Thank you for the thorough post, we are looking into it!
This is what we want to do.
We hope to add a clear track layer to the held undo command, this would provide a solution for needing to re-record a track to freeform. More on this soon.
1 Like
Cool 
You mean, instead of current “undo” ? An “undo” without a “redo” or an extra level of “undo” ?
Correct! like a clearing option in three layers, undo top layer> undo base layer > clear track
We understand this is a mid-way fix for the logic not recognizing the undone tracks as one would expect, but that may take time to fix.
Then I am sorry @BrennanSingularSound that I have to say, that I strongly disagree with this proposal, and I think there are good reasons for that.
Facts:
It doesn’t solve anything for the first levels of undo. There will still be for those levels the exact same problem I have been describing. Meaning that if I plan to “undo” something to re-record in a viable mode, my only option becomes now to use this last level of “undo” (what you refer as the third layer).
So it triggers a couple of questions.
- Do we agree that if I “undo” something, in the obvious purpose of re-recording something, my only option is to “undo” the track, with no possibility to “redo” ?
- As the current way to “undo” is kept as it is for the the two first layers, and that I can’t re-record anything correct in these modes, their only purpose becomes then to be able to do “redo”. Can I then ask you something ? What is the point of an “undo” which only purpose is to do be able to do “redo”
? Sounds a lot like mute/unmute to me…
Looks like it’s game over there…
So For me it means the following:
- You are de facto dropping the “redo” feature for the only real “undo” flow.
- You keep broken flows (the first two), which become even more useless.
Is there somewhere I am wrong ?
@LaurentB thank you for your deep thought on this matter and laying everything out in such detail and clarity.
Regarding the Next Part command while recording: I agree. We will disable mixer access with a long hold while recording so this can be on the downpress.
Regarding the undo/redo/re-recording issue, the main debate I see is, do we want:
3 levels of undo, with 3rd level being a complete ‘clear track’:
Advantage: Keeps redo hands free
Disadvantage: You must wait until the 3rd level of clear track to have an accurate ‘re-record’ (more time) – and this may cause frustration in users who are not aware of the necessity of the clear track for an accurate re-record.
OR
Redo is a touchscreen only command - you touch the waveform to redo:
Advantage: all re-recording is on the downpress at all times. Everything is more consistent.
Disadvantage: you have to bend down and touch the screen for the redo command.
I am personally leaning towards @LaurentB’s suggestion of redo as a touchscreen command because I think redo is a rare situation where you did undo by accident. My only hesitation is that quantized mode users do not have the re-record timing problem at all because everything is cued at the end of the measure and they won’t like having the redo command relegated to the touchscreen.
I do not want to make the system work differently in quantized mode and freeform mode because that would cause massive complexity and likely cause many bugs as the modes diverge in operating procedures.
If anyone has any other suggestions to solve this problem, I would love to hear them.
Otherwise, we will probably go with @LaurentB’s suggestion of redo as a touchscreen (and MIDI) command.
2 Likes
@DavidPackouz, @BrennanSingularSound
Thank you for acknowledging my analysis. It’s always nice to see that if you voice valid and argued concerns there are people to take them in account.
Nevertheless, I don’t think the trip stops there… (I see you scared 
).
You are expressing a very valid concern David, which is:
So I agree with you. If I would be a user of the quantized-mode, I would definitily not like this (necessary) decision.
But is there a way we could go even further, keep a consistency between the quantized and freeform mode in terms of features while not removing features from the quantized mode and of course addressing the issue we are discussing there ?
Good news, I believe we can.
Everything I layed out in this topic is true for the first track of a song part. Then things are a bit different. And would say that after the recording of that initial track, freeform and quantized modes have much more in common, and especially if in the freeform mode you activate the “Sync tracks start & length” setting (which is by far my preferred mode as it has a little flavour of the hybrid mode I had requested prior to this last release).
So my proposal is to, instead of thinking the problem we are discussing in terms of quantized vs freeform, why don’t we think it in terms of immediacy vs deferment 
?
If the settings (“Sync tracks start & length”, and possibly some others), the mode (quantized vs freeform) and the context (first track vs others) define what we would call an “immediate-action mode”, then everything we said here has to be applied in this mode (master rule applies and secondary actions have to be removed from re-record start and stop button, leading here to the “redo” relegated to the touchscreen…). And if we are not in such a mode (like in quantized mode or for subsequent tracks if synced to start and length in freeform mode), we do not need to apply this master rule at all and can keep the current behavior as it is… That would sound a lot like the best of both worlds.
