At low resonance settings, I like 1 the best. It lets a little more high end in and sounds more open than the others. At high resonances it can be insanely wild which can be both good or bad depending on the situation. If you said 1 is the most accurate model, and the wildness existed in the hardware, I'd believe you. If you told me 1 was the model with the most corners cut, and the instability isn't itended, I'd believe you too.
At higher resonances I like 4, then 2. 4 has more character (i.e. less clean) than 2. 3 falls in between 2 and 4 soundwise to my ears.
5 is the smoothest, which can be great for some things, but is a little too vanilla for me. I'll wait a few more days before voting, but that's my take so far.
Repro-1 (out now)
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 12443 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
-
lectrixboogaloo lectrixboogaloo https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=324338
- KVRist
- 229 posts since 11 Mar, 2014
Of course, you're right also. But, if a pro-one filter emulation doesn't do the pro-one stuff like the particular sync-ish? sound of the way it does whatever it does to the harmonics. Or the arcade noises...mholloway wrote:Re: "Pro One emulation lives or dies EXACTLY depending on how it handles the extreme cases."
Yeah, I get all that; my point wasn't to say people shouldn't test extreme settings at all, but that they shouldn't ONLY be testing the extreme settings, especially if everybody just winds up testing the same things...
Lucky thing, though, 4 sounds pretty good all around and does the pro-one filter res supposed 'abuse' stuff i remember. I don't remember extremely well, though. Probably not enough to vote.
-
- KVRAF
- 8072 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
I did both. Although I have to say, I'm as likely to use max-resonance, audio rate modulated filters as anything else in my music.mholloway wrote:I think it's odd that so many are testing by just cranking resonance way up and comparing extreme modulation settings; wouldn't the further point be to make actually useful, playable patches and see if there's a notable difference between the filter settings? You know, the kind of patches one might actually use in a song?
-
- KVRist
- 214 posts since 17 Jan, 2003
Hmm after playing with the alpha for a while, I realize the response of filter models to very fast osc modulation with high resonance settings are pretty different. I like Filter 4 best in that regard.
"when you have nothing to say - shut up." -A friend of Luc Besson
-
- KVRAF
- 3729 posts since 3 Nov, 2015
-
- KVRer
- 2 posts since 4 Apr, 2016 from SC, USA
sorry for off-topic, but what app are you using to screen capture?bsterz wrote:Filter 1 converting a self-resonating cutoff beyond my hearing ability into fun artifacts within my hearing ability.
-
- KVRian
- 969 posts since 5 Sep, 2014 from Heaven
My impressions listening to this video:
U-He RePro-1 Alpha DEMO (Free VST Synthesizer)
I think 2 and 4 have the most integrated sound. 4 sounds the most balanced overall. I am happy 4 is leading in the poll.
But...I think 3 and 5 are doing something similar with the mids and lows. I think 3 might be the most analog.
3 and 5 sound gloopy. 3 is the gloopiest filter! And I think you could use that gloop to great effect in the full synth with an envelope and some fx.
5 is kind of whippy. It has these kind of whippy mids and highs which none of the others do.
1 makes some insane highs. You can make sounds with 1 that you cant make with any of the others. I would miss it.
Basically I think am saying that I like them all! Please keep them all! If you have to drop one let it be 2 but only if you have to.
U-He RePro-1 Alpha DEMO (Free VST Synthesizer)
I think 2 and 4 have the most integrated sound. 4 sounds the most balanced overall. I am happy 4 is leading in the poll.
But...I think 3 and 5 are doing something similar with the mids and lows. I think 3 might be the most analog.
3 and 5 sound gloopy. 3 is the gloopiest filter! And I think you could use that gloop to great effect in the full synth with an envelope and some fx.
5 is kind of whippy. It has these kind of whippy mids and highs which none of the others do.
1 makes some insane highs. You can make sounds with 1 that you cant make with any of the others. I would miss it.
Basically I think am saying that I like them all! Please keep them all! If you have to drop one let it be 2 but only if you have to.
M O N O S Y N T H S F O R E V E R -
- KVRian
- 969 posts since 5 Sep, 2014 from Heaven
The GUI filter and filter model sections have been sprayed with a fine mist of blood. I like that. 
M O N O S Y N T H S F O R E V E R -
- KVRAF
- 7540 posts since 7 Aug, 2003 from San Francisco Bay Area
I like 5 the best. It has a more rounded off, smooth tone at high resonance. Less of what I perceive to be harsh frequencies introduced by the resonant peak.
