that sense we agree that some are best kept together, yet they can still be full screen AU with little difference to use and many advantages of AU. Some however are much more suitably split imo.

    The advantages of the split approach are many though and if done right, you would not notice the difference between using them as a standalone app.

    The host is the key to making the seperate feel just like using a singular app. The host needs always onscreen switching and a fast way of loading saves.

    If a certain design UI (midi interface input design) is important to an app, it can be sold as a packaged AU pack by the dev. As I say, it’s important that the host controls things well - most do not at this time as AU is still developing and many AU hosts have yet to catch up.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I'm actually a big hater of app switching. But I don't count swapping AU views inside a host as "app switching". In something like AUM, apeMatrix or even Cubasis, it's a simple matter of minimizing one panel and expanding another. That's hardly "app switching" in my books. It's simply a way of coping with screen size constraints.

  • You know what I'm happy with? External MIDI keys. Glad my problems were solved.

  • @Dawdles said:

    @brambos said:
    Yes, if you only want to use one app at a time, obviously it's more efficient to have it be an all-in-one app. But once you want to start running multiple apps simultaneously (which is what 90% of the people here do most of the time), using self-contained standalone apps results in far more clumsy app-switching, instability and nasty inconsistencies wrt connectivity than using those same apps as AUv3 in a host.

    That doesn’t really make sense. I use Spacecraft inside AUM with bunch of other apps, but I’m still really glad that it has it’s own sequencer and I don’t have to faff around to configure then repeatedly find and open a separate au for that...

    Promoting app separation on a platform where historically the separation of apps has been 99% of the workflow problem just seems like people have short memories ;) Some kind of incredible au host could potentially change my feelings on it, but nothing out there at the moment comes anywhere close to making me want to wish for more separate functions spread across ton of AUs...in iOS I’d way rather work with a small handful of largely self contained apps than 30 that combine to do the same job...even if that means sacrificing some modulation options or whatever. It starts to get not fun for me if I’m switching between a ton of apps... obviously just a subjective thing though, everyone has different tolerance levels etc.

    I definitely think that when a well designed host finally makes its way here, you may feel different. When the hosts and AU midi apps get really good, they should gel just as well as a stand alone app, yet you will just load a preset from the host that will be whatever you want it to be. Saves from the host will back up everything from sound design to input UI used. It’s probably hard to grasp the concept until it finally happens - if indeed we get that far. Apple could ruin it all for us at any time lol

  • There's what we might like, and then there's reality. Synth app makers often don't provide elaborate or innovative built-in controllers, and no reason to think that's going to change.

    I've never used an Omnichord, but I'd love to have a host like AUM where you can choose from a variety of touch screen controllers. Playing the standard piano keys interface on an iPad is one of my least favorite activities. If developers with imagination and some experience of playing an actual musical instrument could just focus on that one function, we'd get some more options that would be able to trigger any synth hosted. I see that as more likely than many devs suddenly building new controllers into their apps.

    I like if a standalone app has a great controller built-in (like GeoShred), but that's not going to happen often. I find AUM quick and easy. A modular approach would provide great flexibility.

  • edited July 2018
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @lovadamusic said:
    There's what we might like, and then there's reality. Synth app makers often don't provide elaborate or innovative built-in controllers, and no reason to think that's going to change.

    I've never used an Omnichord, but I'd love to have a host like AUM where you can choose from a variety of touch screen controllers. Playing the standard piano keys interface on an iPad is one of my least favorite activities. If developers with imagination and some experience of playing an actual musical instrument could just focus on that one function, we'd get some more options that would be able to trigger any synth hosted. I see that as more likely than many devs suddenly building new controllers into their apps.

    I like if a standalone app has a great controller built-in (like GeoShred), but that's not going to happen often. I find AUM quick and easy. A modular approach would provide great flexibility.

    Yep, just have the standalone host a midiFx AU controller.

  • @knewspeak said:

    @lovadamusic said:
    There's what we might like, and then there's reality. Synth app makers often don't provide elaborate or innovative built-in controllers, and no reason to think that's going to change.

    I've never used an Omnichord, but I'd love to have a host like AUM where you can choose from a variety of touch screen controllers. Playing the standard piano keys interface on an iPad is one of my least favorite activities. If developers with imagination and some experience of playing an actual musical instrument could just focus on that one function, we'd get some more options that would be able to trigger any synth hosted. I see that as more likely than many devs suddenly building new controllers into their apps.

    I like if a standalone app has a great controller built-in (like GeoShred), but that's not going to happen often. I find AUM quick and easy. A modular approach would provide great flexibility.

    Yep, just have the standalone host a midiFx AU controller.

    I like it. :)

  • Using AU midi controllers in host opens up all those wonderful touch screen iOS interfaces to be used at the load of a preset.

    Even self designed interfaces that could be saved and shared between us users. Imagine a KRFT style designer that controls any AU midi exposed from any AU app.

  • Also to take this approach one step further, we need more iOS specific hardware midi controllers. When the hosts get great, hopefully we will have some great hardware controllers join the party too.

Sign In or Register to comment.