Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.
Download on the App StoreAudiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
Comments
Can we list 3-5 specific features we'd like to see added? I think the opportunity is now.
Swing?
More Scales?
Note Parameter Autmations?
That's pretty much the 4Pockets business model and they are doing well putting out apps while the other IOS focus shops have really slowed down. Of course there will always be the developers that create for the joy of creation and don't care as much about the ROI.
I own a folder of 4Pockets apps but honestly none of them are on my 1st string team.
At least this one is teaching me more about the better desktop tools and different ways of thinking about rhythm.
I'm working on how to use the MIDI INPUT capabilities and crashing it a lot with too much input.
It's @jonmoore... we expect you to being pushing hard and sharing strong opinions. It does add heat to the conversation.
@jonmoore: You have all the great tools (with a pro desktop capable studio) but most here are IOS exclusive so we often appreciate anything innovative coming to IOS. This is a useful app to get excited about a project. It's one of those apps that just serves up something interesting but has depth that can be investigated with extra effort. It's only $8.
casual poorly considered chatter removed
For comparison, the average price of Max for Live apps are $10 and $8 is the intro price. And anyway price isn't the issue here. If you call your product Euclidean Sequencer and then optimise the workflow so that it's no longer functioning as a Euclidean sequencer, that's a problem (IMO).
@jonmoore: you always make me think deeply with your provocative positions.
Just curious for more context: What's involved in hacking together a Max for Live app? Is there a free programming framework since many platforms are targets, right? Or does it require the developer to code in Xcode for Mac OS, Windows {Whatever} for Windows 10 (is it?) and maybe if it's offered a Linux environment?
For me price is always an issue. Most of us here are seriously concerned with our spend because it's a hobby with no ROI.
Interesting... you have a talent for positioning. We just don't get as many choices as the big dogs so we're a lot less strict about these things. Paul seems to be riding user feedback and
adding new features while the app has a lot of buzz. I don't think adding a reset feature really breaks anything and some will like being able to align the patterns on a precise point.
If it offends your sensibilities... don't ever press it but allow me to.
Anyway... lets see if there's another round of updates adding swing and the other requested ideas.
Keeping this thread active actually helps keep the buzz alive. But we can also scare away potential buyers with complaints... can't be helped really. Remember what I mentioned about "price being an issue"... folks don't want to waste their resources or buy something they won't/can't use effectively.
casual poorly considered chatter removed
Max for Live is powered by a visual programming language that's bundled with Ableton Live but also exists as a standalone product called Cycling'74 Max. Cycling'74 is an independent company, and Max itself has a heritage that goes all the way back to the 80's when it was first created by the IRCAM institute in Paris. Cycling'74 are now owned by Ableton, but as mentioned, they're run as an independent company much as they were before Ableton ownership.
But that doesn't necessarily make it something that enables quicker product development in comparison to Xcode with a bunch of frameworks (in Pauls case, he seems to have created his own set 'modules' that enables him to rapidly iterate changes).
Max is a very deep visual programming language but it has its own C-like text programming language within it called Gen and a Javascript API too. Most commercial Max for Live addons makes use of text programming as well as visual programming.
With regard to the resetting of the clock rings on new chord entry that's not the thing that breaks Euclidean Sequencer for me, but it's a key example of where Paul's focus has been as he's iterated on his initial release. As @gusgranite and @Pierre118 mentioned, there are already plenty of auto-accompaniment/arpeggiator style MIDI apps on iOS. And the key use-case of a Euclidean Sequencer is polyrhythmic rhythm programming. Very little of Paul's emphasis with regards to his rapid post-launch iterations have been with regard to rhythm programming. And some like the resetting of the clock rings are features that actively break the polyrhythmic nature of Euclidean sequencers.
Melodic content via a Euclidean sequencer is possible but it's not as effective as with percussive content. I'd go so far as to say that the melodic content that works best is melodic content that's emphasising the percussive pulse.
I'll write a post later today highlighting the features that I believe will improve Euclidean Sequencer for rhythm programming. I want to first reflect on this, as I need to think about how they might function within the UI/UX framework Paul currently has in place.
Thank you for the detailed and considered reply. I do recall IRCAM and CCRMA and the academic consideration of computer music so this reminded me of the context for MAX.
