Repro-1 (out now)

[Echoes in the Attic]

I don't know how 1 can even be compared to 2-5. 1 clearly has way more distortion in it, it sounds like a totally different filter. It's cool but saying whether you like 1 more or 2-5 more seems like it's just how much someone likes the dirtiness. Is this analogish? I don't know depends on the filter I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if this was artifacts of a much lower quality mode, but which sounds cool in it's own right.

[wagtunes]

Well, I don't hear any real difference between any of the filters. I mean nothing that would make me disappointed in the choice of one filter over another. They all sound better than 99% of the filters out there in the currently available synths. They're just as good as the Diva filters.

Urs, I think you'll have another winner on your hands, whatever filter you decide to use.

[gabgue]

No presets, very bad.

[BR393]

Filters 1, 3, and 4 all seem to exhibit audible aliasing (1 being the worst) when listing to the filter by itself at full resonance. The aliasing comes in with the filter cutoff around the 6 mark on all of them. This factor alone means all three of those should be out of the running for "most analogue" sounding, since analogue filters don't alias.

That leaves filters 2 and 5 as the candidates, with my personal preference going to filter 2. Number 5 seems a bit duller, almost like it's tuned lower than 2. Filters 2 and 5 seem fairly indistiguishable at most times though.

[Sound Author]

I'm in no rush to vote, but I agree with EvilDragon that filter #3 & 5 are the nicest. I like #5 the most so far

[Urs]

Filters 1, 3, and 4 all seem to exhibit audible aliasing (1 being the worst) when listing to the filter by itself at full resonance. The aliasing comes in with the filter cutoff around the 6 mark on all of them. This factor alone means all three of those should be out of the running for "most analogue" sounding, since analogue filters don't alias.

Hehehe, that isn't aliasing, that is the resonance still being there and locking in with the harmonics of the oscillators. People in the office also came over and said "Uh, it aliases like hell". Then I pressed a key on the Pro-One with same settings and "uh, ok".

That leaves filters 2 and 5 as the candidates, with my personal preference going to filter 2. Number 5 seems a bit duller, almost like it's tuned lower than 2. Filters 2 and 5 seem fairly indistiguishable at most times though.

The errors in accuracy in the computation mode influence the effective filter frequency (and overall volume).

[Cinebient]

With a bit of high quality reverb this thing is a beauty! (Of course without too).

Only Dagger Synth (which is of course a totally different character) and Diva is on par yet with such a great character.

[Urs]

No presets, very bad.

No worries. The presets of the original hardware unit only work with the full feature set. We'll add them once we release the final version.

[Sound Author]

I'd laugh my ass off if Urs released this on April 1st and all five models were the same filter.

[BR393]

Filters 1, 3, and 4 all seem to exhibit audible aliasing (1 being the worst) when listing to the filter by itself at full resonance. The aliasing comes in with the filter cutoff around the 6 mark on all of them. This factor alone means all three of those should be out of the running for "most analogue" sounding, since analogue filters don't alias.

Hehehe, that isn't aliasing, that is the resonance still being there and locking in with the harmonics of the oscillators. People in the office also came over and said "Uh, it aliases like hell". Then I pressed a key on the Pro-One with same settings and "uh, ok".

That leaves filters 2 and 5 as the candidates, with my personal preference going to filter 2. Number 5 seems a bit duller, almost like it's tuned lower than 2. Filters 2 and 5 seem fairly indistiguishable at most times though.

The errors in accuracy in the computation mode influence the effective filter frequency (and overall volume).

Interesting, so even with all the mixer levels turned to 0 there's still some amount of signal passing through the filter. I guess that does make sense for a good analogue emulation. I think you've given away a bit too much info now though.

[PAK]

Filters and sound aside, the brown background color of the preset browser seems to be too much for my Macbook - at least for the display. It's kind of swirling/flickering all the time (don't know how to describe this properly...). Reminds me somewhat of those old CRT displays. Anyone else noticed something similar? Or is this part of the analog emulation as well? (Just kidding... ).

That sounds like a flaw typical of many TN Panels. TN panels are only 6 bit, IE red, green, and blue only have 64 values.

They employ tricks to look like 8 bit (256 values of RGB), which is what a typical desktop (mac or PC) uses. The tricks can be seen as patterns or flickering at certain colour values depending on the TN panel and methods of trickery they implement.

Certain shades can also reveal problems with power regulation to the panel at certain settings, and this applies even to non-TN panels (though mostly TN - did I mention they're evil? ) In those cases just changing the brightness may "fix" it..

[Cinebient]

Please add mono midi option that i can play it polyphonic via a Seaboard etc.

[Zoundsangelfire]

Filter 5 is a nice filter, that's my guess for the most accurate model. 5 sounds more consistent over it's range to me, not sure if it reminds me of my old pro one or just a anolog but vaguely familiar compared to the other filters. Can't wait to find out the answer

[PAK]

It’s very apparent the different model numbers trigger modulations at different points in the knob travel, and at different rates, making direct comparisons harder than would usually be the case EG at certain settings 2,3,5,1,4 caused modulation to trigger faster to slower in that order, with 2 and 3 being difficult to separate.

So if someone super duper wants to know the differences, save out the sounds then adjust for that so you can hear if you’re just being thrown off by things like different modulation points / rates, rather than an actual real quality difference in the model used.

With modulation more noise / distortion was generated with resonance in the order of most to least 1 - 3 - 4 - 2 - 5 at the settings I tried. Other than that they’re actually quite similar sounding mostly.

Model one does sound louder at certain settings, and it also appears to let more low end through with resonance.

My first (literally few second) impression is that number 1 made the most interesting sounds, and appears it may be related to 4 in some way. 2 and 3 are likely related to each other, with number 5 also being related to 2 and 3, but in a much more reserved way.. More refined, or simply more muffled / crappy sounding? You be the judge..

I will try to make some sounds I like and see if I can get a better sense with some time. Just thought I’d mention the knob / modulation thing before people go too far one way or another

[Urs]

Interesting, so even with all the mixer levels turned to 0 there's still some amount of signal passing through the filter. I guess that does make sense for a good analogue emulation.

That's the filter CV bleeding through into the audio signal. I couldn't resist modeling this as it is rather pronounced in CEM3320 configurations and certainly part of its distinct "fizzy" sound.

I think you've given away a bit too much info now though.

It's present in all filter methods, but we had to cap filter frequency at 25kHz. The final version - if we take the accurate model - will go to 50kHz such that the filter can fully open within the audible range. I would not take the pseudo-aliasing bit as any indicator for anything. I'm just saying, this filter is extreme and much of what sounds like aliasing may not be that

(I also think it'll be necessary to make a video with some live tweaking of a Pro-One to demonstrate some of its sonic crazies)