Repro-1 (out now)

[beely]

Sorry to heavy for my laptop. Also to my taste this synth is too restricted (no amp env?).

You guys seem to be missing the point.

Yes, the final commercial version of this *will* contain *all* of the things the Pro-1 had.

*This* isn't that, this is a test version, that doesn't implement the full feature set, primarily as a way to get feedback on what filter technology to use.

[Opax]

You guys seem to be missing the point.

Yes, the final commercial version of this *will* contain *all* of the things the Pro-1 had.

*This* isn't that, this is a test version, that doesn't implement the full feature set, primarily as a way to get feedback on what filter technology to use.

I believe Urs made this clear, but there is no harm in wishing those (missing) features were available to test.

[Ivan_C]

The drone switch is very useful to listen to the different models !

Right now, I don't know yet "which is the one which sounds more analog" to me. I don't know how this thing is supposed to sound either so...

However I have done some tests to find out what are the main differences between the filters. First test, cutoff around the middle, resonance between 75% and 100%, one low sawtooth (VCO A only) in drone mode. What I can hear is an extra resonance high - pitch sinusoid like signal, and some beating (like in unison modes) on the VCO. Maybe it's some kind of intermodulation distortion.

Filter 1 has a slow beating, and a pitch for the extra high pitched sinuoid which is at a frequency f1. Filter 4 sounds almost the same but without any beating (same sinusoid at frequency f1). Filter 2 and 3 sounds almost the same with a faster beating and an extra sinusoid at a frequency f2 > f1. Filter 5 has an even faster beating and an extra sinusoid at a frequency f3 > f2 > f1.

Second test : cutoff and resonance at 100%, same VCO configuration. I can't hear more significant differences than reductions in output volume. Filter 1 has a high output volume, then on Filter 4 it's a little lower, lower again on Filter 3. Then Filter 2 and Filter 5 have the same output volume lower again.

Something cool happens if, from this configuration, I reduce a little the cutoff. At one moment, with filter 1 only, I get something really harsh and ugly, while the other filters are still reducing only the output volume.

Last test I did : VCO A only with sync, filter modulation at maximum in triangle, cutoff at 10 o clock, resonance at 2 o clock. The VCO B is in LFO mode, with a frequency around 4-6 Hz I would say. The sound I get is ugly, but again I can hear very clean differences between the various models. I can hear a very noticeable pitch modulation (for the resonance sinusoid) and something harsh, a little like aliasing. This harsh thing can be heard very well with filter 1, less with filter 3 and 4, not that much with the other ones. The sweeping can be heard very well all alone with filter 5, less with filter 2, less again with filter 3, and for the others the "harshness" is what can be heard the most.

So far, the conclusions I have, is that the filter 1 seems to be the worst. The filter 5 seems to have a very "clean" and interesting behaviour, compared to the others. There are some things shared between the filter 1 and 4, the 4 sounds like a filter 1 with a higher quality. Filter 2 + 3 + 5 seem to be related too, sometimes 3 is closer to the 5 than the 2 (in the 2nd and 3rd tests), sometimes it's 2 and 3 which sound the same (in the 1st test). Filter 2 and 3 sound like simplified filters 5 with different settings.

My guess might be than filter 5 is the best one, and is ZDF, unlike the others (mostly for 1 and a little for 4), with 2 and 3 sounding very close to 5 (2 might be the better there). But my opinion might change later

The last thing I can say is that I might have said totally the opposite if the features of the different filter models were more "related" with the ones from the filter 1. Then I would have said something like "the filter 5 seems too clean, the filter 1 is the one with more personality, it must be the ZDF one" Maybe we're not going to love the analog vibe more than personality, either analog or digital. That's why most of us can love Diva sound and bitcrushers at the same time

I would love to have details about each one at the end of your experiment

[bsterz]

Resonance to 10, keyboard tracking to full...

Fiddling with lots of other stuff.

It's interesting to see how equal settings impact things like pitch of the self-oscillating filter.
This made A/B testing against the rough edges tricky at first.