I hope this effort produces benefits for you in the long run. But I will continue to be educated in any event. I won't hold you to this if something comes up as it often does.
@McD
Regarding price, I think it's worth setting out the way I feel about the pricing of music production apps on iOS. In general, I think that apps are marketing at too low a price, and price should never be a reason for customers to accept substandard apps.
The idea that iOS is somehow different to the desktop in terms that it has more hobbyists - I find that argument bogus. 95% of the customers that purchase DAW's and plugins on desktop OS's are hobbyists too. The pricing of plugins are such that developers can focus on the quality of their output whilst getting a reasonable return that enables them to put food on the table. There are only a few large companies making products for music production on desktop OS's. The vast majority of innovative vendors are sole traders or partnerships. Take Audio Damage, that's a two-man partnership.
The difficulty on iOS with regards to music production apps is that the early innovator's released products when Apple was actively pushing the $1 app ecosystem. And since that point, the developers that have stayed in business are those that have gradually increased the price of their apps.
But things don't necessarily need to be super expensive. Most of what I buy for desktop OS's are products priced at between $10 and $50. Valhalla DSP releases their class-leading reverbs for $50 and never have to discount. If they released them on iOS I'd buy them in a heartbeat at the same price.
The latest iOS devices are seriously performant computing devices and it's time that vendors started releasing products that are uncompromised in comparison to their desktop peers. The thing I hate most about iOS are developers that create great products but then stop developing them because the price point they originally choose wasn't enough to provide a reasonable return.
It's great to see the likes of Loopy Pro being marketed at a reasonable price as it means that the developer can devote enough time to creating class-leading products. The amount of post-launch development that's gone into Loopy Pro in the last 6 weeks or so is phenomenal. Only yesterday a new beta dropped with IAA support and a host of other features. And the great thing about the Loopy Pro development cycle is that there's a rapid iteration of beta releases making it to an official release on the official App Store. It's all about nice bite-sized enhancements that can quickly be tested for bugs. Far better than major leviathan enhancements that take six months of shoddy App Store releases to finally be fit for purpose.
But I digress. The main point is that I don't consider price when judging the quality of iOS apps. Sure I check my monthly app spend to see if I'm spending too much, but app quality is judged separately. And these days I expect the quality should have parity with the desktop equivalent product. I'm prepared to pay for quality apps and spend less on apps overall, but I won't accept substandard apps just because they're cheap (btw I'm not suggesting Euclidean Sequencer as substandard, it's just that it doesn't excel at a Euclidean sequencers core use-case).
I love it when we get a comprehensive essay in response to some casual poorly considered chatter.
I get a lot of your points.
I can see the long term benefits of IOS maturing as a product marketplace. I do love really well crafted apps and probably only consider a handful to be well crafted.
When one product defines a new app space we often see superior implementations move in to capture some of the excitement (i.e. customer spend).
Warwick Arts Centre!
.
That brilliant had overlooked some apps that I could poer with Euclidean sequencer and if cutoff and res were rigged to lfos wow the potential
I think it is OK to feedback to @4Pockets while they define their apps. They often start as ideas with huge potential. And yes, sometimes I feel they do not quite make it across the finish line (e.g. Drum Surgeon, Helium, Neon - IMO)
They are a different type of developer to people like Brambos or TB who have a very clear vision and design goal on release. 4Pockets tend to fill gaps in the market quickly when they see them and then kind of build it in the air. At an amazing rate!
I do like this Euclidean app a lot. But I do think it is OK to give feedback while it is in the ‘being modded’ phase.
Love it! Who needs Stadium Rock when you've gigs of that nature down the local arts center.
It's totally ok to give constructive feedback, I haven't bought this yet because of it's shortcomings and because of the ui problems in 4pockets apps. I'm tempted but think it might be one I drop using quite quickly.
I wish it had a demo version ideally.
Version 1.03 is out:
Added Load and Save defaults option to settings.
Default settings are loaded when a new session is created.
The selected scale presentation on the editor keyboard is now colour coded for each band.
Added an Event limit marker within the editor.
Pages P1 and P2 on the controller lane are now 1+ and 33+.
Added experimental 1.5x and 3x multipliers to each band speed.
Improved the Randomize Speed to almost instant.
Added a PolyRhythm and PolyMeter mode toggle (See help).
