Repro-1 (out now)

[Urs]

It would be mind dazzling if it has some of Bazille's sequencer design

Hehehe, that would require a few more switches than just two.

At least, we're going to add a dedicated button for rests. There won't be a need to switch from Record to Play and back to insert a rest.

[BDeep]

Does using the resonance in any way push back the volume a large amount on anyone elses version?

Also, the envelope Att/Dec/Rel dont seem to be functioning at all.

And I am getting stuck notes constantly.

Just me?

Re: the second point, you don't happen to have it set to "drone"? That would explain it

[EnGee]

It would be mind dazzling if it has some of Bazille's sequencer design

Hehehe, that would require a few more switches than just two.

At least, we're going to add a dedicated button for rests. There won't be a need to switch from Record to Play and back to insert a rest.

I was just dreaming

The rests would be great. I couldn't understand you at first, but reading the below paragraph (taken from Vintage synths Explorer website), I know now what you mean:

"There's also an onboard sequencer, something common on many Sequential synths but not often found on other monosynths of the time. It is very basic, however, storing only two patterns and up to 40 notes max. Also, only pitch info is recorded (and in step time only); you can not assign a note duration to any notes. So it's basically a short melodic sketch-pad...but useful. Also onboard is an arpeggiator which has UP and UP/DOWN patterns."

[Ivan_C]

I finally vote for 4, but it is very close to 3

[NerdMcBoon]

It would be mind dazzling if it has some of Bazille's sequencer design

Hehehe, that would require a few more switches than just two.

At least, we're going to add a dedicated button for rests. There won't be a need to switch from Record to Play and back to insert a rest.

I was just dreaming

The rests would be great. I couldn't understand you at first, but reading the below paragraph (taken from Vintage synths Explorer website), I know now what you mean:

"There's also an onboard sequencer, something common on many Sequential synths but not often found on other monosynths of the time. It is very basic, however, storing only two patterns and up to 40 notes max. Also, only pitch info is recorded (and in step time only); you can not assign a note duration to any notes. So it's basically a short melodic sketch-pad...but useful. Also onboard is an arpeggiator which has UP and UP/DOWN patterns."

The great thing about the Pro-One sequencer is that you can actually record the arp with it. It's also possible to then "overdub" notes after that.
It also outputs pitch inculding the glide via CV, which is quite a nice feature.

[beely]

I've always thought the Pro One was an ideal sweet spot design for a mono synth - simple enough to cover the basics, but flexible enough to go significantly beyond them.

Given a choice between a nice Minimoog and a nice Pro One, I'd take the Pro One every time...

[EnGee]

It would be mind dazzling if it has some of Bazille's sequencer design

Hehehe, that would require a few more switches than just two.

At least, we're going to add a dedicated button for rests. There won't be a need to switch from Record to Play and back to insert a rest.

I was just dreaming

The rests would be great. I couldn't understand you at first, but reading the below paragraph (taken from Vintage synths Explorer website), I know now what you mean:

"There's also an onboard sequencer, something common on many Sequential synths but not often found on other monosynths of the time. It is very basic, however, storing only two patterns and up to 40 notes max. Also, only pitch info is recorded (and in step time only); you can not assign a note duration to any notes. So it's basically a short melodic sketch-pad...but useful. Also onboard is an arpeggiator which has UP and UP/DOWN patterns."

The great thing about the Pro-One sequencer is that you can actually record the arp with it. It's also possible to then "overdub" notes after that.
It also outputs pitch inculding the glide via CV, which is quite a nice feature.

Thanks for the info. You made me more interested in this synth and also by chance I was watching Synth Britania today and saw Vince Clark using it in his hit when he was in Yazoo, wonderful sound

[Ronny Pries]

Hmhmhmhmh. I've got trouble with making a decision. There are pros and cons for each model under different circumstances. And i have no idea how the Pro One sounds when taken to extremes.

More tweaking...

[StarskyCarr]

This was good fun... its 4 for me.

As a lucky owner of a Pro-One I thought it was going to be an easy choice...

I first listened on headphones and thought 4 sounded the most similar to the keyboard - it had a little more bite. No.1 was instantly out of the question - the digital artefacts being far too obvious.

On setting up in the studio next to the Pro-One it was much more interesting. No.1 was not in the running. I controlled the Repro with my Sub 37,set up next to the Pro-One.

I found filters 2,3,4 and 5 to be mainly just as useful as each other most of the time -ie using stock sounds and not playing the filter or pushing it hard. No. 4 still sounded better through.

I tested with the both osc and noise off, using only a high res and controlling via a sawtooth from oscillator B which ramps up the cut-off. No. 5 sounded smoothest here, as I could hear a very quiet fall in the filter pitch with 3 and 4... i.e. there was an almost inaudible drop in the filter frequency after the sawtooth dropped to zero (or it may be an aliasing effect while the filter is in the inaudible range).

This confused me... but the I noticed that when playing only the filter and modulating the resonance there was a change in frequency using 3 and 5 - which doesn't happen on the Pro One - or any other analog I have for that matter. I think only the cut-off should modulate the frequency of the filter. The resonance just increases the peak.

Which brings me back to 4 again!! When playing gently with the cutoff and res to get the sound to break up, 4 sounds a little more like the synth. It doesn't break up as much but has more of the same feel. I could get similar sounds across the range of octaves up and down the keyboard.

Interestingly the filter goes much lower than my synth - maybe a service is in order!

So 4 is most similar - but in reality I'm not sure it makes too much of a difference (except for 1), when using it to play 'standard' sounds. i.e. not pushing the filter. It still plays lovely fat basses and great leads, increasing resonance drops the volume etc. They all sound a little different, but not too much to take away from the playability of the sounds, which is what the Pro-One is all about... easy accessible juiciness - if there is such a word (there is now!).

[Urs]

This confused me... but the I noticed that when playing only the filter and modulating the resonance there was a change in frequency using 3 and 5 - which doesn't happen on the Pro One - or any other analog I have for that matter. I think only the cut-off should modulate the frequency of the filter. The resonance just increases the peak.

Hehe, most analogue filters go down in frequency when resonance is pushed higher. It's actually a side effect of the distortion curve in the filter stages - the higher the amplitude, the stronger the attenuation and thus the lower the filter frequency.

The Pro-One can be exceptionally stable in filter frequency though, as are a few other Curtis based filters I've got around. However, my Pro-One goes up (!) in frequency by about 25 Cents when dialing resonance from 6 to 10. From the examples that we got sent, most were rather stable but some went down by as much as a fourth.

In my experiments, very small changes to some voltages and resistor values can have a huge effect on the dependency of frequency and resonance.

[hugoderwolf]

RePro inspired me to write a little article on how to put a filter on the test bench and find out its secrets. Here it is:
http://science-of-sound.net/2016/04/test-synth-filter/

Hope it's helpful and inspiring! And I'd like to invite everyone to chime in and share similar tricks in the comments!

[hugoderwolf]

In my experiments, very small changes to some voltages and resistor values can have a huge effect on the dependency of frequency and resonance.

I wonder if there's a simple way to predict this resonance detuning. It's a bit annoying if one wants to have a nice analog-ish filter that's still tuned exactly.

[Phuturetone]

#1 – Bad, the noisiest.
#4 – Not bad, but still digital at high freqs.
#3 – Good, less digital than #4.
#2 and #5 – Excellent, can't hear any digital artefacts, #5 is pitched slightly higher than #2.

Tested on filter self-oscillating at high freq with mild FM. Of course, that is hardly common synth usage scenario, so I'd be happy with any of the filters other than #1.

[deltaMACHINE]

Ich hatte nie einen Pro One!

Aber ich habe gute Ohren und erkenne den versuch Software wie Hardware klingen zu lassen .

Deshalb Urs es kann eigentlich nur der 4 Filter sein der mich doch leicht überzeugt hat (mit Kopfhörer) naja wir werden sehen

Weiter so Gruss Mario

[fmr]

#1 – Bad, the noisiest.
#4 – Not bad, but still digital at high freqs.
#3 – Good, less digital than #4.
#2 and #5 – Excellent, can't hear any digital artefacts, #5 is pitched slightly higher than #2.

Tested on filter self-oscillating at high freq with mild FM. Of course, that is hardly common synth usage scenario, so I'd be happy with any of the filters other than #1.

Basically what I observed, but seems like most people became so used to digital artifacts that they now prefer them