Repro-1 (out now)

[potionpotion]

So guys

If you are lucky to have a Pro one and compare it to the sound of the plugin you have to do some modulation to get close to the freaky sound of the original.

I put at an LFO on the Pulse width of OSC B, moved the OSB B Modulation between 5 and 6 and slightly detuned OSC A Frequency.
If you then start tweaking Cutoff and Resonance i get following results:

1 and 5 sound wild, while 1 is a bit more punchy and dirty then 5 is.
2 sounds quite thin compared to the others.
3 and 4 are quite similar while 4 sounds more interesting.

I think it very much depends on your personal taste, but since i love the original for being wild and dirty i would go for filter 1.
If you like it cleaner go for 5 or even cleaner 4 or 3. 2 is to thin.

Thank you guys for a great work!

[pepelogu]

Why not just include three different filters in the final product? A low, mid, high CPU-mode?

[scoplunk]

...one thing that did seem odd was that I couldn’t get the cutoff to do a decent keyboard tracking.

Although it concerns the filter, I wouldn't worry about tracking until we're at the late beta stage

Yeah, I thought that might be the case. It was too erratic to be a feature.

Thanks Howard!

[wildaudio]

running ok on my 5 year old macbook
(2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo/8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3/OS X 10.9.5)

Until I kick up the rez to around 7 on filters 2-5.
Not that I think 1 is the most analog... quite the opposite, it seems to have the most digital artefacts even with the rez at 0, and less "warm".

On this machine, I'm liking #4 filter the most....although none of them work/sound like any filter I've used.... maybe a CPU thing? maybe a pro1 thing?
(I own 5 analog filters, Moog and DSI included)

I'll test this out a new machine tomorrow.

PS. Ableton 9.5 CPU monitor show a 10% + difference when using filters 3 & 4.

[beely]

PS. Ableton 9.5 CPU monitor show a 10% + difference when using filters 3 & 4.

CPU performance in this test version of RePro is no indicator of anything, as there are a bunch of techniques used to disguise performance to not give away secrets about the filters in use.

[exmatproton]

PS. Ableton 9.5 CPU monitor show a 10% + difference when using filters 3 & 4.

CPU performance in this test version of RePro is no indicator of anything, as there are a bunch of techniques used to disguise performance to not give away secrets about the filters in use.

Well, that might be not entirely true. When cranking the Cutoff and the resonance, minor differences can be seen between the various filters. 3 and 4 are the most CPU hungry over here. 1,2 and 5 are around 10% less hungry.

[EvilDragon]

Except that's not an indicator either, since multiple filter models (chosen at random) are calculated in parallel - only one of them is being output.

[exmatproton]

Except that's not an indicator either, since multiple filter models (chosen at random) are calculated in parallel - only one of them is being output.

Ofcourse, it is no indicator, but something different is happening with filters 3 and 4. I am not drawing any conclusions though

[PAK]

I very rarely use more than a touch of resonance. I'm not a fan of high resonance sounds full stop (I kind of despise filter sweeps - I find them cheesy and gimmicky at best..) so I don't really test stuff at high resonance settings very much. The only use I have for high resonance is for making kick drums on some synths. As such, 1 & 2 make me 'feel' like I'm tweaking a real analog filter at settings I like to use.

I'm curious if you've formed that preference mainly from plugins / digital synth filters over the years?

A common thing is them going from a closed filter sound straight into squelchy sounds as you raise the resonance, limiting the usefulness of it. Whereas in certain analogue examples within certain ranges, as you open the filter, the resonance can add some high frequencies into the sound without it sounding like obvious resonance up to a certain point. Some might call it air or sheen etc. Making the filter sound more open, or the sound less dull, at that cutoff point than if you lowered the resonance.

Could still be your preference, But I think maybe people are less likely to use higher resonance when filters go more directly to squelch

[zerocrossing]

PS. Ableton 9.5 CPU monitor show a 10% + difference when using filters 3 & 4.

CPU performance in this test version of RePro is no indicator of anything, as there are a bunch of techniques used to disguise performance to not give away secrets about the filters in use.

I hope you're crunching SETI data behind the scenes or something else that's fun and possibly useful.

[aoao123]

Option 5 is by FAR the smoothest, warmest sounding one. If you don't include it in the final version, I'd be very disappointed!

[BenGee23]

I compared the filter with Arturia Mini Brute. Number 1 sounds best for me! What a funny experiment!

[EvilDragon]

MiniBrute is far from Pro One, though. Completely different filter design.

[moscom_electronics]

MiniBrute is far from Pro One, though. Completely different filter design.

And if 1 sounds like a Minibrute, then a MiniBrute sounds surprisingly digital and it is not my recollection of the Steiner-PArker filter...

[foosnark]

Yeah, my Microbrute filter is nothing at all like this. It does break up when you crank the feedback ("Brute Factor") but in a completely different way.