Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Excellent post, Tim. I'm only writing because I wanted to echo that I, too, would like to be able to use Acid loops in Repeater, and vice versa. Are you working on this, Damon? Kevin > I eventually want to compose loops in ACID and import them onto tracks in > Repeater to use in live applications. I would also like to dump > my Repeater > loops onto my PC and add them to a loop library. But this is much easier > imagined than done (especially when I am new to both ACID and Repeater!) > > First, I tried to export files from my Repeater to my PC. Once I > got my CFC > reader/writer installed it was no problem at all - just drag and > drop. But > the first thing I noticed was a discrepancy between Repeater's > loop lengths > and ACID's calculation of the loop length. They are way off and I can't > seem to find a pattern that explains the discrepancy. I included some > numbers to see if one of you brainiacs can figure it out. > > Also, when I play Repeater WAVs in ACID (as well as n-Track) > there is space > at the end of the loop that makes it basically unusable. This is > sometimes > accompanied by a 'click' sound that is definitely not very musical. Of > course, I could edit the file to make it sound like a seamless loop, but > then I would end up with a file that is no longer the same size as the > original - which prevents, as you may know, Repeater from being able read > the file. So if want to be able to use a loop on Repeater again, I >better > not touch it. But if I want to be able to use it in ACID, I have to edit > it. > > I wrote down the info that Repeater displays about a loop and > compared it to > how ACID and n-Track view the WAV files that comprise the loop. Like I > mentioned, there is a big difference. Here are the Repeater stats for >the > first 10 loops on my CFC card. All bpm's are native tempos. > Please keep in > mind that I used loop multiply and resample on some tracks, but > that doesn't > explain the discontinuity. > > Repeater Loop/Track Stats > Folder #bars time sig bpm #tracks > > LOOP1 32 4/4 93.0 4 > LOOP2 4 3/4 90.3 4 > LOOP3 2 4/4 131.0 1 > LOOP4 8 4/4 69.8 2 > LOOP5 2 3/4 88.6 2 > LOOP6 1 7/8 94.7 2 > LOOP7 4 3/4 84.0 3 > LOOP8 4 4/4 107.0 1 > LOOP9 4 4/4 119.9 1 > LOOP10 5 2/4 161.0 4 > > > And here are the WAV's as I saw them on my computer: > > > WAV General WAV info ACID analysis of WAV > (loop#.track#) length size beats bpm > > 1.1 00:06:04 527k 8 78.3 > 1.2 01:22:25 7135k ? ? > 1.3 01:22:25 7135k ? ? > 1.4 01:22:25 7135k ? ? > > 2.1 00:05:00 431k 8 95.7 > 2.2 00:04:08 367k 8 112.4 > 2.3 00:08:05 703k 16 117.5 > 2.4 00:08:05 703k 16 117.5 > > 3.1 00:04:19 399k 8 103.4 > > 4.1 00:07:24 671k 16 123.1 > 4.2 00:27:26 2399k 64 137.8 > > 5.1 00:05:00 431k 8 95.7 > 5.2 00:04:08 367k 8 112.4 > > 6.1 00:05:12 463k 8 89.1 > 6.2 00:04:19 399k 8 103.4 > > 7.1 00:04:19 399k 8 103.4 > 7.2 00:05:06 447k 8 92.3 > 7.3 00:04:25 415k 8 99.4 > > 8.3 00:10:01 863k 16 95.7 > > 9.1 00:08:27 767k 16 107.7 > 9.2 00:08:27 767k 16 107.7 > > 10.1 00:03:27 335k 8 123.1 > 10.2 00:04:19 399k 8 103.4 > 10.3 00:04:03 351k 8 117.5 > 10.4 00:04:03 351k 8 117.5 > > > I noticed that a couple of WAVs were actually the same exact > size/length as > a WAV in another loop. Ah! My lucky break. I could test WAV 'imports' > that were not only the same file size, but they were generated on >Repeater > itself. > > First I simply copied and pasted the same WAV and renamed it with another > track number. For instance, in LOOP3 I copied TRACK1.wav and renamed the > copy TRACK2.wav. This didn't work. I assume that's because the new >track > had no track info file. > > Then I resampled track 1 to track 2. This gave me two tracks of the same > size and two Repeater generated info files to match each track. > I took the > CFC out and connected it to my PC. Then I copied TRACK1.wav from LOOP7 > (which is exactly the same size), renamed it TRACK2.wav and > dropped it into > the LOOP3 folder. Bingo. It played back without any alteration in pitch > and generally sounded like the same audio sample. But it still > didn't line > up properly. I can only attribute this to the fact that I was still >using > the info file that was created for LOOP3. According to Repeater, > LOOP3 is 2 > bars of 4/4 @ 131bpm and LOOP7 is 4 bars of 3/4 @ 84bpm. So even though > ACID saw both files as the same length, number of beats and bpm, Repeater > saw a difference. And the difference that was distinguished by Repeater > affected the LPA trim points which affected the way the WAV played back. > > Also, tracks 3 and 4 of loop 10 are resamples of track 1 and 2, > respectively, but they are a different size than either of the originals. > Weird. Even weirder is that they are the *same* size, even though the > originals were different. Very weird. Perhaps resamples are new > recordings > of the original LPA'd audio files (i.e. they are the same size > because both > originals are bound to the trim points of the loop during playback). But > then why does track 1 sound the same as the track 3 resample on the > Repeater? And why do both files share the same awkward > hesitation in ACID? > That's downright super freaky weird. > > So my questions remain: > > Is there a way to edit the proprietary files in the loop folders to >handle > imported WAVs? > > Is there a way to create these files to accompany ACID loops for > import into > Repeater? > > Is there a way to alter the WAV file on Repeater so that the start and >end > points of the loop are the same as the start and endpoints of the > WAV? This > would allow for accurate playback on my PC without having to change the > file. > > Is it possible to 'Repeaterize' ACIDized WAVs for play back on a >Repeater? > > I'm also wondering if there is a looping program that lets you specify >the > *exact* file size to 1/100th of a second? Does ACID Pro do this? > > Anywho, I'm tired and need to sleep. I'm still buzzing from the events >in > New York and DC. However, I think I'm finally exhausted enough to go lie > down. I hope this info can be of use to someone. That's why I posted >it. > I am actually more confused than anything (which is probably > obvious to the > discriminating reader). But my efforts are sincere. :) > > -- > Tim >