Repro-1 (out now)

[david.beholder]

Thanks god I have lpf.

Or band-reject.

[Urs]

1. The Mod Section does audio rate modulation. In Repro-1 it operates at 176/192kHz, always. A ModMatrix that reaches almost any knob on the user interface couldn't possibly.

2. Zebra, Diva, ACE... they're too much for many people. Some people prefer simple. Maybe they don't like to have the feeling that they miss out on possibilities because they haven't used each feature in a patch. Maybe it nags them. They want Repro-1, not a Pro-One with added envelopes, LFOs, extra oscillators, morphings here and there.

I don't believe I asked for "added envelopes and extra oscillators" - although a second LFO in 2016 should be a given. Otherwise you're likely to have the same scorn heaped upon you as the dunderhead engineers at Roland who for some unfathomable reason included only one LFO on their new flagship virtual analog System 8.

Hehe, sorry, I wasn't implying to quote you, I was explaining the motivation to keep the emulation simple.

As for the 2nd LFO... we did add a 3rd envelope if you look carefully, and we might officially add the clock phase as well (currently available only via automation/MIDI)

If the goal is simplicity, then again, why have two ways of accomplishing the same thing? You could still include a couple of hard-wired mod routings that run at audio rates while still following the same basic design pattern as the Performance section.

Because the primary goal wasn't simplicity. It was emulating a relatively simple vintage synthesizer, for which we saw a demand on the market.

The Mod section is part of the authentic vintage stuff. It is how the damn thing worked. It's quirky, but it is what it was. Yet I wouldn't want to extend this section with more options.

The Perform section was included under the pretext of mimicking that players of the real hardware have quick access to the knobs. It's part of their play/performance. Software isn't that immediate, so it's something that's lost to some degree. We wanted to compensate for that, initially by adding only Velocity and Aftertouch to the Matrix. But modern and inventive as we are, we added a drop down with a lot more choices. In other words, we sneaked a modern ModMatrix in without infringing on the authenticity of the emulation.

simply bad design

That depends on the design paradigm. From my perspective, our goal was an as faithful reproduction as possible, with as few extensions as possible carefully grouped around it. I think our design team has done a terrific job separating the extensions from the original features. It's the old stuff in a modern housing, and the old stuff wasn't beaten up badly to fit into the fashionable.

[bftucker]

Some appreciate things for what they are; others depreciate things for what they are not. I think I know which group has more fun...but I may be wrong. After all, some seem to really enjoy complaining.

[Cinebient]

will it be possible to use it polyphonic?

No.

Yes....there are ways of course
You just need the right controller and DAW!

[pdxindy]

1. The Mod Section does audio rate modulation. In Repro-1 it operates at 176/192kHz, always. A ModMatrix that reaches almost any knob on the user interface couldn't possibly.

2. Zebra, Diva, ACE... they're too much for many people. Some people prefer simple. Maybe they don't like to have the feeling that they miss out on possibilities because they haven't used each feature in a patch. Maybe it nags them. They want Repro-1, not a Pro-One with added envelopes, LFOs, extra oscillators, morphings here and there.

I don't believe I asked for "added envelopes and extra oscillators" - although a second LFO in 2016 should be a given. Otherwise you're likely to have the same scorn heaped upon you as the dunderhead engineers at Roland who for some unfathomable reason included only one LFO on their new flagship virtual analog System 8.

because the System 8 is a $1500 hardware controller

[pdxindy]

Urs success shows that he is right. Nothing more to say about this topic.

U-he has been comparatively successful (as a small software developer) because their instruments tend to sound better than the competition's (but at a higher CPU load) and strike a good balance between features and ease of use.

Does this mean that Urs' judgement regarding his instruments' user interfaces is infallible? Hardly. I'm just pointing out something very basic (that including two ways of accomplishing the same thing is a poor design). Urs is obviously free to ignore this fact. It's his company and his products.

It is an emulation of a specific synth, including its oddities... by your thinking, every synth would then become identical... ewwwwww! no thanks! let there be diversity and not everything has to conform to some notion of 'perfect'

[PAK]

Personally, I like it when emulations faithfully recreate the original, as many of these design decisions inform the character, and in many cases, if you remove these or change these things, you can take away from the feel of the instrument.

I also don't feel limitations are always a bad thing ..

I just don't think *every* product needs to have *all* possible features, just because it's software, or because we can.

Good post, and you're right. Though the word "features" can have several meanings - from additional routings, to additional components (filter types, fx etc), as well as calibration options - IE things like control over the timing curves things follow.

In terms of the authenticity of (just about) anything emulative, it's generally helpful if more (rather than less) calibration style options are included and, indeed, RePro has a big nod in that direction with the circuit board tab, which does the right thing IMO, of separating those things out from a simpler main user experience.

In covering more possible variations, the side benefit of it is it tends to improve how well something can mimic other things too. But it's entirely true that many users won't use those features, and it may even hinder them and start taking something away from the original goal or appeal.

I think the trend, towards higher quality basics (osc, filter etc) over features is a broadly positive thing. This said, the real power of software is it's possible to morph the interface and present the information it wants to Vs hardware - where you're mostly stuck with what you've got. Which, of course, can also be a good or bad thing..

In the case of the RePro, it broadly comes down to whether you want a Pro One or not. In that sense it has more in common with products like the Roland Aira synths than maybe traditional emulations - which frequently augmented features, but may often jettison authenticity.

[PAK]

Some appreciate things for what they are; others depreciate things for what they are not. I think I know which group has more fun...but I may be wrong. After all, some seem to really enjoy complaining.

