Repro-1 (out now)

[Daags]

Well, if 3 is the most expensive then this poll proves that the folks at KVR have crappy ears.

The poll says it all.

hehe couple that with folks who have eyesight issues (i.e trouble finding volume dials) I'd say technology like the Repro is wasted on us.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Looks like filter 3 got two more votes since Urs post. I look forward to it inching closer to first place.

[wagtunes]

Looks like filter 3 got two more votes since Urs post. I look forward to it inching closer to first place.

The poll should be closed at this point.

[fmr]

Looks like filter 3 got two more votes since Urs post. I look forward to it inching closer to first place.

The poll should be closed at this point.

Yeah, from now on, the results are no longer feasible. Anyway, I think Urs already took his conclusions.

[ROMIX FLY]

Hi!

I make 8 presets in RePro (alpha), they can be included in the factory bank in final version?
I hope developers read this and answer me:)

Best Regards, Romix Fly.

[zerocrossing]

If you didnt vote #3, you dont deserve a synth like this. Its that simple.

Can I have a synth with the one I vote on, at least?

Heh. I voted 4, though to be honest I could find something to like about each of them... Maybe not #1.

What's interesting is that on Gearslutz, 3, 4, and 5 are more or less tied. Less people bothered to vote though.

What I'd like to see now is a second alpha with all the computation types showing their true consumption.

[zerocrossing]

Looks like filter 3 got two more votes since Urs post. I look forward to it inching closer to first place.

[aaron aardvark]

EDragon (and hakey),
Thank you for answering my question. I picked #4, so I'm wondering about hakey's comment about #4 being most accurate in behavior in at least one way. Since I rarely use my real Pro-One in extreme settings (typically not my thing), I voted for #4 because of how it sounds in more normal settings. Before I voted I stated I was going to vote for what sounded best to me, which may or may not be closest to true analog sound. Urs/u-he is probably more of a purist than me (not a bad thing of course).

Earlier I was quacking about stereo sound from my Pro-One. I am currently working on a new song with real Pro-One, which I recorded both left and right channels. Looking at the wave forms (which I'm definitely not an expert at) in Cubase at the left and right look identical. So while both left and right tracks may be identical, it sure sounds different as you change how far the tracks are panned left and right. I'm guessing it might sound identical to recording a single mono track on the left, copying it to the right, and panning it the same way, but I have yet to try that.

[Daags]

a more useful poll might have been 'which sounds better' ... still subjective, but at least it's just one variable to contend with.
or simply post some audio of the filter(s) you are modelling, and then ask 'which software model sounds closest to the analogue unit'

the poll as it is, 'which sounds most analogue' is unreliable IMO... for a start there are many analogue filter types, you can have people voting with little or no analogue experience or experience with a different type of analogue filter, or people with vague 'ideas' of what analogue 'should' sound like ...etc

I really hope this isn't the kind of thing that will inform their choices when it comes to the final product...

[hakey]

I'm wondering about hakey's comment about #4 being most accurate in behavior in at least one way.

I was talking about this video
But I guess there was a reason he made the video- possibly a suspicion that the res behaviour of u-he's Pro One was unusual?

[fischkopf]

#3 sounds the most 'alive' and therefore analog to me.

[aMUSEd]

3 was always the only one that really stood out for me, so the 'expense' is worth it.

[david.beholder]

I voted right hehehehehhe altho i still like sharpness of #1 as well. so how bad our chances to get most expensive filter in re pro?

[klinik]

Lets stop right now...:



1
67
22%

2
21
7%

3
70
23%

4
92
30%

5
58
19%


Total votes : 308

[zerocrossing]

a more useful poll might have been 'which sounds better' ... still subjective, but at least it's just one variable to contend with.
or simply post some audio of the filter(s) you are modelling, and then ask 'which software model sounds closest to the analogue unit'

the poll as it is, 'which sounds most analogue' is unreliable IMO... for a start there are many analogue filter types, you can have people voting with little or no analogue experience or experience with a different type of analogue filter, or people with vague 'ideas' of what analogue 'should' sound like ...etc

I really hope this isn't the kind of thing that will inform their choices when it comes to the final product...

I didn't have a Pro-1, but I used it's great grandkid, the Prophet 6 as a measure of what a similar filter in an analog synth would sound like... And I thought that 4 was a fairly clear winner. Of course, the Pro-1 isn't the Prophet 6, but I thought that would be a better way to judge than to leave me to my own devices. I do remember thinking before I did the comparison that #5 was one of my favorites for some types of sounds. More muted high end and a bit smoother. 4 gets a bit screechy when you start cranking osc mod and resonance in the Prophet 6, just like filter #4 does. Actually, the best synths that I've played with that do that well are Moogs or Moog filter clones. Something about that ladder filter remains kind of musical at extremes in a nice way.

In software, currently the System 100 plug in does a superb job of that kind of mayhem. Reaktor 6/Monark too.