The Legend vs repro-1

[AnX]

Do your thing man, kids these days are so spoiled! Monosynths are awesome, when I sold off half of my collection I kept most of the monos because they are much easier to integrate into a modern studio (most vintage polys don't have midi or have shit midi).

Most vintage monos had no midi....cv...yes, if you were lucky.

Ask any player from the late 70's/early 80's what they most wanted from stuff.... the answer is polyphony.

Hardware (analog) costs more per voice, obviously. Software doesnt.

[Urs]

In 2017 Mono should be an option not a limitation. Almost every VA softsynth can be set to mono mode so how many mono only synths do we really need ?

Sure there are some mono synths that haven't been emulated yet but I would bet that every one of them will generate "we want more polyphony" posts shortly after release.

I would never buy a mono softsynth. Its just not acceptable to me today. Seems many agree.

Exactly. Therefore no "nice price" segment of analogue sound from u-he. Fewer people crying for stripped down, less expensive Divas than for souped up Repros.

I had hoped people had the basic marketing insights to see the catch, but alas, too many simply don't. Causality in a post truth world is not generally applicable.

It's a pity though. I would have loved to do more for people who can't afford boutique prices. I'm sure we could have done something really beautiful in the 50$ bracket even. But no. If it's gotta be poly, it won't be cheap.

[Urs]

Software doesnt.

Obviously it does. Simple marketing 1x1

[AnX]

In 2017 Mono should be an option not a limitation. Almost every VA softsynth can be set to mono mode so how many mono only synths do we really need ?

Sure there are some mono synths that haven't been emulated yet but I would bet that every one of them will generate "we want more polyphony" posts shortly after release.

I would never buy a mono softsynth. Its just not acceptable to me today. Seems many agree.

Exactly. Therefore no "nice price" segment of analogue sound from u-he. Fewer people crying for stripped down, less expensive Divas than for souped up Repros.

I had hoped people had the basic marketing insights to see the catch, but alas, too many simply don't. Causality in a post truth world is not generally applicable.

It's a pity though. I would have loved to do more for people who can't afford boutique prices. I'm sure we could have done something really beautiful in the 50$ bracket even. But no. If it's gotta be poly, it won't be cheap.

$99 isnt cheap for a monosynth.

[AnX]

Software doesnt.

Obviously it does. Simple marketing 1x1

Why?

[Urs]

$99 isnt cheap for a monosynth.

For the effort that went into its creation - yes it is.

However, as I have said repeatedly, the Pro-One is the most difficult to model mono synth. Almost anything else we'd have done would've been way below 99$, with the exception of the Cat maybe.

[EvilDragon]

Does this all mean you won't do the Cat?

[Urs]

Software doesnt.

Obviously it does. Simple marketing 1x1

Why?

Because a 99$ polyphonic Pro-One emulation would reduce Diva sales. But Diva sales is what I pay 15 employees from. Even a 3% loss of revenue costs a job. Hence a poly version of Repro-1 will be substantially more expensive than 99$ (still a tad cheaper than Diva though, I guess)

[ghettosynth]

Do your thing man, kids these days are so spoiled! Monosynths are awesome, when I sold off half of my collection I kept most of the monos because they are much easier to integrate into a modern studio (most vintage polys don't have midi or have shit midi).

Most vintage monos had no midi....cv...yes, if you were lucky.

Ask any player from the late 70's/early 80's what they most wanted from stuff.... the answer is polyphony.

Hardware (analog) costs more per voice, obviously. Software doesnt.

Yes, but CV is awesome, that was my point. Of course they don't have MIDI, but they are easy to integrate and use in a modern setting. If they didn't have CV, they are really easy to mod to add CV in many, if not most cases.

As far as costs, I think that the point that Urs was trying to make is that it is, in essence, a legitimate way to limit the capabilities of a synth such that it doesn't compete with his other products. So while it seems easy to say that additional voices have no cost, if one offers additional voices on a lower cost synth, then it will impact the sales of his higher cost polysynths.