Fixed an issue with moved notes not sticking after changing pattern.
In controller mode, if a controller is set to 'Step' then all steps with notes are highlighted (PolyMeter mode only).
Lots of help manual spelling corrections.
Made Event knobs A-D accessible via AU params.
Added experimantal scales which are intended for drones etc.
Extended the chords menu adding 7th and 6th chords
Modified the chord and scale menus to be scrollable to account for reduced interface height.
Changed the Clear button for a delete icon to reduce size and increased Scale description width.
Disabling 'Notes' in the randomize window also deselects velocity and probability.
There's a new video from 4pockets:
Great update, request for AU parameters for all knobs please.
Great update - after my initial thread complaint about Polymeter not being Polyrhythm ,
I must thank 4pockets for adding a true Polyrhythm mode ,
it makes my musical experiments a lot easier (& with less maths)
more to < hedging my bets > true Polyrhythms not Polymeters anyway ,
& just makes more sense to me -
& from my brief perusal of Toussaint’s Euclidean paper it seems his work refers (edit
so the whole ‘marketing’ of various polymetric only sequencers seems confused , but not 4Pockets Euclidean anymore ..hurrah .
The ability to turn off certain notes by (adding note &) lowering velocity to zero is obviously useful ,
but fiddly on the Piano Roll,
& there seems to be bug / inconsistency that when trying to do the same on NoteVelocity modulation page the
value can only be lowered to 1 , not 0 & the note still sounds .
Ideally it would be possible to lower to 0 on this page, & as this page refers to Steps ? I think - maybe we wouldn’t
have to even add a Note in Piano Roll (to overide Default Note) just to turn it off ! thinking particularly about step 1 so not ALL parts play the one (referring back to earlier in thread ).
I can see why it was done this way. In MIDI, a Note-On message at zero velocity as the same as a note-off. Lowering velocity to zero would confuse synths with unmatched Note-Off messages coming in. That's not to say one couldn't code things so that velocity zero would just skip sounding the note at all though.
I use Rotation (and probability) to avoid all parts playing on the one. I'm too lazy to scroll up thread to see why you don't, but I assume you have your reasons. 😉
Rotation is not available in New Polyrhythm mode (no steps to count, I guess it’s division of time) ,
but in Polymeter mode there are indeed musical reasons .
No rotation or steps change in polyrhythm mode seems like a big omission, any idea if that’s coming? I was just about to fall off the fence and get it but from the video it feels like it’s missing these as key elements in creating interesting patterns.
Proviso no.1 : I don’t really know what I’m talking about ,
but it seems in new PolyRhythm mode the “Euclideanism” is equally dividing the length of 1 bar by the number of events,
(therefore removing the notion of steps from the formula altogether )
so all 4 parts complete in the same bar - this is primarily what I understood as PolyRhythm (& wanted & what has seemed more musical to me .)
However playing with it a little more I take @Carnbot’s point , & @wim ’s previously :
& wonder if maybe it would be possible to have a Polyrhythm mode that included the Step functionality -
the point being that the length of the bar would be equally divided by the number of steps but PLAYED at the divided RATE so that it still completed within the 1 bar .
So Part A could be 24 Steps , Part B 10 Steps but they both completed playing their cycle at the same time ;
this for me would still provide the PolyRhythm use , but offer more programmable variety I agree by juxtaposing
differing number of events over steps with Rotation
So I was never good at maths or physics but I think maybe the dev could (have ) implemented PolyRhythm mode differently by just!? varying the playing speed of each part inverse to the number of steps ?
This would offer more variety of programming - & whilst some combinations of events to steps might seem wonky ,
using whole divisions of steps to events would still give the perfect musical results the new Polyrhythm mode offers
e.g 12 steps with 3 events would still give perfect triplet pulse .
(….maybe ?)
Preview video of 1.04
Ha ha! Good for him.
This is turning into a really interesting app. Can't wait to play with this.
Patterns look like a great addition!
Nice upgrade. I was hoping Paul would add a pattern sequencer or song mode like he has in a few of his other apps. Good stuff!
I'm really glad I ended up getting this and it's getting a lot of use from me, there's another update 1.05 coming with some nice additions.
Yeah, loving these improvements. Favorite sequencer right now.