You really need to buy proper CPU, it's cheap.NikitaJ wrote:After this, you really need to make the CPU consumption your TOP PRIORITY!
Repro-1 (out now)
-
david.beholder david.beholder https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=159839 - KVRAF
- 1914 posts since 13 Sep, 2007
Murderous duck!
-
- KVRist
- 113 posts since 17 Apr, 2012
I'm not sure if it is the most analog, but i like the sound/character of the 5th filter the most.
EDIT: After playing with the resonance, i also have to say the 4th filter is nice, too.
EDIT: After playing with the resonance, i also have to say the 4th filter is nice, too.
-
- KVRAF
- 24411 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Of course not. 
-
- KVRAF
- 25849 posts since 20 Jan, 2008 from a star near where you are
No, they all get a shot at RePro-Betagridsleep wrote:Does everyone who submits an opinion on the veracity of Repro-Alpha's filter get a cut of the profits for helping U-He perfect their inevitably commercial software?
-
- KVRAF
- 9144 posts since 7 Oct, 2005
U-he might sell it with intro (discounted) price for a limited time when they release it, as they did with previous synths.gridsleep wrote:Does everyone who submits an opinion on the veracity of Repro-Alpha's filter get a cut of the profits for helping U-He perfect their inevitably commercial software?
Using: Cubase Pro 15, Reason 13, Tascam US-4x4HR, MODX6, DM12D, LaunchKey 49, Yamaha guitar(Pacifica 612v) and bass (BB234) and some virtual instruments and synths.
-
- KVRian
- 1262 posts since 15 May, 2002 from Finland
Actually 1 with all the artifacts sounds closest to my Doepfer A-102 doing filter FM (that´s the fastest module I have on eurocrack for filter FM). Altough 4 has more clear and otherwise pleasing sound, the effect rolls off at a lower frequency than number 1. Number 1 has low maximum modulation update speed, less than audio rate? But on the other hand there is no lowpass or something limiting the way it´s allowed to modulate the cutoff? Since on 5 it seems there is a filter at some point between the oscillator and the filter cutoff hiding the artifacts on high frequency settings?
1 also retains the most fundamental frequency power when doing stuff, which I do like, but have no idea how this compares to the the synth being emulated. The loudness makes this stand out, so comparing to others is not neutral.
2 has somehow subdued transients on some very resonancey sounds, 5 very much so.
4 has overall nice character, clear transients with squelchy settings, and on fast filter FM does not roll off the effect so fast.
5 has overall a lot of rolloff somehow on everything. FM not so wild. On the other hand, is there more drift or something with the settings, on some sounds seems a bit more lively than the other filters? The quality is actually quite pleasant apart from the FM stuff being more tame.
On most normal settings the filters sound all very similar and useable.
The biggest differences arise with really fast filter FM (then again, what is "analog", some of my rack filters FM really badly), and also certain squelchy settings, where several of the filters lose high end and transient clarity. Also there are huge differences on how the resonance affects the body of the sound.
The clarity of fast filter FM goes from "better" to "worse" in my opinion like 4, 1, 3, 2, 5
I actually like the artifacts on 1 a lot, so I hope this mode is at least selectable in the synth
1 also retains the most fundamental frequency power when doing stuff, which I do like, but have no idea how this compares to the the synth being emulated. The loudness makes this stand out, so comparing to others is not neutral.
2 has somehow subdued transients on some very resonancey sounds, 5 very much so.
4 has overall nice character, clear transients with squelchy settings, and on fast filter FM does not roll off the effect so fast.
5 has overall a lot of rolloff somehow on everything. FM not so wild. On the other hand, is there more drift or something with the settings, on some sounds seems a bit more lively than the other filters? The quality is actually quite pleasant apart from the FM stuff being more tame.
On most normal settings the filters sound all very similar and useable.
The biggest differences arise with really fast filter FM (then again, what is "analog", some of my rack filters FM really badly), and also certain squelchy settings, where several of the filters lose high end and transient clarity. Also there are huge differences on how the resonance affects the body of the sound.
The clarity of fast filter FM goes from "better" to "worse" in my opinion like 4, 1, 3, 2, 5
I actually like the artifacts on 1 a lot, so I hope this mode is at least selectable in the synth
-
- KVRAF
- 18357 posts since 26 Jun, 2006 from San Francisco Bay Area
If I had a cut of profit for every product I have given an opinion of... I'd be a billionair.gridsleep wrote:Does everyone who submits an opinion on the veracity of Repro-Alpha's filter get a cut of the profits for helping U-He perfect their inevitably commercial software?
Zerocrossing Media
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
-
david.beholder david.beholder https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=159839
- KVRAF
- 1914 posts since 13 Sep, 2007
Don't forget about inflation rate of currency you would be payed withzerocrossing wrote: If I had a cut of profit for every product I have given an opinion of... I'd be a billionair.
Last edited by david.beholder on Tue May 24, 2016 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Murderous duck!
-
- KVRer
- 2 posts since 13 Nov, 2014
With osc a and b mixer levels lowish (below 5), filter 1 and 4 with big envelope and lots of res made the osc's break up as the filter swept down.
2 and 3 did this to some degree, but not as bad.
5 did this the least.
For that reason (low osc levels will break up) I vote for 5.
Cheers Jeffrey
2 and 3 did this to some degree, but not as bad.
5 did this the least.
For that reason (low osc levels will break up) I vote for 5.
Cheers Jeffrey
-
- KVRer
- 2 posts since 29 Jul, 2014
Wow, this is the best synth(concept) in 2016 to me, sofar! I´ve been busting my ears with it this weekend. Lots of joy!!! Thanks a lot for sharing.
But there is a little problem:
When I save a project with the repro and then load it again, the play mode is steadily set to "envelope" and cant be switched back to gate. This also happens when i save a preset and then load it again. I use cubase 5 (legal version), win 7 in 64 bit. Did anyone discover this, too?
But there is a little problem:
When I save a project with the repro and then load it again, the play mode is steadily set to "envelope" and cant be switched back to gate. This also happens when i save a preset and then load it again. I use cubase 5 (legal version), win 7 in 64 bit. Did anyone discover this, too?
-
- KVRer
- 2 posts since 29 Jul, 2014
Sorrey 
I´m neurotic.... I had to know....
I´m neurotic.... I had to know....-
- KVRian
- 751 posts since 22 Aug, 2002 from on the inside looking out
This is a small and somewhat annoying bug in a plug-in that is otherwise perfectly usable. But, yeah...AnX wrote:Its a research plugin, no point posting bugs really....? Its moved on a lot since this was 'released'