u-he

moscom_electronics · Post by **moscom_electronics** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:13 pm

Hi,

so given what I heard when testing RePro, I am now curious to know whether the algos tested in RePro will lead to "updates" to the filters in other U-He synths. In particular I am thinking about ACE and Bazille. their filters sound really good, and I am happy with them. I guess I am asking because I have the feeling that modulation ranges in ACE and Bazille are huge too (I may be very wrong on this, it is just a gut feeling) and I was wondering whether there is a plan to transfer some of the knowledge acquired while developping RePro to these two synths.

Of course, I still hope that the "Black Magic" mode will apear in DIVA

Thanks in advance!

Moscom

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:39 pm

I guess we'll see how it goes

david.beholder · Post by **david.beholder** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:30 am

It looks like we wouldn't see Z3 this year (not complaining).

Boardwalk · Post by **Boardwalk** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:48 am

Yes, but...

moscom_electronics · Post by **moscom_electronics** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:33 am

david.beholder wrote:It looks like we wouldn't see Z3 this year (not complaining).

Why? Urs has never stated anything about this. AFAIK, REPro is part of Zebra 3's development. Maybe this development will go faster once the U0He guys know what to do with filter algos to get the best out of Zebra.

NerdMcBoon · Post by **NerdMcBoon** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:47 am

I woudn't hope for Zebra 3 this year, at least if it's even half of what I'm imagining it to be.

Analog sounding filters are only a tiny part of Zebra 3, in my opinion. I even think it's one of the least important parts. What I would really like to see is some advancement in digital technology. We have all this processing power these days, and we are mainly using it to emulate things from 40 years ago. All this is cool for all the emulation synths, but I don't want Zebra 3 to be one of those. I'd really like it to be a synth that lets me explore completely new sounds in completely new ways, and I think thats exactly what it's going to be.

It's a smart move to figure out how to "emulate" CPU efficient analog sounding filters which don't emulate anything specific. It will make analog flavours available in Zebra 3 without taking it over, if that makes any sense.

In my opinion, Zebra 2 is the best synth ever made, and I believe Zebra 3 will be even more awesome.

moscom_electronics · Post by **moscom_electronics** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:43 am

I agree with you. I do not see the RePro research as a quest for the most analog sounding digital filter so much as a question regarding what to do if you want your filter to be able to experience large-range modulations (12 octaves in the case of RePro) and still stay musical. In RePro's case, that is what puts me off with Filter 1. So to me, I do not care if Zebra 3 will sound analog, I just care about the ability to modulate its parameters at audio rates over the largest ranges possible.

As for improvements in digital technology, I am curious what you have in mind. Given what Urs suggested, I think that we can expect physical modeling to be even more present in Zebra 3 (although part of this is already in there with the comb filters). A sampling oscillator with granular possibilities and resynthesis would be great too! To me, Zebra would really make a big step if feedback was possible and the OSCs were modulation sources. In this respect, Bazille is much more advanced. But I think Urs said that such modulations would be difficult to implement.

aaron aardvark · Post by **aaron aardvark** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:05 am

Don't forget the Zebra HZ has Diva filters available, so having analog sounding filters available for Zebra is not something entirely new.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:02 am

moscom_electronics wrote:In this respect, Bazille is much more advanced. But I think Urs said that such modulations would be difficult to implement.

Zebra has a stereo signal path... Bazille is mono... so any Bazille functionality will take double the CPU for the same quality.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:36 pm

moscom_electronics wrote:I agree with you. I do not see the RePro research as a quest for the most analog sounding digital filter so much as a question regarding what to do if you want your filter to be able to experience large-range modulations (12 octaves in the case of RePro) and still stay musical. In RePro's case, that is what puts me off with Filter 1. So to me, I do not care if Zebra 3 will sound analog, I just care about the ability to modulate its parameters at audio rates over the largest ranges possible.

