Repro-1 (out now)

[Urs]

I find it hilarious that Urs said people actually requested mono.

Of course they don't ask for mono per sé. They ask for ways to cut cost, and if mono is that then so be it.

Just to make another point again: The Pro-One has features that do not work in a poly environment. You can't play "poly legato" where Glide or Trigger are tied to whether or not a voice was released, a Drone mode in a poly synth would switch all voices on, no matter what note is played and you'd have no control over what you're listening to. The sequencer is tied to the LFO, and ripping the LFO out of the voice archtecture requires just that: A different architecture.

So I think the only viable way to make this thing poly is to put poly into a sister plug-in. This plug-in would have the architecture and a feature set that works. But it's also another plug-in. More code to write and more stuff to maintain. More design to do and all that. Hence extra cost, and that was the point of the feature request.

[Cinebient]

Is the drone mode here a "simple" sustain or is there more about it?
And wouldn't sostenuto allow to drone one voice while others could be played normal in a poly version.
Sorry, i just don't get exactly what the drone mode means.

[Ingonator]

Is the drone mode here a "simple" sustain or is there more about it?
And wouldn't sostenuto allow to drone one voice while others could be played normal in a poly version.
Sorry, i just don't get exactly what the drone mode means.

Usually what i understand as a "Drone" patch is having at least one oscillator with key tracking off (so all notes palyed with that Osc play the same pitch) while the other Oscs (or just one additional Osc) continue playing with key tracking enabled.
You could switch keytrack off in e.g. Osc 3 of the Minmoog (and corresponding emulations including the modules in Diva) and there is also an option to switch this off with the first two Oscs in the Waldorf Pulse 2.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Yeah I never understood why people needed more than one note at a time on a piano or guitar at a time. I mean a singer only plays one note, same with a trumpet! So why the heck does a piano need more than one note?!

I find it hilarious that Urs said people actually requested mono. So what are they actually asking for? They are asking to not have a single switch on the gui that makes it poly. How is that worth requesting? You can use a synth in mono mode just fine, why would you request that limitation? They can chose to only use mono only. If you are actually selfish enough to request mono only, what you are really doing is asking the developer to prevent other people from playing polyphonically. It doesn't affect you at all. I find this insane.

This is criticism of Urs since the only reason you need is cost if you want to sell it in a certain price range. Just of crazies who want mono only.

Yeah, why would I ever want to buy a screwdriver when I can have a Leatherman. The thing is, the Leatherman, while doing many things, does not do each of those things as well as a dedicated tool.

I cannot speak for why each individual might ask for mono, but it seems to me that focusing on and prioritizing a monophonic sound has its own logic. To optimize for monophonic does not mean it works well for polyphonic.

I think it is good to consider why there are so many monophonic synths and so much monophonic modular gear. It is not just cost. Maybe there is something people like about it.

Also, I completely disagree that asking for monophonic is insane. Pretty much every synth is polyphonic. It is like you (people who insist it must be polyphonic) already have 90% of the territory, but you insist that it must be 100%. Leave one little corner that isn't polyphonic. Why does every last corner have to be forced how you want it? Can't there be some differences and diversity?

Actually I think you are missing my point. I don't care if it's monophonic. In fact I almost only use Diva in mono mode. But why should someone like me, who doesn't need the polyphony in a specific synth actually want others not to be able to use it in poly mode? Perhaps other people don't have as many synths as me. And I already mentioned that if it's a cost issue then that makes sense. But that's a specific debate and people who mono only are really requested a lower price, at the expense of polyphony (or other features for that matter). So I'm just saying besides price, the other reasons are silly excuses (like a synth being better suited to mono sounds etc).

[EvilDragon]

Is the drone mode here a "simple" sustain or is there more about it?
And wouldn't sostenuto allow to drone one voice while others could be played normal in a poly version.
Sorry, i just don't get exactly what the drone mode means.

