Re: Looper developer looking for opinions on some interface questions

[Per Boysen <perboysen@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Michael Tyson <michael@atastypixel.com> 
wrote:
> This is where I'd love some opinions on some interaction ideas I'm 
>working on:  I'm planning support for count-in, as well as auto-punch 
>out on the next full loop.

If I understand your concept of "count-in" it is equal to what Ableton
Live and the pioneering looper EDP calls Quantization? I.e.
quantization of the execution of a command, not quantization of audio
playback.


> Currently, you punch in and punch out (toggle), by tapping the center of 
>a track.
>
> As loopers, what do you think is a reasonable approach to begin 
>count-in, and specify an auto-end length?

I'd prefer a different general approach; Not specifying an auto-end
length for the first loop you create, but rather setting the loop
point on the fly by the second tap.


> One option I'm considering is tapping with 2 fingers, anywhere on the 
>track, to come in at the start of the next loop.
>

That's great idea!

> From there, there are two options: Either auto-punch out at the end of 
>the loop (1 loop cycle), or just keep on overdubbing until tapped to 
>finish.  Is one better than another?

Both are common and useful looping actions. If I had to chose one of
them I would definitely chose "keep on overdubbing until tapped to
finish". The result of "auto-punch out at the end" can be reached
anyway by tapping any time before the loop point.

The situation I can imagine where "auto-punch out at the end " would
be almost "a must" is when working with extremely short loop length to
achieve a glitchy sounding texture.


> I'm thinking about being able to specify how long you want to record 
>for, as well, maybe via successive taps - so, for example, if one tap 
>could start at the next loop, and keep recording until you tap to stop, 
>then *two* taps tells the app to come in at the next loop, and then 
>record for one loop.  If you tap 3 times, then that means come in at the 
>next loop, then record for *two* loops, and so on.
>
> What do you think?  Does that work?  Is it viable, in a performance 
>environment?

To me it sounds too complicated. I would prefer simply setting loop
length on the fly as you close the first loop by setting its loop
point -  and have Loopy adapt to the set loop length for the rest of
the session.

Any chance for additional features like "instantly multiply/divide
loop length" by a factor of 2 o 3?

Greetings from Sweden

Per Boysen
www.boysen.se
www.perboysen.com
www.looproom.com internet music hub