As for improvements in digital technology, I am curious what you have in mind. Given what Urs suggested, I think that we can expect physical modeling to be even more present in Zebra 3 (although part of this is already in there with the comb filters). A sampling oscillator with granular possibilities and resynthesis would be great too! To me, Zebra would really make a big step if feedback was possible and the OSCs were modulation sources. In this respect, Bazille is much more advanced. But I think Urs said that such modulations would be difficult to implement.

I'm with you for most of that. The System 1 plug in is a good example of a not particularly "analog" sounding filter that behaves well when modulated at audio rates. But to me it's just OK. When you compare it to the filter in the System 100 plug in, it seems very plain. In another thread we were talking about the filters of the Virus, and that's my feeling about its filters too.

So, I'm no expert on analog modeling, but it does seem to be more than a coincidence that a few filter designs have become classics. Moog ladder, Prophet 5, 303, etc. We see them emulated again and again. I think it's a lot more than nostalgia. I think there's something inherently good about them that humans gravitate to. The first thing I thought when I head RePro-1 was, "please put this in Zebra!"

david.beholder · Post by **david.beholder** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:33 pm

zerocrossing wrote: So, I'm no expert on analog modeling, but it does seem to be more than a coincidence that a few filter designs have become classics. Moog ladder, Prophet 5, 303, etc.

Yes it's no coincedence -- they are famous because were first of their kind.

NerdMcBoon · Post by **NerdMcBoon** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:18 pm

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is more to sound synthesis than filtering stuff.

Take this Zebra sound for example. It's not the best example, but it's the only one I have lying around at the moment.

Super analog sounding filters are not important for that kind of stuff. I'm way more looking forward to improved oscillators, comb filters and so on.

moscom_electronics · Post by **moscom_electronics** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:23 pm

david.beholder wrote:
zerocrossing wrote: So, I'm no expert on analog modeling, but it does seem to be more than a coincidence that a few filter designs have become classics. Moog ladder, Prophet 5, 303, etc.
Yes it's no coincedence -- they are famous because were first of their kind.

The diode filter of the 303 was not the first of its kind, and it was still noticed, the ARP filter was a clone of the Moog done in such a way that it had its own sound... so the first of its kind story does not really hold.... I believe that the fact that our brain loves some filters and forget others is all about what they do to the sound that we do not notice consciously. As Urs stated, many of these filters shared the same architecture and the evil is in the details of the surrounding circuit that feed the signal and power to the filter elements. We do not need to know these things consciously but they sure do play a role in our appreciation because of the "nonlinearities" and artefacts they introduce.

And oscillators matter a lot too...

david.beholder · Post by **david.beholder** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:08 pm

moscom_electronics wrote: The diode filter of the 303 was not the first of its kind, and it was still noticed, the ARP filter was a clone of the Moog done in such a way that it had its own sound... so the first of its kind story does not really hold.... I believe that the fact that our brain loves some filters and forget others is all about what they do to the sound that we do not notice consciously.

Please notice that in real world filters are not in vacuum they are attached to synths. Altho 303 filter was not first of it's kind - EMS developed it 20 years before - but 303 is first and always #1 aceeeed machine.

In 1970 there were Moog, Arp and Buchla -- monos, filters are famous
In 1980 there were Prophet 5, OB X, CS80 and Jup 4 -- polys, filters are famous
In 1990 there were only TB303 and SH101 -- acid, filters are famous

Etc So brain is biased and trained to like whatever it's trained to like.
Oh yeah 303 filter is utterly crappy as well as metal guitar amps from 80ths - but they are more than famous, they are.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:25 pm

david.beholder wrote: Oh yeah 303 filter is utterly crappy as well as metal guitar amps from 80ths - but they are more than famous they are.

Finally someone spoke out what i never dare to say... i get that it's a very famous synth, and especially popular in some genres, but, frankly, it wasn't Roland's top technical achievement, mildly spoken. Well, a Fiat 500 also got very famous for example.

u-he

KVR Audio

RePro and the others... or the obvious filter question