Repro-1 (out now)

[Chapelle]

---

[beely]

This plugin and tech is basically research for the next version of Zebra, which ideally would contain Diva-quality filters, but the Zebra framework is potentially much more demanding than Diva which has at it's heart a fairly simple, fixed structure - Zebra is more open-ended and flexible.

So part the the reason of doing this is to work out how much "quality" the next version of Zebra needs, and is also a nice project for Urs who has a particular love for the Pro One. As has been said by Urs before, this is not really about Diva at all.

[Nokenoku]

Of course, it really depends on the situation, which filter sounds best.
However, my thoughts:

3 stands out in the way, the ringing abruptly ends, while the other filters ring out smoother. Not a fan of it.
1 sounds a rather boring and "digital" to me. Has this typical squeaking.
2 is a bit similar to 1, but definetly better.
5 is good!
4 is the best for me!

Imo 4 has the best kind of saturation in it, which is more pronounced and fresh than in 5, without sounding harsh or digital in any situation.



However ... while I am writing this, I notice, that 1 and 4 have one tuning and 2,3 and 5 another one (1 and 4 having their resonance at a higher picth).
So I might have to test some more with this in mind.

Still 4 seems to be my favorite so far (and 1 the worst).

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Why this own plugin not expansion for DIVA? is there really good reason. and if this needs 16gigabytes ram i dont going test it anytime soon.

Yep, those with questions could just actually just please *read* the thread they are posting in, as all these things are answered multiple times...

No offense to Urs or you here, but that information isn't as immediately accessible as you think. I browsed through the past 5 pages of this thread searching for the word "Diva" and I didn't find any answer to the question. I did the same with Urs post history and IDK if I missed it but I certainly didn't stumble upon the answer. Ridiculous to expect me to browse through almost 30 pages in this thread and the threads in the u-he subforum looking for a quick answer of a reasonable question.

If Urs doesn't want to answer it anymore he should have it posted in the OP of RePro threads. Why is this being considered as a potential separate product release when Diva could use it's Pro-One emulated modules in a product update? It is odd to think of this going down a different path when Diva is a semi-modular, varying vintage synth emu project. Anyone willing to answer this for me? Seems a few of you know, and it's more helpful than snarky "ITS BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE!" responses. If it's being asked too many times, it's a question people are interested in the answer to and Urs should pin it to the original post of these threads.

Between the 2 threads, there's probably 50+ pages worth of posts on the topic of RePro-1, so I can't blame you for not wanting to go through all that. For folks who weren't around since these threads started, it could definitely be a bit much. That said, I went looking for Urs comments on the subject and it wasn't all that hard either (if you knew where to look).

Here's a post from Urs on the topic: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 0#p6362326

From that, it sounds like the filter is for DIVA, but the whole synth architecture works better as a standalone product and just wouldn't fit the DIVA paradigm.

[Boardwalk]

@KingTuck

As I remember it the final version will not use that much CPU (as in this test version all 5 filters are set 'on').
And no, it is an exclusive plugin.

[KingTuck]

Thanks for the responses. I can get behind a dedicated mono synth.

[thomasueber]

Thomas, the code is running multiple filter algorithms at once so no one votes for the one with the highest CPU. Urs indicated that the release version will use something like 1/5th the CPU of the Alpha.

For testing, I also found that at static settings the filters could sound very similar, but once you increase the resonance and jack up the "Osc B - VCF Cutoff" knob, you'll start to really hear differences between the filter models, especially once you start tweaking the cutoff.

Thanks Funkybot's Evil Twin for the info. My statement wasn´t meant destructive or something else stupid. I really do respect Urs and his product portfolio. I am a user of Bazille and i like most of the Demo-Versions I tried out till now from U-He. And right, the modulation is good to get a feeling for the filters.

I started to put into the chain of RePro in Ableton Live the EQ Eight. This is nice to see the frequency spectrum. So what I think is. Vintage or analog eq´s and filters do not work "perfect" like their digital pendants. That´s what I read in books about it (I wrote a thesis for SAE about modular-synths). I am not an expert for filters and I didn´t worked in studios with vintage gear yet. But with a frequency analysis is very good to see. Exactly what I read about it you can find in these emulations with different filter-types. You get steady a signal through anyway how the settings of cutoff & resonance is.

I am sure. Urs want to know the opinion of people who know about the feelings while working with "real" analog gear. They should know what it means tweaking a filter cutoff like on a Moog or Sequential Circuits and so on. This kind of response I cannot give so i have to do my best with this researchware to stay so authentic as possible.

I read some people saying that filter-model 1 would sound a bit too digital or something else? I didn´t read the whole thread (excuse me) but I can´t agree with this opinion. I think filter-model 1 has something "edgy" and crispy. I like this filter-model very much and i change my opinion that maybe no. 1 & 4 are currently my favorite. I will try a few things more this week and then i vote my filter of desire.

[Boardwalk]

Yeah well, I was under the impression that it is an exclusive project. Seems a nice&easy UI
I didn't notice it was meant as a test for an upcoming Zebra version. Maybe Urs can confirm one and another. I'd like to see it as a separate release.

[moscom_electronics]

Yeah well, I was under the impression that it is an exclusive project. Seems a nice&easy UI
I didn't notice it was meant as a test for an upcoming Zebra version. Maybe Urs can confirm one and another. I'd like to see it as a separate release.

It will be a separate release and it is also a research project for Zebra 3... so both!

[Boardwalk]

@moscom_electronics

Ah, thanks!

[Daags]

lets share some presets which we think makes the differences stand out.

[Nokenoku]

Ok, even after more testing 4 and 5 sound the most analogue and best to me.
And 4 definetly gets the win overall.

[moscom_electronics]

lets share some presets which we think makes the differences stand out.

Here is one for you (I know, again ). Play with it at different pitches, C3 and C5 for example. Press the note for a long time to see how the sound evolves. Switch filters, hear the differences

[moscom_electronics]

double post

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

lets share some presets which we think makes the differences stand out.

Here is one for you (I know, again ). Play with it at different pitches, C3 and C5 for example. Press the note for a long time to see how the sound evolves. Switch filters, hear the differences

I honestly think that this particular patch/test points out some obvious differences in the quality of the filters. Especially when you consider that Urs own Pro-One closely resembled two of the filter types at very similar settings (hint for folks who missed it, Urs recreated this patch on his own Pro-One for comparison and posted the audio in this thread). Oddly enough, the filter that most closely resembled Urs Pro One is in the middle of the rankings.

In fairness, the one that was next closes is currently in the lead.