Repro-1 (out now)

[fluffy_little_something]

I simply don't understand why there are still mono software synths since one might as well include various mono modes in a poly synth. With hardware, monophonic was probably just an evolutionary necessity before polyphonic, also for cost reasons. I don't think Moog would have made the memorymoog before the minimoog.

I have read repeatedly that people are initially impressed by Monark, but after a while they get bored with it.

People are initially impressed by lots of things that they then get bored with... hell, when you first got Sylenth, you were raving about it... then you sold it.

Monophonic synths have some characteristics that do not translate to polyphony. One, having the Osc always on for drones (like RePro has) does not work for polyphony. Also, take an awesome monosynth like Dominion 1. It has such a powerful sound that if you make a polyphonic version, it does not necessarily work as well. And then there is audio in option. That is generally seen on monosynths.

I didn't get bored with Sylenth1, I had a few issues with it. I still miss it a bit, occasionally when I start my DAW I try to open it before I remember I no longer have it But I wanted to settle on only one synth and obviously, it had to be one free of issues.

I don't see why those monophonic advantages should not be implemented in the hard mono mode of a polyphonic synth. Software is very flexible.
And re the powerful sound, two oscillators are two oscillators. Mono synths often use more volume because there is no risk of playing chords that add up. That might give the impression that mono synths are intrinsically more powerful, but I doubt they are. It all depends on the osc structure, the filter etc., be it mono or poly. If I set a very good polyphonic synth to mono mode and turn up the volume a bit, it also becomes very powerful. In mono mode it can also be "always on", whatever that means (free running?).

[xalama qo]

Hi TUC,

Thanks for your comments! Looking forward to more demo tracks and clips from you

[beely]

I don't see why those monophonic advantages should not be implemented in the hard mono mode of a polyphonic synth. Software is very flexible.

Sure. And if you were the designer of a product, that preference would likely inspire your design choices and you'd probably build polyphony in. I certainly get why you'd like this feature.

In *this* case, Urs wanted to recreate the Pro One (that was his design preference), which is a mono synth, and he wasn't interested in making it polyphonic, for a bunch of reasons. The nature of the Pro One *is* as a monosynth, and that's fine. Use an instrument for what it *is*, rather than criticise it for what it isn't. An instruments personality is defined by both what can do, and what it can't, and some features change the nature of an instrument to a degree the designer doesn't like so much, even if the feature set alone might be nice. These are all part of the design process.

I tend to like poly synths in general over monosynths or modular synths, but i have no problem with this being a Pro One.

And I'm sure you have plenty of other synths that play chords, it's not like this is the only tool in the box..

[pdxindy]

I don't see why those monophonic advantages should not be implemented in the hard mono mode of a polyphonic synth. Software is very flexible.

Then go ahead and implement it...

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't see why those monophonic advantages should not be implemented in the hard mono mode of a polyphonic synth. Software is very flexible.

Sure. And if you were the designer of a product, that preference would likely inspire your design choices and you'd probably build polyphony in. I certainly get why you'd like this feature.

In *this* case, Urs wanted to recreate the Pro One (that was his design preference), which is a mono synth, and he wasn't interested in making it polyphonic, for a bunch of reasons. The nature of the Pro One *is* as a monosynth, and that's fine. Use an instrument for what it *is*, rather than criticise it for what it isn't. An instruments personality is defined by both what can do, and what it can't, and some features change the nature of an instrument to a degree the designer doesn't like so much, even if the feature set alone might be nice. These are all part of the design process.

I tend to like poly synths in general over monosynths or modular synths, but i have no problem with this being a Pro One.

And I'm sure you have plenty of other synths that play chords, it's not like this is the only tool in the box..

Sure, although I only use two synths, hoping to standardize on a single one soon, polyphonic of course.
But yes, although I would not make or buy a mono synth myself, I am fine with it of course. It's none of my business what people do with their lives...

[Urs]

I guess I'll hear that quite often, soon enough. Maybe I should assemble a list of reasons as to why Repro-1 is monophonic. Let's start with this:

Reason 1:

We have three concepts for making this polyphonic, but we only want to implement one of these (a Four Voice type synth with Repro-1 inside OR a Prophet-5 emulation OR a Diva upgrade including latter). Each of these concepts beats a poly mode in Repro-1, and such a poly mode would defy the purpose of any of these concepts. It's either or, and we'll only do what we think is best.

Reason 2:

Because we should. When I met Mike Daliot I asked him why he designed Monark to be monophonic only. He told me that the sounds Monark is good at simply don't lend themselves to polyphony. Likewise I think that Pro-One sounds only make sense in a polyphonic context if the presets are toned down to a subset of features, like a polyphonic Prophet is. Which would then make sound design easier if it was an emulation of a polyphonic Prophet, no?

Reason 3:

Because we can. When Monark came out, it being monophonic caused a bit a mayhem. However, Roland has since released a bunch of mono synths as well. So it's a thing. Without that I would not have thought there was a way to do a mono synth these days.