Usually what i understand as a "Drone" patch is having at least one oscillator with key tracking off (so all notes palyed with that Osc play the same pitch) while the other Oscs (or just one additional Osc) continue playing with key tracking enabled.
You could switch keytrack off in e.g. Osc 3 of the Minmoog (and corresponding emulations including the modules in Diva) and there is also an option to switch this off with the first two Oscs in the Waldorf Pulse 2.

Nope, that's not it here.

From the Pro-One manual:

"The DRONE switch simply forces the GATE on, holding the envelope generators at their SUSTAIN level. DRONE overrides REPEAT. With REPEAT or DRONE on, hitting keys will not retrigger the envelope generators, but it will change the frequency of both oscillators (providing OSC B KYBD is switched up), and of the FILTER, (providing the KEYBOARD AMOUNT knob is advanced)."

This does not work at all for polyphony, so that's why RePro-1 won't have polyphony. At least that's pretty obvious.

So I'm just saying besides price, the other reasons are silly excuses (like a synth being better suited to mono sounds etc).

Nope, that is not a silly excuse. When features of the synth don't lend itself to polyphony (like the above mentioned drone mode), it doesn't make sense to make it a poly. It also doesn't make sense to disable that feature just in order to have polyphony.

Can't believe this seems so hard to understand...

[Urs]

Is the drone mode here a "simple" sustain or is there more about it?
And wouldn't sostenuto allow to drone one voice while others could be played normal in a poly version.
Sorry, i just don't get exactly what the drone mode means.

It's a switch that sets Gate high. In a poly synth, it would mean that all voices play whatever note they played last.

It's not like Sustain/Hold or Sustenuto where only those voices are heard that have been pressed down either when or while the mode was engaged.

[Ingonator]

In Pro-One, drone mode means there is no gate that triggers the envelopes, which means the oscillators are audible ALL THE TIME. Amp envelope doesn't influence the sound.

This does not work at all for polyphony, so that's why RePro-1 won't have polyphony. At least that's pretty obvious.

Well, in that case you could still implement deactivating the Drone mode when switching to a Poly mode...

[EvilDragon]

Which is bad form for UX. So Urs won't do it. I totally understand the reasoning behind it.

Also, the MAIN motive behind RePro is making it as close to a perfect emulation as possible. That includes no polyphony


Besides, don't we have a shitload of polysynths already available? Why rag onto Urs for not making this one poly?

[Cinebient]

Thank's all. Sounds interesting. I have no problem with a mono synth. This way i could create a poly drone too then

[Urs]

Just to clear this up: I generally do not see a lot of advantages of a synth being monophonic. But there are some. The Pro-One can do things that, had the Prophet-5 a "mono" switch - other than unison -, can not. Such that, if one wanted to do a faithful emulation of a Pro-One, we couldn't omit those features. Sometimes it's as simple as that.

To be precise, there is no patch that can be done and played on a real Pro-One that can not be played in Repro-1 (though we haven't finally decided on and implemented external patching yet). I am very much looking forward to the inevitable comparison videos, because I'm confident we hit a majority of excellent condition Pro-Ones spot on.

[ATN69]

The way I see it Urs should be very flattered. Re-Pro sounds so Lovely and I guess that's why people are nagging about poly. I do however agree it should be mono. I don't actually own a mono synth yet and I guess Re-Pro will be the first one, and I also subscribe to the idea that it should be a genuine emulation. Adding stuff that didn't exist in the original is not any emulation in my book.

[Ingonator]

Which is bad form for UX. So Urs won't do it. I totally understand the reasoning behind it.

Also, the MAIN motive behind RePro is making it as close to a perfect emulation as possible. That includes no polyphony


Besides, don't we have a shitload of polysynths already available? Why rag onto Urs for not making this one poly?

Well, with a switch for Mono and Poly you could still implement it in a way that the Mono plays like intended while there is still an option for polyphony.

Of course Urs is free to do this however he thinks it is best but for me having a Poly mode would be great.
Not lomng ago i bought a Novation Bass Station II and while it is great as a monosynth i would love to have a poly version of this. My Pulse 2 could do poly at least with the paraphonic modes (or if i would build a poly-chain with multiple units).