I don’t really think it complexifies the usage, as the user feels this sense of immediacy depending on the settings/mode/context… I mean, he knows what he defined and the impact it has on when he has to click on this or this…
Now, I’m not saying, this is as priority as what I emphasized earlier in this topic, but I think it definitely worth for you to think about it now, and run an in-depth analysis. And even if at first sight, it may look like a complexification of your code, it is maybe not and actually maybe even a clarification… That could potentially lead eventually to a simplification of settings to be exposed to the end-user…
@LaurentB I am concerned that this over complicates things. sometimes redo works on a hold and sometimes it doesn’t? depending on settings?!! Imagine trying to explain that in the quickstart guide to a new user 
I would prefer to keep everything as consistent as possible.
Thanks for the feedback
Obviously this requires a bit of thinking and for example an icon on the screen showing in real-time if we are in immediacy-mode or deferment-mode could do the trick. The internal complexity has not to be exposed to the user and the quickstart guide would just mention the behavior regarding the presence or not of that icon on screen…
I don’t think it’s a bad idea, because today the behavior relies on a combination of so many things (mode/settings) that even if you know it’s not so obvious…
But honestly I won’t struggle for that, I’m fine with what we discussed previously, it was just an idea that I thought if implemented right, could even simplify the understanding from the user point of view. If you don’t, fair enough, I let you write the quickstart guide to explain the combination of settings/modes 
1 Like
I have never in my life read and returned to an online forum as often and with as much interest as I have since the Aeros came out. I was ecstatic about this looper when watching the videos and immediately started sharing my excitement with friends. What this looper potentially makes possible is nothing short of game-changing to me… and that is coming from a very satisfied Boomerang III owner of 6 years!
All of that said… I have not pulled the trigger yet… and I won’t until these types of issues are fixed. I sooooo want this to work. I have never wanted a business/tech venture to be as successful as I want the Areos to be. I appreciate the work you are putting into and I look forward to all of that coming to fruition into a product that inspires the awe and confidence it deserves. I’m still waiting (and I tell my friends to wait) until the day you reach that.
I also appreciate all the hard and patient work of those like LaurentB who clearly have an interest in your success.
I have never written like this on a forum…or of any product. Guess there is a first for eveything.
2 Likes
Wow, you made my day (actually night here in France). And I must admit that it is a first time for me too. I never ever contributed to any forum like that before or even thought about saying thank you to a company I bought something from.
And the reason why is that, first of all I want the success of the Aeros too, because like many people here I really feel it’s a disruptive game changer, but as well because this is a place it’s possible to actually contribute, not just applause at a keynote.
I’m reaching one month with the Aeros, and honestly in the beginning I clearly thought I would return it because of so many things not really working like they should have.
One month later not everything changed of course, but things already greatly improved and more importantly I am now convinced it will go towards the right direction.
Obviously I can understand your wait-and-see approach, and hope to see all these issues fixed soon, and of course I do not forget about people expecting the long awaited MIDI implementation. Tough work ahead @DavidPackouz and all team !
3 Likes
Clearly, this device must quickly grow towards its expected functionality with exemplary reliability. There are too many people who doubt about the professionalism of this looper. He came out immature and now has to change that reputation by working hard.
1 Like
We thoroughly appreciate the feedback, the insight, and all the support we get from our community! Thank you all for believing in what we think is the future of looping!
2 Likes
It seems there’s basically two kinds of Aeros users - one using quantized, click-track modes (which I think? includes Beat Buddy users), the other freeform. I think these are analogous to LaurentB’s "immediacy-mode"or “deferment-mode.” Some users may switch between the two modes - don’t know about that.
Since users appear to fall into these two categories it seems sensible to have separate sections In the quickstart guide & manual, one “For Quantized/Beat Buddy Use” & one “For Freeform Use.” Had this existed I believe I would’ve saved much time over the last month figuring things out. Such targeted instruction materials may allow you (minus programming constraints) to have actions keyed to different functions in the different modes while at the same time actually simplifying the learning curve for those like myself (& probably many others) who never intend to use quanitization or Beat Buddy. It could simplify things for quantize users too.
