Hands-free song selection

What you find logical may be debatable as you would probably get as many answers as users there. One thing is sure, and this is what I just emphasized by my stupid joke to @DavidPackouz about collector Aeros, is that there is absolutely no reason for that button to be hardcoded to any specific action (Play/Stop All)… And I personally clearly agree to your approach which for me seems logical too.

Still about that looper mode, another thing that probably needs to be clarified is the role of the bottom left button.
You mention in the diagram that you can freely create parts and tracks there.
I think the behavior and boundaries should be a bit more defined, although I can see the power of the mechanism.
Another point about that button behavior, is that I guess this is only valid for an empty song, and becomes more a navigational thing in the scope of a stopped song, or do you imagine modifying “live” the TxP signature of an already recorded song (probably too complex) ?

Wow, just getting back after being away. Really impressive work on the controls. Can’t wait to dive into it tonight when I get home. Thanks guys.

Yes, I imagine be able to modifie “live” the TxP signature of an already recorded song. Each click on « plus » ad a new track or new part.
I don’t understand why the system limit us with 6x6.

I guess you probably mean increase as reducing TxP may actually imply deleting already recorded tracks/parts and introduces the need of multiple checks to be performed as well as potential user confirmation before deletion, then you may want as well the possibility to undo etc…
And even if you just allow to increase TxP, and actually do it “by mistake”, you may want to come back to the original state, thus implying the need for deletion or undo… Honestly it sounds far too complex to me and as such I doubt modifying an existing song TxP is likely to happen… at least in the flow you describe (we could imagine as part of song management that we could duplicate a song and change its target TxP at that time without then the need to provide undo mechanism)…
But it remains a very good idea and a way to define the famous already discussed “matrix” feature for empty songs… and that would already be great.

If you talk about T <= 6 and P <= 6, I fully agree, I see no reason why we couldn’t have this. But if you imagine expanding further than 6x6, then other considerations come to my mind:

  • Impact in the UI. more than 6 tracks or parts would imply a kind of scrolling in the UI, and this is not probably what we want.
  • Specs of the hardware. I have no idea what the specs of the Aeros are in terms of bus, RAM or CPU… and we may reach some limitations. @DavidPackouz: Do you think it would be possible that you disclose some of those characteristics of the hardware specs somehow (maybe it’s even already published somewhere, but I didn’t find this information, I mean beyond just the storage specs) ? Just at least to have an idea of what is realistic to expect from the platform ?

Honestly I never felt yet the need to go further than 6x6, but maybe someone else did. I would then be very curious… Is it still the a looper or is it a full-blown DAW that you need in this case ?

1 Like

I’d like to remind you we’re in the Aeros Feature Requests section of the forum!

This is definitely a possibility! I don’t like the idea for playing state however, because the immediacy of the mixer is important.

Not sure I’d agree with your findings, this sounds like a personal taste, I can see what David thinks.

If you feel this way, imagine how we feel!
I don’t think the Aeros will be changing from max 6 tracks.

We can tell you that it is at the limits for what the Aeros can do, we are leaving a little headroom for more features.

The Aeros is a pedal limitations are good, no limits makes a product confusing imo, this needs to be a pedal for everyone, not just the pedal/tech savvy.


You might want to keep “hold” to bring up the mixer fast. You could use “double tap” to change the labels to allow New Song, etc.

Ideally the gestures (e.g., hold for mix, double tap for extra actions) are consistent from page to page and whether or not you are playing. It’s pretty confusing and hard to remember if things change.

if we mistakenly create a track or a part, whatever, we don’t use it, no need to delete it.
For the number of tracks and tracks, I find the maximum number of tracks sufficient (6). for the number of parts, I do not see the interest of 6. Depending on the songs you can have a part or 10.Musically I do not understand to impose 6 parts.

Prove me the capabilities of the aeros. Without asking extraordinary things, I am still sorry that I cannot record more than 2: 30min.

Have you tried mono?

I didn’t say that I liked everything in the proposal, far from it, but you cannot deny:

  1. It’s consistent
  2. It’s there !

As such it cannot be rejected as a whole. Of course the details have to be carefully studied and even if there are many things that I do not need at all in the proposal (like chaining songs for example. I prefer to have a quick and efficient navigation mechanism between songs. I mostly do not record anything apart from temporarily keeping an idea, and I use the looper as a looper and basically recreate all my loops live every time and if I want to use a backing-track then I just use a backing-track, not a looper), I can understand some of the needs and at least see the goal.