Some also said playing a Minimoog polyphonic does not really work while with Diva (and some other Minimoog emulations) it actually seems to work quite nicely.

Moog also offered to poly-chain the Little Phatty and Slim Phatty racks and i had tested this at Musikmesse some years ago. Actually this was quite cool. Anyway there were no plans to simply put some voice boards a in a single synth to get a polysynth from this so the Memorymoog so far seems to be the last polysynth from Moog (except if you built a Phatty poly-chain yourself).

[Cinebient]

Which is bad form for UX. So Urs won't do it. I totally understand the reasoning behind it.

Also, the MAIN motive behind RePro is making it as close to a perfect emulation as possible. That includes no polyphony


Besides, don't we have a shitload of polysynths already available? Why rag onto Urs for not making this one poly?

Well, with a switch for Mono and Poly you could still implement it in a way that the Mono plays like intended while there is still an option for polyphony.

Of course Urs is free to do this however he thinks it is best but for me having a Poly mode would be great.
Not lomng ago i bought a Novation Bass Station II and while it is great as a monosynth i would love to have a poly version of this. My Pulse 2 could do poly at least with the paraphonic modes (or if i would build a poly-chain with multiple units).

Some also said playing a Minimoog polyphonic does not really work while with Diva (and some other Minimoog emulations) it actually seems to work quite nicely.

Moog also offered to poly-chain the Little Phatty and Slim Phatty racks and i had tested this at Musikmesse some years ago. Actually this was quite cool. Anyway there were no plans to simply put some voice boards a in a single synth to get a polysynth from this so the Memorymoog so far seems to be the last polysynth from Moog (except if you built a Phatty poly-chain yourself).

But Moog already released 2 4-voice poly synths as software.
And behind they are "just" 4 mono synths summed into the FX and some other modules.
I mean for me a "polyphonic" mono synth can do way more interesting and expressive things.
Of course i still ask me if Moog can do this for apps why developers of desktop plug-ins staying in the stone age for so long.
I mean MPE seems still rare and maybe the market in the desktop land is not ready for more expressive or new ways of playing synths.
Desktop synths sounds great but the Moog app is a game changer for me because even on a smartphone touch screen you can play it more expressive than most synths i have.

[beely]

Some also said playing a Minimoog polyphonic does not really work while with Diva (and some other Minimoog emulations) it actually seems to work quite nicely.

+1
I tend to use Minimonsta more as a poly synth than a mono Minimoog emulation, and really like it.

But there are (typical monosynth-type) sounds that are too thick or harmonically rich to make that much sense polyphonically - but of course that's more down to how the patches are designed, but the character of the instrument obviously has much to contribute here.

[Urs]

Also, hehe, we have plans to do a poly version. Just not one that is "just a switch".

Maybe again the three options:

Option 1: Add Repro-1 components to Diva

+ nice for Diva users, but might not bring too much to the table
- weird for Repro-1 owners as they might have been happy with just Diva
- would have to align with Diva paradigm, i.e. not original parameter ranges and mod depths

Option 2: Create some sort of Four Voice Synth

+ could be a hub for "collectibles" if we also do Repro-DG, Cat, OB-1, Wasp
+ most powerful concept
- might be a tad geeky since the mono-specific features of Repro-1 would certainly cause issues
- also maybe a bit difficult to program
- concept a bit convoluted atm

Option 3: Create Prophet-5 emu

+ would solve a lot of problems
+ could be included in the Repro-1 package, in a late 2017 update
- wouldn't have all the features of a Pro-One

My current gut feeling: I'd go with Option 3, but also find ways to a add the filter to Diva, most likely in the form of the circuit present in the Synthex.

My other gut feeling: If we do a poly switch in Repro-1, none of the above will make sense anymore. Which is the actual reason we wanted to avoid a poly mode in the first place - too see how it goes and then weight the options.