Finding the frequency at which each filter generates potentially unwanted digital artifacts varies a bit more than I would have expected.

They are very different. And while some misbehave worse than others, there's some very interesting misbehaving in them. Maybe we can get a filter-mode dial and keep some extras?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I'm loving the sound of this. It's just a shame there are no amplifier envelope, LFO and modulation sections.

You may already know this, but in case you don't, the final version will be a 1:1 emulation. There's a whole other section of the UI that you can see in the Superbooth videos that isn't available in the Alpha since this is just to test out the filter models.

[PiotrPochwat]

BTW , this is my test:

Filter 1:

https://soundcloud.com/chantiz1984/audi ... epro-alpha

Filter 2:

https://soundcloud.com/chantiz1984/audi ... epro-alpha

Filter 3:

https://soundcloud.com/chantiz1984/audi ... epro-alpha

Filter 4:

https://soundcloud.com/chantiz1984/audi ... epro-alpha

Filter 5:

https://soundcloud.com/chantiz1984/audi ... epro-alpha


................

CPU consumption - hehehe....

[plugin'd out]

Depending on the sound, I've liked each one the most - can't we just have a choice of five filter models in the final plugin?

1 has by far the most issues in terms of distortion, pops and clicks which to me sound somewhat digital (though I still managed to make a patch where I preferred it to the rest!). 4 has a similar character but less prone to cracking up. 2 and 5 seem to be similar, much smoother, 5 maybe too muted. 3 is a sort of odd one out, somewhere inbetween but the extra noise in the sound tends to be more pleasing. Based on playing with filter feedback sounds only I'd say 3 is the most analogue sounding - but it's more like 2 to 5 are just slight variations on tuning the filter. 5 is 'safety first' but might be a bit lacking in character.

[autoy]

Sweeping cutoff in 2 and 5 completely break under audio-rate modulation (slow attack, top resonance, VCO2 Lo Freq. modulating filter at the highest octave, no tracking). 1 breaks in a rather noisy fun way. 3 and 4 hold audio-rate mod really well, being 3 perhaps a little more smooth for my taste and 4 a little bit wilder. I like both of these last two, hard to pick just one really.

[beely]

What a surprise, the KVR massif are given a choice of five options, and people want all five...

Given the point of the Repro is to make a proper 1:1 Pro1 emulation, then a choice of differently performing filters is outside that scope - this about choosing which filter as the optimal choice between CPU and quality. Making choices is good

[wavesfactory]

I've played with it for 10 minutes. Never used an analog synth and I don't know how it's supposed to sound. I'll just throw mi opinion:
- Good ones: 2, 3, 5.
- Bad ones: 1, 4.
- Best: 5.

Great initiative!

[gunark]

I like 1, it fizzes and gurgles like the WASP filter, though obviously that's not the point. From what recall of my Pro One, it sounds as dirty and rude, and it has the wide oscillators too. Playing with the PWM elicits similar memories too, though manually it's a bit odd. FWIW I don't recall the filter of my Pro One being as wild as 1.

Now if you could make it double trigger and play every third note like a real J-Wire version, it'll be the most authentic one out there.

Side note - is there a chance this will lead to a version with polyphony later, so we finally get a good P5 emulator? Diva has already made me think twice about an OB6...

[Boardwalk]

I think nr. 5 is the least noisiest and the smoothest. All I can say

[masaisakurai]

I felt me to be smoothly. When is order; 5>3>2>4>1

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

My first impressions (and I'm nowhere near ready to vote yet):

5 - Smoothest, most polite of the bunch for me so far. I'm guessing that this is the "most accurate" model, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's politeness means it's not.

2, 3, 4 - These all sound similar to me, with 2 being the smoothest and 4 being the noisiest (3 being in between).

1 - Crazy sounding with lots of artifacts. Sounds broken at some settings, which could be cool in its own way. Also feels kind of "steppy" at times.

[wuh]

No idea which sounds the most analogue, but in order of preference: 1, 4, 5, 3, 2

Very cool idea this