Reason 4:

Because people asked for it. This has been a feature request by persitent users ever since Diva came out: "Please make a simpler alternative to Diva with the same level of emulation, but cheaper. Maybe make it monophonic if that cuts cost". It sure does!

Reason 5:

We don't want it to cannibalize Diva sales. Selfish, huh? - If you want that classic polyphonic analogue goodness, Diva is and remains your best choice.

Reason 6:

Because I wanted to do an utterly faithful emulation. There are features in the Pro-One that don't work in poly mode or which would have unexpected side effects: Drone, trigger options, auto glide, external trigger to name a few. These options are essential for the Pro-One's character. A poly mode would have to "tuck
these away". It would lessen the Pro-One experience (or cause us support headache when people ask about these). Tucking these away would furthermore make Repro-1 more complicated again. It has already become complicated enough because we added host sync (you'll thank us for that).

That's it for now... I'll make up more as we go.

- U

[AnX]

Its a cop out. There is no reason to not give a mono synth the option to be polyphonic.

High on cpu? Sure.... but so what

Mono sounds dont sound good as poly sounds? Utter rubbish.

There is NO reason at all in software to not have the option.

[Urs]

Its a cop out.

I guess you haven't been able to read through the lines that there will be a poly version?

[AnX]

Its a cop out.

I guess you haven't been able to read through the lines that there will be a poly version?

Im generalising in answer to every devs reasons

[Echoes in the Attic]

While I respect the reasons Urs has for making this a mono synth, I think that what Mike Daliot said about the minimoog not being good for polyphonic sounds is nonsense, as can be seen by the polyphonic patches in the MiniV, Minimonsta and Diva with the moog modules. The minimoog makes great polyphonic sounds. And it's a single switch to flip so it takes away nothing from people wanting to use it monophonically.

I don't know anything about the drone function or the other stuff mentioned about the Pro-One's unique mono functions, but if it's cheaper to keep it mono, then it makes sense. I would be over the moon however to see prophet 5 modules in Diva. And they would fit perfectly since the it has almost the same structure as the others there. I'd also be willing to pay extra for it, but I do hope it would be in Diva rather than separate for the sake of being able to mix modules with the other ones in Diva. I'm sure others also wouldn't have a problem with an upgrade fee for unlocking the prophet inside Diva as I think everyone got their money's worth with Diva.

[pdxindy]

Its a cop out. There is no reason to not give a mono synth the option to be polyphonic.

High on cpu? Sure.... but so what

Mono sounds dont sound good as poly sounds? Utter rubbish.

There is NO reason at all in software to not have the option.

There is one very big reason. A developer can do what they want and it is none of your business. Don't buy it, or go code your own if you don't like it.

I could never be a developer...

[AnX]

Its a cop out. There is no reason to not give a mono synth the option to be polyphonic.

High on cpu? Sure.... but so what

Mono sounds dont sound good as poly sounds? Utter rubbish.

There is NO reason at all in software to not have the option.

There is one very big reason. A developer can do what they want and it is none of your business. Don't buy it, or go code your own if you don't like it.

I could never be a developer...

Sure, they can do what they like, and i can buy what i like. Thats not the point. The point is, there is NO credible reason for a soft synth to be mono ONLY.

[kmonkey]

Its a cop out. There is no reason to not give a mono synth the option to be polyphonic.

High on cpu? Sure.... but so what

Mono sounds dont sound good as poly sounds? Utter rubbish.

There is NO reason at all in software to not have the option.

There is one very big reason. A developer can do what they want and it is none of your business. Don't buy it, or go code your own if you don't like it.

I could never be a developer...

Sure, they can do what they like, and i can buy what i like. Thats not the point. The point is, there is NO credible reason for a soft synth to be mono ONLY.

Oh well here wo go again...but there is. He just explained it well for the public. And imo all valid reason for him. I think internet nobody really can not convince him to change his mind.

So you want to claim what is credible for him, his company and his products? Wow. I want to see your products?!!

But we all know kvr is full of self entitled users which think that their idea is the best one and need to find way in to product development cycle.

Haha

[pdxindy]

Its a cop out. There is no reason to not give a mono synth the option to be polyphonic.

High on cpu? Sure.... but so what

Mono sounds dont sound good as poly sounds? Utter rubbish.

There is NO reason at all in software to not have the option.

There is one very big reason. A developer can do what they want and it is none of your business. Don't buy it, or go code your own if you don't like it.

I could never be a developer...

Sure, they can do what they like, and i can buy what i like. Thats not the point. The point is, there is NO credible reason for a soft synth to be mono ONLY.

Sure there are credible reasons... what you are describing is a theoretical world. Theory and practice generally exist far apart from each other.

But I think you have no actual interest in an honest conversation. Plus you are way too rude.

[sacer]

I am not sure if you can compare the arturia proV but I think there are also nice poly patches