Hehe. Variety might be the spice of life, but appreciating everything for what it is might just also put you on a path towards clutter and synth hoarding

I think the best balance is to ask "what does x give me over what I already have". If the answer is of significance then incorporate it. If not, move on.. Part of that process, by necessity, is figuring what something is not

[Cinebient]

The U-he synths incl. Repro-1 also supports great midi learn options. Since every major DAW let you set up a kind of midi LFO and other stuff you could modulate whatever you want.
Or use a tool like Midi Shaper (cableguys) or LFO Tool (Xfer) and you have your LFO, MSEG in audio rate

[zerocrossing]

1. The Mod Section does audio rate modulation. In Repro-1 it operates at 176/192kHz, always. A ModMatrix that reaches almost any knob on the user interface couldn't possibly.

2. Zebra, Diva, ACE... they're too much for many people. Some people prefer simple. Maybe they don't like to have the feeling that they miss out on possibilities because they haven't used each feature in a patch. Maybe it nags them. They want Repro-1, not a Pro-One with added envelopes, LFOs, extra oscillators, morphings here and there.

I don't believe I asked for "added envelopes and extra oscillators" - although a second LFO in 2016 should be a given. Otherwise you're likely to have the same scorn heaped upon you as the dunderhead engineers at Roland who for some unfathomable reason included only one LFO on their new flagship virtual analog System 8.

Hehe, sorry, I wasn't implying to quote you, I was explaining the motivation to keep the emulation simple.

As for the 2nd LFO... we did add a 3rd envelope if you look carefully, and we might officially add the clock phase as well (currently available only via automation/MIDI)

If the goal is simplicity, then again, why have two ways of accomplishing the same thing? You could still include a couple of hard-wired mod routings that run at audio rates while still following the same basic design pattern as the Performance section.

Because the primary goal wasn't simplicity. It was emulating a relatively simple vintage synthesizer, for which we saw a demand on the market.

The Mod section is part of the authentic vintage stuff. It is how the damn thing worked. It's quirky, but it is what it was. Yet I wouldn't want to extend this section with more options.

The Perform section was included under the pretext of mimicking that players of the real hardware have quick access to the knobs. It's part of their play/performance. Software isn't that immediate, so it's something that's lost to some degree. We wanted to compensate for that, initially by adding only Velocity and Aftertouch to the Matrix. But modern and inventive as we are, we added a drop down with a lot more choices. In other words, we sneaked a modern ModMatrix in without infringing on the authenticity of the emulation.

simply bad design

That depends on the design paradigm. From my perspective, our goal was an as faithful reproduction as possible, with as few extensions as possible carefully grouped around it. I think our design team has done a terrific job separating the extensions from the original features. It's the old stuff in a modern housing, and the old stuff wasn't beaten up badly to fit into the fashionable.

As much as I'm usually the champion of modern features in emulations, I don't think that Repro-1 is anything to sneeze at. If you want to be critical of something, have a look at the Roland plug ins. They're quality if on par with Repro-1, but their inability to do even simple things like choose your note priority is ridiculously stupid. When they say they're trying to be accurate to the original, it's horsesh!t because they're already adding things like bit crushers and scatter controls. It's what's totally stopped me from picking up their SH-2 plug in.

But, if you want something in the sound quality neighborhood of Repro-1 (With an obviously different character), but with a modulation matrix, check out Roland's System 100. It still doesn't have the ability to control anything with velocity or aftertouch, but it's got 2 LFOs and a S&H module. Or, if you want to go crazy, just build whatever the hell you want in Reaktor 6's blocks and go nuts. I do both of those things, but I'll still buy Repro-1 because I really like the character of it and I think any issues with the simple architecture is more than made up for by the effects section.

On a totally different topic, I'd like to see the "stomp boxes" reorient themselves when I change the order. Small UI thing, but I think it would be nice. You could actually totally get rid of the FX Chain graphic and put a tiny on/off switch on each effect and a small "drag pad" graphic on one corner to allow for effect reordering. Look at how Amplitube does it for a good example of intuitive UI.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

because the System 8 is a $1500 hardware controller

But a damn good one!

Seriously, it's got some drawbacks (1 LFO, no aftertouch, only 64 patches per engine, only 49 keys, stupid trigger-style modwheel), but it sounds excellent and is an AMAZING controller. I love my System 8. It's not perfect, but it's the best product for my needs (amazing controller with a great synth engine built in). In fact, it's a great controller for Repro-1. I'm programming patches a lot faster now that I only need to use the mouse to save presets.

[Urs]

I'd like to see the "stomp boxes" reorient themselves when I change the order.

We do too, but it's one of those things we have to add back in some time later

[Gadget Fiend]

I just don't think *every* product needs to have *all* possible features, just because it's software, or because we can.

I realize it's sometimes hard to spot the hyperbole and black and white thinking in our forum posts before hitting "send." But geez, as far as I can tell, NO ONE has suggested (or even implied) that Repro-1 should include "all possible features."

Or does requesting a second LFO and a more consistent mod routing implementation constitute "all possible features" in your mind?

Of course, if the point is that some (performance-oriented) synths may benefit from a more limited feature set, then I would agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely love my Nord 2 for that very reason. But it does have a second LFO and one of the most intuitive mod routing systems of all time (that is only surpassed by the one on the Nord 3).

[liquidsound]

At we going to see a Repro-1-FX?

[david.beholder]

I just don't think *every* product needs to have *all* possible features, just because it's software, or because we can.

Or does requesting a second LFO and a more consistent mod routing implementation constitute "all possible features" in your mind?

Yes in this case second LFO is almost "all possible features".
Repro-1 is emulation of hardware Pro-one which in comparison to modern vsts is one trick pony - but it's cirque du soleil grade trick. If you don't dig it please consider something else -- say modern bread and butter synth that has unlimited modulation options.