The proposal states a number of interesting ideas and some less imho:

  • EOL management is an interesting point. I don’t understand why this is not part of the song config in the proposal. It would just be an extension of the existing setting… I didn’t think to it myself as a song config, as I was only focusing on the possibility to fade out, and as such was more thinking about it as a live setting (during the loop session). Definitely a topic to address.
  • Hands-free song management is clearly a good idea, yet I think it lacks things like duplicate song, or save as. Basically I think being able to change TxP while duplicating a song would be interesting. It would address the common pattern which is: I started a song in 2x2 and then I feel like I need more tracks/parts…
  • I don’t have much to say about the mixer stuff apart from the fact I do not really understand the concept of mixing without the song actually playing… as you have no feedback… Nevertheless the routing/panning config is maybe important, but again this is more something I feel like should be done live more than prior starting looping…
  • Being able to quickly edit song config hands-free is a pretty good idea, although it will definitely require to change the wheel sensitivity when scrolling, because scrolling to the bottom of the screen takes ages today if you just use the wheel and not the touch screen…
  • Having the main screen acting as a router to different screens is clearly a good idea, but direct access to a number of features from this screen have to be preserved (current song reset for example, here in the proposal afau, it requires to navigate to to song management to do it…).

I never requested more than 6x6. Honestly I think that if you need more than 6 parts in a song, you’d really better consider doing that in a DAW (ableton live + pads and midi switches for example… or ALK2 from zenaudio which seems pretty interesting) yet the idea of being able to define a matrix from 2x2 up to 6x6 has been proposed numerous times on the forum and it definitely sounds like a good idea… I will try to issue a consistent proposal on this specific subject, as I would like to see something a bit more dynamic than just a song setup parameter. Stay tuned :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think you can see in my previous reply to @BrennanSingularSound about this… If you produce live songs that have more than 6 parts or so, then you should probably find a great interest in turning to live oriented DAWs. I agree with him, that this is a pedal we are discussing about.


Good news (for you :wink: ). After reviewing more in detail the 6x6 mode, apart from the non-compliance with the Master Rule (i.e. time-sensitive commands bound to on-press events only) that is still to be fixed, I think that I kind of like it as it is… modulo some pending requests, in the end my concerns are pretty minor or already discussed elsewhere.

  • Maybe in the song config, the choice 2x2 vs 6x6 could deserve to be clarified by Simple(2x2) vs Advanced(up to 6x6)
  • It would clearly be interesting to have the possibility to duplicate a song, and as part of that duplication feature, to be able to change the target PxT. For that I will probably try to clarify the expected behavior when choosing a target PxT in another topic (yet it doesn’t prevent implementing a simple song duplication already…), but I will wait for a decision about the navigation improvements in 6x6 to avoid adding noise to the discussion.

That changes nothing.

Of course we are discussing about a pedal. I do not understand the limit of parts, it does not require any additional resources. So what’s the point? To say that we set limits because it is a pedal? let’s see, this product came out with a big screen, touch screen, a wheel, it is innovative and you explain to me that 2:30 per track and 6 parts maximum is good? Take a jamman, see how many we can record and how many we can chain together.

Laurent, as I mention on the bottom of the draw, EOL performance mode, it’s made to be accessed and modify quickly live (what I call performance). This page could open an infini possibility of « effects » to finish a song.

Ok, I absolutely didn’t understand in the first place that, within your chart, the EOL configuration screen as well as the Mixer screens were actually meant to be triggered from elsewhere than from the screen represented on your chart (i.e. when a song is stopped or not yet started). The fact you have been choosing this picture to represent it was probably misleading, at least for me:
Now I realize why you have called it the “looper mode” whereas for me it was simply the “Main screen”… and it definitely makes more sense at least for the EOL screen.

But this triggers then some new tough questions as well.
If now the state you represent as the “looper mode” shows the functions attached to the buttons even during a loop session then what about mute/unmute (relegated to the mixer screen ??), undo ? And how do yo manage the transitional states where today you can cancel rec or cancel next part… ?

The looper mode page is the main page. From this page we can go to the EOL pages, to the mixer page, and to all the other pages because it is the main page.

For the mute / unmute functions, this happens on the mixer page.

My position to respond to a logical worflow and direct commands (for all actions that require instant execution, play / stop / rec / …) was to divide the “pages” into five families (this is explained in bottom of the diagram).
-looper mode (play rec …)
-mixer page (mute unmute volumes pan …)
-EOL (fade chain effects …)
-song management (files management …)
-settings (all adjustments not necessary during a performance)

This is exactly where I think I start to diverge, when talking about core features relegated to secondary screens… But I could give it a try if everything else is consistent.

You actually didn’t reply to this. Please clarify, but for me looks like you forgot this part, and I don’t see where it could fit exactly. Even if cancelling recording or switching to next part before it actually occurs may seem a bit side features at first sight, I know I use that all the time. I didn’t really figure out an easy solution and I 'm not saying it’s not possible, but it’s missing in your proposal.
The undo is a very important and core flow. I couldn’t find anything related in your proposal.

Then on a more practical/ergonomic front, I would definitely vote for an inversion between the rightmost buttons in both the “looper mode” and “mixer mode” screens:

And the reason for that is it’s better to have the most used of the two buttons on the outside (rightmost)… I have large feet and I regularly make errors when targeting the middle button… So the less it is used the better…

For mute/unmute, it’s better to affiliate this with the mixer to have a global view of track’s state.
For undo, if it’s compatible with the press mode of the « Rec/overdub » button , we can use the double tap fonction.
For the part erease, what do you think about an 3sec hold « next track » button with a confirmation message (because hold 1sec->next part)?

For the invertion, why not? I have small feet :laughing: