Looping improvement

There’s two features I’d like to see in the Renoise sampler regarding looping. (and more specifically ping-pong loops)

One is the ability to set stereo loop points; this is necessary for complex sounds that largely change between ears. I’m mainly thinking of strings and ‘spacey’ sounds here, anything with width.

The other is a inverse phase function. Every time the loop is executed the phase of the wave will be flipped. To understand why this is useful, think of a saw wave: when normal ping pong looping is used you’ll only bee able to produce a triangle wave. On a larger scale this will be very useful on asymmetrical waves.

I believe anyone who uses samples frequently would benefit tremendously from these.
Thanks for reading, thoughts?

I agree! especially the second feature… I almost would think it should be standard on pingpong looping.

+1 …sometimes it’s impossible to set smooth loop points on stereo samples.

And for the second feature, yes it would be nice to have an extra loop type “ping pong with phase flip on reverse” …maybe call it “ping gnop” =)

you mean ping ƃuod?

But the only realistic fix for that is the Xfade style loopfix…

…or if there was some kind of note-data splitter that we could use to layer several instruments, just use two mono samples panned left and right.

I think these are great ideas; also how about a ping-pong function that starts one channel forwards and one backwards?

And please…please…one day…can we have the possibility of accurately automating loop points!!! I can then die happy

You can experiment with separate stereo loops already, by copying your left and right to separate samples in the instrument and hard panning their directions, but assigning them both as layers over the whole keyboard.

Inverse phase while a sound plays sounds fun, I guess we could do that by switching a gainer on and off?

DUH why didn’t i think of that before :D thanks for the tip!!

I’d love to see proper loop cross-fades (non-destructive, pattern/automation-controllable, variable slopes, variable lengths). The current implementation is counterintuitive and just plain sucks (sorry, but it’s true). Either that or I’m just incredibly obtuse.

Not hijacking here. +1 for loop improvements :D