Bounce Down Loops-Indiv Loop syncto-Bar Count

Discuss future feature requests. All ideas welcome.

Moderator: jesse

Post Reply
wayneal
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:49 pm

Bounce Down Loops-Indiv Loop syncto-Bar Count

Post by wayneal »

After swimming in the deep end of SL, (before, I was only getting my feet wet), I thought of a few useful features this program could have:

-Bounce- all unmuted loops mix down to a new stereo loop internally while running-
length could be based on main syncto setting or the longest loop. By committing this command, the unmuted loop tracks will go offline and be available for new recordings. It would be cool if the bounce file contains, (prints) the speed and reverse real time parameters. Basic "ping-pong" from the 4-track cassette days.

After slipping around quite a bit I have found that loops drift against the MIDI clock and the settings have unexpected and unpredictable results when playing back new recordings. I don't seem to have that problem when the syncto is set to a Loop created in the session. Imported files (used as a syncto Loop) seem to have a whole different time feel in SL when looped and recorded to. So I thought, maybe a sycnto option on the loop tracks. Sync and quan. settings are complicated enough, I'm still figuring things out, and maybe just getting my settings right with syncto and quantize will solve things. But:

-Syncto custom settings per channel options- ie: Loop 2 could syncto Loop1 and Loop 1 to MIDI clock

I want to be able to bring loops in and out with long running bass lines looping in SL slaving sync from my drummers' MIDI setup. Tight rhythm parts drift over time, harmony overdubs don't line up? (I can't figure out how that can happen when played tight!).
I am using SL as a standalone and want to be able to bring loops in and out, stack things live, tweek things out, (save), wipe the loops one by one and build it all back up new- continuous on the fly improvisational electronic music -all locked to incoming MIDI clock. Things are working sort of like that in SL, but it gets slippery over time.

Also, some kind of a "master bar count", or "phrase measure count" as an option for new recording in/out points seems like it would be very useful. It could also define loop ranges easily.

I don't know if these suggestions are like science fiction or pipe dreams, but thanks in advance for consideration.

-Neal

"That circle is really a spiral"

sremington
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:07 pm

Re: Bounce Down Loops-Indiv Loop syncto-Bar Count

Post by sremington »

wayneal wrote: After slipping around quite a bit I have found that loops drift against the MIDI clock and the settings have unexpected and unpredictable results when playing back new recordings. I don't seem to have that problem when the syncto is set to a Loop created in the session. Imported files (used as a syncto Loop) seem to have a whole different time feel in SL when looped and recorded to. So I thought, maybe a sycnto option on the loop tracks. Sync and quan. settings are complicated enough, I'm still figuring things out, and maybe just getting my settings right with syncto and quantize will solve things.
Not sure if this will help your MIDI clock drift problem but I was just re-reading some of the docs on Sync/Tempo and saw this about the "play sync":

The play sync option for a loop causes the playback of the loop to be coerced to remain in sync with the selected syncto source. Currently, this is done by retriggering the loop if an external sync boundary occurs when near a loop boundary (+/- the current quantize type). This technique is particulary suitable for maintaining playback sync with MIDI clock which may drift with respect to the audio playback. Note that it does not currently do any timestretching or rate resampling, so it isn't suitable for dealing with external tempo changes from the original recorded loop's tempo.

matt_ttam
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: Bounce Down Loops-Indiv Loop syncto-Bar Count

Post by matt_ttam »

To bounce down I agree

Post Reply