Oh, how I want to buy an Aeros...but for ONE glaring deficiency

I’ve been using a BeatBuddy which is controlled through my Helix and it works absolutely seamlessly in the way it transparently integrates with my live performances when I change songs and within the structure of each song which is all controlled by the Helix. The next logical step would be to seamlessly integrate the Aeros in the same way for incorporating backtrack segments for any additional instruments I might need within a song. In investigating the integration of BeatBuddy and Aeros it looks so perfect in terms of having the BeatBuddy control and synchronize starting and ending and maybe even individual loop segments to match up with transitions within a song between verse and chorus for example. This would be perfect for me as I would MUCH prefer the BeatBuddy to handle all that integration than for the Helix to have to do it. But then…SCREEECH…massive roadblock.

There is no integration between the paradigm of song, intros, song segments, fills, or outros in BeatBuddy that maps to the capabilities in the Aeros. Now I realize the Aeros is considered a “looper” in a traditional sense, but realistically it’s far and away the best option for backtracks of any solution out there given it’s ability to integrate pre-recorded material. And I know for a FACT (being actively involved in the Line 6 and general modeling forums) I’m not alone in this. Even the MIDI Maestro isn’t capable of addressing this need because, apparently Singular Sound has a problem with deviating from the traditional paradigm of Aeros being a “looper” rather than what it could be.

I’ve followed the topics regarding the ability to add MIDI capabiities for selecting different pre-recorded tracks in Aeros and I’m very anxious to see where that goes and when it happens. My fear is that the Aeros product team may be stuck in the paradigm of traditional looping without recognizing it’s innate potential as a backtracking system that’s already 90% there and could be perfectly integrated with the BeatBuddy song paradigm.

1 Like

I don’t think Singular have an objection to making aeros more capable. They’re just still working on it.

MIDI support is weak, but planned for improvement very soon they tell us. Maybe that will get your what you want.

I understand. However, it’s not clear to me when I review the MIDI definitions they have for the Aeros that they have even considered what would be necessary to seamlessly integrate the BeatBuddy song based paradigm with the Aeros in the same way as they did with starting and ending a drum song with Aeros as a simple looper. I just hope to encourage them to do so.

1 Like

It’s hard to disagree with you.

For the ultimate integration we might need bidirectional midi between the BB and Aeros (or via a midi controller/router). One can dream…

1 Like

I can only speak for my needs, and I really can’t foresee any reason why I’d ever need something like that. In my situation I’m the one with the MIDI controller and am in control of the show based the music. Given that, I want BB (being the management facility for the tempo that all other elements must be driven by), I want to send BB the flow of the song and have it coordinate all other elements so they respond appropriately whether that’s the corresponding backing track elements through the Aeros or the lighting through a lighting controller with intelligent scenes.

I’ve been around MIDI enough to know you want to keep the flow of commands simple so that you don’t create a MIDI storm which becomes a mess to diagnose and fix.

Basically you can already accomplish this last scenario you are suggesting, it just requires careful planning of commands and making sure Aeros part# matches BB part #. If not I can see the issue, and we do plan on expanding ways to improve this via midi capacity and filtering on the Aeros.

As far as backing track support, we cannot currently support import of tracks and hope to get to that feature as soon as possible. However, we have many other features that are equally important to other users, and we must prioritize. One note is that we have taken a huge step in the right direction by removing the 2min 30 second limit per song part on a track in the current tested alpha and it is working rather smoothly, we just have some corner cases left to cover and it should be out soon, so progress is there!

Let me know if I’m missing something, thanks.

1 Like

I think the one correlation you’re missing is the behavior of loading a song on BB and loading a song on Aeros without any user interaction. As far as I could tell from the manual there’s no direct, transparent “loading” of an Aeros song like there is on BB.

1 Like

This would be great. My show is currently 100% versions of songs I’ve looped the parts of and it’s a pain to have to load the song 3 times (1x for lyrics / 1x for BB / 1x for Aeros).

It will be a welcome update to have a “song mode” update which would allow you to link BB and Aeros based on song name.

This should be ready very soon in the MIDI expansion release, but you are correct it is not available yet, missed that points thank you for clarifying!

We are nearly ready with a beta that expands the time limit from 2:30 to full song limit.

2 Likes

I just invested in this eco system and got the BB+pedal, Areos, and Midi Meastro. I’m wondering if the song time limit has been removed with a firmware release yet as I see this thread is rather recent and my pedals have not yet arrived but looking forward to new gear day.

Thanks.

Memory has been expanded in the latest release. Find release notes here:

1 Like

Excellent. Thank you :pray:

Likely not the right place for this but being a new member I cannot post a new thread yet and do not see this question on the forums after searching: but it’s very possible I missed it so please do forgive my ignorance as I get acclimated with this community.

Question: while I understand the Areos is not meant to be a full fledged DAW I was curious as to the design choice of limiting the user to having only 2x2 and 6x6. Is there a logical thought process which I’m missing that places this dichotomy before the users? Personally I’d think a user selection of x by y where the user could specify (up to an upper limit) the x and y values. Feels like that would provide the user more flexibility for the product.

Pretty sure I’m missing something but was wondering what the thoughts are around this as it may help improve my workflow.

Thank you :pray: for being patient with my ignorance.

6x6 is (probably) the technical limit. Like any other limit on our electronics, it’s determined by what resources are available… Memory, storage, processing speed. In terms of user operation, think about what would change for a, say 3x3 mode… The answer is very little. The buttons would all have the same function as they do in 6x6 mode (only change is the wrap around point when clicking through parts/tracks)… So I would imagine singular (sensibly I think) decided there’s no point in anything less than 6x6 mode - NxM mode would be 6x6 mode. Except for…

2x2 comes about because there are three buttons. One changes part, then the other two control recording of the two tracks. The resource limit here is physical buttons.

Now you might argue that 2x2 could quite easily be 6x2 … And you’re right, but if you’re offering the two modes as a “full” and “simple”, two parts is the ideal number because the vast majority of songs are verse/chorus in terms of chord sequences.

In short: 2x2 for simple. 6x6 for max features.

I almost exclusively use 2x2. But it’s nice to know the unit is capable of a lot more should I need it.

1 Like

There has been suggestions that the 6x6 mode should only display the current number of track (e.g. start with one, add another, add another … up to full size).

The tracks would get narrower as there were more of them

Some people want to specify the number of tracks in advance (and/or the number of parts). This would improve on he behavior of arming tracks for recording or playback as the count is known.

1 Like