New hybrid mode between freeform and quantized (AutoQuantize)

Aeros Loop Studio Feature Requests
1

Today with the 2.17.x the Aeros provides two very useful modes for various usages.

I like a lot the freeform mode as it corresponds more to the way I am using loopers (ie starting anytime, not even knowing the tempo or time signature of what I am doing), but I understand people may also like a lot the quantized mode, which for me certainly corresponds more to people willing to cover an existing song, knowing its time signature and tempo, or even song writers drafting their new creation. Probably people using BeatBuddy (I do not have one BeatBuddy, and as such what I am saying there is guessed) may prefer the quantized mode for its integration with their other beloved device…

Why not a third hybrid mode in between ?

I understand the quantized mode brings a lot, but when I start noodling/looping I don’t necessarily know what my tempo will be. Worse I could even perform multiple tries with different tempos. Generally I know at least what my time signature could be but definitely I do not want to prefill a tempo or attach a tempo to the current song…
Hence the introduction of a third mode a bit in between, and here would be the description of what that third mode would be as I see it:

Prerequisites (in song properties)

  • Enter the time signature only (no tempo predefined)

First track recording

  • Exactly like in freeform mode today. No count-in (or eventually start when jumping in), record directly, no bars on the display.
  • At the end of this first record, deduce the tempo from the duration of this first record an the pre-entered time signature only (no complex sound-wave analysis, just a basic division).

Other operations after first track recorded

  • Basically everything operates like today in the quantized mode, except that the tempo has been deduced from the first record…
  • Bars displayed like in quantized mode (it is actually a variant of the quantized mode, only the first record and pre-requisites differ)
  • Optionnaly other song parts may have the same feature or operate a bit more like currently the quantized mode (I would probably say the default should be like in quantized mode, customizable through song properties)

I do not see this potential third mode neither as drastic change in the flow, nor as something requiring a lot of development, as everything to build that mode seems basically already there.
But maybe I do not see correctly some of the internal constraints and especially interactions with a MIDI device and obviously BeatBuddy.

What do you think of that proposal ?

7 Likes
5

We do plan to build this feature. Most likely after we complete MIDI responsiveness and locked tracks.

2 Likes
6

I want this feature to make the aeros the Master clock of my midi setup.

1 Like
7

I agree that locked tracks is a far more important and expected feature.

2 Likes
8

So do I.
Will it be possible in a locked track to make different overdubs in different parts?

9

@yanarchy That’s an interesting question, but to keep things understandable, would probably better fit in it’s relevant topic.

11

we need a real full midi implementation. I don’t have a beatbuddy, I want to be able to integrate the aeros in my setup by having all the midi information so that all the equipment can dialogue and exploit their full potential.
From my point of view the looper must be the master of the rhythm in a setup, it must be able to transcribe a stable midi clock according to the loop that we created in freeform.

4 Likes
13

I agree that whatever is designed we need to have a clear published MIDI specifications. As I said, I’m not so much into MIDI, but reading your requirements I tried to figure out what the supported commands were, and was not able to find… anything. :frowning_face:

I definitely do not want an apple ecosystem where istupid can only connect to idummy devices. I come from the open source and free software world where inter-operations and clear published interface is the basic.

I’ve read @DavidPackouz mentioning in multiple threads, including this one, the “MIDI responsiveness” as being a priority. Once again I would say that what is beyond the marketing sentence is not clear. I would definitely prefer something like, “We will comply with MIDI protocol and here are the messages we will support, and those we will send”…

14

Very helpful. Please realize with high priority

15

I admit to being very disappointed, it will soon be the anniversary of my pre-order and I am expecting a lot from the midi capacities of the aeros. But there is nothing … nothing … :sleepy:

16

+1. Good feature. Even though division is not necessary to work. This first loop is the basic track. All further ones are a multiple of this. See also @popa.

17

Hello @BrennanSingularSound.
Could you please consider tagging this request ?

2 Likes
18

This was implemented in version 5.0.x! We are now in 5.1.1 soon to release 5.2.x as beta :tada::tada::tada:

1 Like