Repro-1 (out now)

[fischkopf]

I want the most analogue sounding filter. (I took Filter 4)
It doesn't matter for me how much CPU is needed.
I just want the best analogue sounding RePro One as possible!
People who got a weak CPU should buy a better one or don't use RePro One.

People who got not minimum a Intel i7 CPU should not make music with a computer!

I guess I need to throw my expensive i5 CPU away then (which does most synths I throw at it just fine) and buy a i7.

[EvilDragon]

That is correct

[do_androids_dream]

I must be crossing all sorts of lines using a Q6600 then !?!

[exmatproton]

That is correct

[Totolitoto]

Don't worry about CPU too much. It'll be fine no matter what algorithm we choose.

Don't worry about CPU too much. It'll be fine no matter what algorithm we choose.

Don't worry about CPU too much. It'll be fine no matter what algorithm we choose.

Don't worry about CPU too much. It'll be fine no matter what algorithm we choose.

[fmr]

I must be crossing all sorts of lines using a Q6600 then !?!

You are defying the laws of physics

[fmr]

BTW: There must be something wrong with my ears, since, in my tests (with heavy resonance and filter modulated by the envelope and keyboard tracking), the filters that sounded the worst (with really noticeable distortion) are precisely the ones that people are choosing more (1 and 4), while the one that sounded the best is nr.5 which is the fourth in preferences now. What's up? Am I doing something wrong or what?

[Vesius]

Nothing wrong at all. It's conjectured at this point that 5 is the smoothest sounding of the filters - but I think most people feel that just isn't appropriate for this synth.

This would be the filter I'd choose for a wavetable synth, myself. Something a bit more under control to tame the craziness getting generated in the oscs.

But for a Pro-1? Nah. Gimme nasty personally.

[Synthetic Wav]

what i found strange it felt 3 and 5 are more or less in same tune when self oscillating and fmed and it felt like 5 was almost like a higher samping rate version as i noticed that sort of difference on some synth that sound darker and cleaner depending the sampling rate and the antialising filter or/and the synth filter response , it can be not natural in the top and can sound muffled there .the other one i compared these 2 the most is the 4 and its not tuned exaclty the same it make it harder to compare as i had to try to compensate on 4 by changing the freq but it s impossible making this test more random. i need to check again cause it may be come from me

1 sounded totally different like it have less pole

[deltaMACHINE]

FMR,
we talking about the PRO ONE.
This is not a perfect synth, its from the 80s

[beely]

BTW: There must be something wrong with my ears, since, in my tests (with heavy resonance and filter modulated by the envelope and keyboard tracking), the filters that sounded the worst (with really noticeable distortion) are precisely the ones that people are choosing more (1 and 4), while the one that sounded the best is nr.5 which is the fourth in preferences now. What's up? Am I doing something wrong or what?

Right at the beginning of the thread, myself and some others seemed to group 1,4 in the "not so good" group, and 2,3,5 in the "good" group (and I haven't narrowed it down further yet), but agree with the other observations than 5 seems smoother or "tamer", though whether this is good or bad I don't know yet.

A lot of people here seem to be simply voting which one they liked the sound of the most, which was not the point of the thread - which is, "which sounds the most analog?". Certainly the weird steppy glitching digital nasties than 1 produces at extreme settings, and the others don't, instantly writes this one off for me as behaving in not at all an analog fashion (regardless of whether you like the effect or not) and my initial observation was that this was likely the cheapest filter. 4 also behaves in similar ways in some circumstances (noticeably with the resonant pitch at high resonance values) so I think this is probably the second cheapest filter, after 1.

The various "beating" behaviour of the filters at extreme values is also another way of grouping them together and observing different behaviours.

2, 3 and 5 all behave similarly with the resonance tuning, and as these all performed *way* better than 1,4, I put them in the good group, and in this group, sometimes 2 & 3 share similar behaviours, others 3 & 5 do, and others differ quite a bit, with 5 differing the most overall - which either means that 5 is the most accurate and thus gets things right that 2 & 3 don't, *or*, that 5 is the cheapest of this good group, and 2 & 3 are more accurate.

So this is not really about your filter preferences, which one sounds preferable to your tastes, or which filter most closely matches the real thing in behaviour (as we don't really have tools to make proper comparisons, unless some of you have a real, well-tuned Pro 1 - and even then, tolerances make this tricky). It's about *quality*. The filter with the best behaviour, handling, least artifacts, and what we can determine in blind listening, which then Urs can use to determine a baseline for an acceptable model quality that will satisfy most people, including the ones with discerning filter ears (which I don't count myself one of, really).

I'm probably leaning towards 3 as possibly being the pick of the models, but need some more time evaluating the good group to come to a decision.

Anyway, this is fascinating, and probably more so for the people that know the "answers"...

[AnX]

None of them sound incredibly analog to me, which is why i chose the one i prefer

Im guessing only a small percentage of ppl have much analog gear, and an even smaller percentage have a Pro One, so the test/trial was always going to be leaning towards preference rather than actually comparisons.

Im not sure how much u-he will take on board from poll, but im sure the finished product will be great.

[fmr]

Well, for one, I'm glad that my ears are not playing tricks on me

Regarding the question which one sounds most analogue for me, that's maybe an interesting question, but one that I'm not very interested in (and I own several analogue gear, and classic, praised one). I don't own a Pro-One though, neither did I have ever owned any Seq Circuits hardware, so, I cannot really tell if any of the models sound close to the Pro-One. But one thing I can tell for sure. If Urs would launch an instrument with the 1 or 4 filters on it (which I think is unimaginable) that would be the first one I would never buy. They sound simply wrong to me, when driven at high resonance. No analogue synth I'm aware of ever sounded like that when the filter was resonating like I tried those to, so... no, definitely those two don't sound analogue at all.

[do_androids_dream]

FMR,
we talking about the PRO ONE.
This is not a perfect synth, its from the 80s

This is key. I don't think many are taking this into account. The pro one is a dirty synth with a very thumpy bottom end when running the filter envelope decay very fast. This only comes across with filters 1 & 2 for me. All the others take away that bottom end too quick when the filter's closing.

[beely]

Well, for one, I'm glad that my ears are not playing tricks on me

Well, it may just be that we are both fooled equally - we'll see...