Incomplete list of my gear: 1/8" audio input jack.
-
- KVRian
- 702 posts since 19 Mar, 2014 from Denver, CO
I only played around with it for an hour or so with two tracks - one, bass notes, mid resonance with sweeping cutoff automation. For that, it came down to 4 or 5, with 4 winning out to my ears.
The other track had a higher arp like sequence programmed in, just played with a lot of the settings trying to get the best sound. For this I liked the lower numbered filters, 1 - 3. I think 3 would probably be the best for both scenarios - the one that will be most flexible. But I'm kind of on a nasty low end kick lately, so I'd vote for 4 with my limited playing. Will give it some more time before coming up with an answer for the poll however.
BTW, one of my favorite sounds was long bass notes, sweeping cutoff, resonance at about 5, then play with the Osc B modulation. (I preferred it in the 2 or 3 range)
Overall, a great start Urs and team! This is going to be a popular one when it's all said and done methinks.
The other track had a higher arp like sequence programmed in, just played with a lot of the settings trying to get the best sound. For this I liked the lower numbered filters, 1 - 3. I think 3 would probably be the best for both scenarios - the one that will be most flexible. But I'm kind of on a nasty low end kick lately, so I'd vote for 4 with my limited playing. Will give it some more time before coming up with an answer for the poll however.
BTW, one of my favorite sounds was long bass notes, sweeping cutoff, resonance at about 5, then play with the Osc B modulation. (I preferred it in the 2 or 3 range)
Overall, a great start Urs and team! This is going to be a popular one when it's all said and done methinks.
-
- Banned
- 3889 posts since 3 Feb, 2010
I am surprised by results so far. 4th seems the most pleasent filter to people, for me it was quite the opposite, it felt most "boring" one
-
- KVRist
- 234 posts since 24 Apr, 2004 from Patagonia
Quick test at the laptop, I`ll try tomorrow at the studio:
Mostly playing with osc2 to vcf modulation at audio rate, first with triangle and then with pulse, varying the pulse with but mostly at the extremes, very narrow pulses. 3 is the winner for me, followed by 4 and then 1. 3 seem to me the most real sounding. 2 and 5 sound heavy filtered or bandlimited, no range of harmonics. 1 have lot of artifacts but is not bad as a Lo-fi version
Nice synth urs!
Mostly playing with osc2 to vcf modulation at audio rate, first with triangle and then with pulse, varying the pulse with but mostly at the extremes, very narrow pulses. 3 is the winner for me, followed by 4 and then 1. 3 seem to me the most real sounding. 2 and 5 sound heavy filtered or bandlimited, no range of harmonics. 1 have lot of artifacts but is not bad as a Lo-fi version
Nice synth urs!
-
- KVRian
- 886 posts since 14 May, 2014
After playing with the synth. I can definitely say that the 1st one is my favorite, with 5 being my second favorite .
The filter models progressively felt like they had less...I don't know, character? like they were more digital? I tried not to get caught up in analogue vs digital, and instead tried to think about which filter sounded the most musical and pleasing to my ears.
Number 5 was close, but numero uno was my favorite. Turning the resonance to max, and slowly playing with the filter...there was a smoothness and sound to it that the others didn't have. It wasn't a volume thing either. It just felt like that particular filter had 'life' to it, that the others just didn't. They were more plainer in comparison.
That's about all I can say XD.
As for bringing back more synths, I'd absolutely love a Roland JD-800 emulation. I adore 90's synths, and it's the big one for me. It has a character that is so unique and tied to it's era. I just love it =3.
.The filter models progressively felt like they had less...I don't know, character? like they were more digital? I tried not to get caught up in analogue vs digital, and instead tried to think about which filter sounded the most musical and pleasing to my ears.
Number 5 was close, but numero uno was my favorite. Turning the resonance to max, and slowly playing with the filter...there was a smoothness and sound to it that the others didn't have. It wasn't a volume thing either. It just felt like that particular filter had 'life' to it, that the others just didn't. They were more plainer in comparison.
That's about all I can say XD.
As for bringing back more synths, I'd absolutely love a Roland JD-800 emulation. I adore 90's synths, and it's the big one for me. It has a character that is so unique and tied to it's era. I just love it =3.