That leads to my last thought. It appears making a device the size of Aeros (which is great - I too don’t want to have to get another pedal to make this pedal work) be all things to all people is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. A solution would be to offer two Aeros versions: 1.) Program the crap out the Aeros to make it work like a dream machine for us freeformers. Not having all those conflicting functionality/programming needs for non-freeform use allows this. 2.) Do the same for the version optimized for quantization/Beat Buddy use. Not having freeform functionality needs may allow you to add features so players not wanting Midi Maestro won’t need it. You wouldn’t need to make a new Aeros - just two separately programmed versions of the same device that would satisfy a vast range of looper enthusiasts. No one would have any reason not to buy it (except for $ of course)! I have the Aeros but am waffling around returning it because of the freeform issues. I’d buy one programmed for flawless freeform use in a heartbeat nanosecond.
1 Like
Very interesting indeed.
Yet I do not see such a strict split between the 2 modes of the Aeros. It is true that those two behaviors are pretty different but they actually share a lot in common (I even already pushed for a third “hybrid mode” where you could, I think, get the best of both worlds).
I see the Aeros as a pretty versatile hardware platform, and what we can get out of it is actually to be written. I do not really see any conflicting features between the quantized mode, the freeform mode or even the potential future hybrid mode, but I understand the need for @DavidPackouz and @BrennanSingularSound to streamline the ideas so that functionalities are exposed to the user in a consistent and meaningful manner, hence sometimes some replies where they will say things like “we don’t want to do that because of quantized mode or MIDI or whatever”… where they should probably say “we can do this but we have to find a consistent way to expose it so that it remains valid/understandable across the different modes…”
As long as it is not an excuse for not implementing something necessary but only to offer the best possible user experience, I’m fine with it, and I can hear arguments.
I will probably not become a user of the quantized mode, but I could definitely become a user of the potential hybrid mode (which if you think about it is reallllly close to the quantized mode), and the idea to have an evolutive platform which enables these kind of innovations is clearly one of the key driver for me to have chosen the Aeros, and I would definitely not like a scattered ecosystem where you would have an Aeros for midi-ers, Aeros for covers, Aeros for improvisers…
Like you, I am waiting for a flawless freeform mode, and I think it’s on a good trend now. Voicing our concerns in topics like this one for example about the fact on-press events for recording actions are not negotiable make things progress in the right direction, and I think it has been heard and agreed now.
P.S. Please forgive me for shamelessly pushing for the hybrid mode 
… Hummm 
did I again ?
1 Like
Hello @DavidPackouz,
@BrennanSingularSound mentioned here that the fix for the “next part” was in test (
). Does it cover the re-record flows too ?
Is there a date for a 3.0.1 (or 3.1.0 whatever…) ?
We don’t have enough buttons for all the actions we want to do quickly and/or in real-time. Probably need at least one button for a multi-use with on-release, hold, double tap, etc. In this case the mixer on-hold action which means that button cannot be used for an on-press (unless we always want to activate the on-press action before entering the mixer). So we get boxed in with things like “next part” that some people really need to be on-press.
Perhaps we can give the user another way to trigger this action with precise timing (on-press). Getting to to on-press version of “next part” will take an extra step, but once you had it ready, it would be real-time.
So here’s one way. I’m sure there are other ways/variations
- Step one - Get Ready: User double taps bottom left button.
- At this point “Next Part Now” is ready! Footswitch menus change to: “Next Part NOW” , “Select Song” , “Delete Track >”. (Play/Stop AlL button turns to an Exit button with an onscreen label.). Note that the specific labels and actions are not important and should change.
- Step Two - Do it: Pressing the left button “Next Part NOW” triggers the next part in real time
(The above is similar to Hands-free song selection with @BrennanSingularSound idea to keep hold fior quick mixer acess …so we use doiuble tap).
Whatever the solution, I hope it allows the Aeros to do more in the future without repeatedly dealing with this hard issue.
This is no longer an issue, don’t worry about next part, we are working on the other cases for immediacy as well.
2 Likes
Another option (with added expense) is if a two (or three) button external switch could be utilized instead of an expression pedal, the undo/redo command could be routed to one of those switches and the re-record command stay at the respective on board switch. This is the way they Pigtronix’Infinity works.
If it were possible, this is a much less added expense than a midi control pedal or the Maestro pedal.
1 Like