From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.gunark wrote: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...
Repro-1 (out now)
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034 - KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
-
- KVRAF
- 24412 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Well, not all analogs are created equal. There are polite and flat sounding analog filters as well.do_androids_dream wrote:From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.
-
moscom_electronics moscom_electronics https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=269081
- KVRist
- 255 posts since 21 Nov, 2011 from France
My 2 cents:
do not like 5 at all, sounds lifeless and weak. 2 does not touch me much.
1 clearly has some artifacts at high resonance around the 5-6 position on the cutoff knob. And then I am left with 3 and 4. And I tend to prefer 4, I find that it has more ummmmphhh.
Also, Urs, it seems like the filters are not all tuned identically. This may bias our listening, no? For example, 1 and 4 seem to be tuned almost identically while 2,3 and 5 are identical but different from 1 and 4. I tested this with Spectrum in Live.
I still keep my vote, I want to test them more in depth. But this is a fantastic idea
do not like 5 at all, sounds lifeless and weak. 2 does not touch me much.
1 clearly has some artifacts at high resonance around the 5-6 position on the cutoff knob. And then I am left with 3 and 4. And I tend to prefer 4, I find that it has more ummmmphhh.
Also, Urs, it seems like the filters are not all tuned identically. This may bias our listening, no? For example, 1 and 4 seem to be tuned almost identically while 2,3 and 5 are identical but different from 1 and 4. I tested this with Spectrum in Live.
I still keep my vote, I want to test them more in depth. But this is a fantastic idea
-
- KVRian
- 1099 posts since 20 Nov, 2004 from Seinäjoki, Finland
lesha wrote:I can't install, even as Administrator. Win 8.1 x64
I got the exact same error happening when installing Podolski. After several tries it worked. I don't think I actually did or changed anything. Windows 10 64 bit.
(Haven't tried installing RePro yet)
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
While this is true, the filter on a pro one is, really, the exact opposite of this - very chunky, weighty and fat as opposed to something polite (can't think of a 'polite' analog filter offhand.. maybe 'softer' - something like sem filter).EvilDragon wrote:Well, not all analogs are created equal. There are polite and flat sounding analog filters as well.do_androids_dream wrote:From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.
-
- KVRist
- 362 posts since 1 Apr, 2009 from Hannover, Germany
#3 is the winner for me, the only one I couldn't blow up with extreme settings.
The rest in descending order of preference: 2, 5, 4, 1
The rest in descending order of preference: 2, 5, 4, 1
-
- KVRAF
- 4141 posts since 11 Aug, 2006 from Texas
That was my preference order too.hugoderwolf wrote:#3 is the winner for me, the only one I couldn't blow up with extreme settings.
The rest in descending order of preference: 2, 5, 4, 1
Feel free to call me Brian.
-
- KVRist
- 92 posts since 10 Jul, 2001 from spain
Yep, I came to exactly the same conclusions.moscom_electronics wrote:My 2 cents:
do not like 5 at all, sounds lifeless and weak. 2 does not touch me much.
1 clearly has some artifacts at high resonance around the 5-6 position on the cutoff knob. And then I am left with 3 and 4. And I tend to prefer 4, I find that it has more ummmmphhh.
Also, Urs, it seems like the filters are not all tuned identically. This may bias our listening, no? For example, 1 and 4 seem to be tuned almost identically while 2,3 and 5 are identical but different from 1 and 4. I tested this with Spectrum in Live.
I still keep my vote, I want to test them more in depth. But this is a fantastic idea
cheers.autoy
-
- KVRAF
- 24412 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
MKS-70, for example. I find it quite tame and polite.do_androids_dream wrote:can't think of a 'polite' analog filter offhand...
Back to Pro-One, I really don't think the real one blows up like filter 1 in RePro does at audio rate modulations. It's really quite nasty and unlike anything I've heard from any real analog.
-
moscom_electronics moscom_electronics https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=269081
- KVRist
- 255 posts since 21 Nov, 2011 from France
I think that 3 is winning for me actually. Here are two sound examples why... The first example is a sound I made played at C3. The sound is played 5 times, each time with different filter from 1 to 5 in chronological order.
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c3-test
the second one is the same patch played two octaves higher (C5)
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c5-test
On these examples, the following things are pretty clear :
- 1 is digital and noisy as hell when modulation is extreme
- 2 and 5 just weaken the sound and make almost inaudible
- 4 is good, but has some weird artefacts
- 3 is clearly the winner, musical all along.
This is why my vote goes to 3.
Also, I am starting to think that it'd be fun that we start posting audio examples of sounds that we find compelling and nice, eventually comparing the filters on these sounds to explain what we find nice. What do you think?
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c3-test
the second one is the same patch played two octaves higher (C5)
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c5-test
On these examples, the following things are pretty clear :
- 1 is digital and noisy as hell when modulation is extreme
- 2 and 5 just weaken the sound and make almost inaudible
- 4 is good, but has some weird artefacts
- 3 is clearly the winner, musical all along.
This is why my vote goes to 3.
Also, I am starting to think that it'd be fun that we start posting audio examples of sounds that we find compelling and nice, eventually comparing the filters on these sounds to explain what we find nice. What do you think?
Last edited by moscom_electronics on Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 1945 posts since 25 Feb, 2005
1 is slightly louder with audio on some settings which may skew results.
Mac Studio M4
15.7.3
Cubase 15, Ableton Live 12
15.7.3
Cubase 15, Ableton Live 12
-
moscom_electronics moscom_electronics https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=269081
- KVRist
- 255 posts since 21 Nov, 2011 from France
I do not think that the noise I got from 1 in my example comes from a problem with loudness 