This is done all the time, it's just not always seen as legitimate. You want to sell into a lower market segment but you don't want to damage sales in your upper market, e.g., student versions of software, starter printer ink/toner, artificially reduced printing speed in laser printers. At least with a pure monosynth model, one can say "it's an accurate model of the hardware," which, to me, is perfectly legitimate. As he says, you will probably get Repro-5, but it will cost more.

Personally, I'm way more excited about ACE-Turbo!

[Urs]

Does this all mean you won't do the Cat?

Honestly, I'm not sure anymore.

I'd love to do it, but you can see for yourself how it's impossible to argue about the viability of a mono synth. I liked the idea of doing mono synths, but it doesn't seem to sit well with the world out there.

[AnX]

Software doesnt.

Obviously it does. Simple marketing 1x1

Why?

Because a 99$ polyphonic Pro-One emulation would reduce Diva sales. But Diva sales is what I pay 15 employees from. Even a 3% loss of revenue costs a job. Hence a poly version of Repro-1 will be substantially more expensive than 99$ (still a tad cheaper than Diva though, I guess)

Why would a poly repro1 reduce diva sales? They dont share any elements. Repro1 is essentially a one trick pony (not in a bad way) like Monark and Legend.

Also, going by its reception here and other places, repro1 seems to have been a hit. Why would you not continue that path, because a few ppl like me dont agree with your philosophy? Doesnt seem logical.

[elxsound]

Does this all mean you won't do the Cat?

Honestly, I'm not sure anymore.

I'd love to do it, but you can see for yourself how it's impossible to argue about the viability of a mono synth. I liked the idea of doing mono synths, but it doesn't seem to sit well with the world out there.

But is it the aregurments or has sales been affected?

If it's just the arguments then those are easy enough to ignore.

Some people love to push until they get their way but that's not always representative of a majority opinion. If sales say it is the majority, well... that's the only argument that I would listen to.

[AnX]

Do your thing man, kids these days are so spoiled! Monosynths are awesome, when I sold off half of my collection I kept most of the monos because they are much easier to integrate into a modern studio (most vintage polys don't have midi or have shit midi).

Most vintage monos had no midi....cv...yes, if you were lucky.

Ask any player from the late 70's/early 80's what they most wanted from stuff.... the answer is polyphony.

Hardware (analog) costs more per voice, obviously. Software doesnt.

Yes, but CV is awesome, that was my point. Of course they don't have MIDI, but they are easy to integrate and use in a modern setting. If they didn't have CV, they are really easy to mod to add CV in many, if not most cases.

As far as costs, I think that the point that Urs was trying to make is that it is, in essence, a legitimate way to limit the capabilities of a synth such that it doesn't compete with his other products. So while it seems easy to say that additional voices have no cost, if one offers additional voices on a lower cost synth, then it will impact the sales of his higher cost polysynths.

This is done all the time, it's just not always seen as legitimate. You want to sell into a lower market segment but you don't want to damage sales in your upper market, e.g., student versions of software, starter printer ink/toner, artificially reduced printing speed in laser printers. At least with a pure monosynth model, one can say "it's an accurate model of the hardware," which, to me, is perfectly legitimate. As he says, you will probably get Repro-5, but it will cost more.

Personally, I'm way more excited about ACE-Turbo!

Diva is $179. Repro1 is $99.

You get the essence of what, 5 synths in Diva? (All of which are also 'accurately modelled)You also get polyphony. All for an extra 80 bux.

[Elektronisch]

Does this all mean you won't do the Cat?

Honestly, I'm not sure anymore.

I'd love to do it, but you can see for yourself how it's impossible to argue about the viability of a mono synth. I liked the idea of doing mono synths, but it doesn't seem to sit well with the world out there.

But is it the aregurments or has sales been affected?

You can say that. I bought Re-Pro 1 not because that its a mono synth, but because Urs mentioned they might do p5 for users who bought the mono synth.

If there would be no mention about upcoming P5 i wouldve passed 99% no matter how much i would love to support U-He. Im sure im not the only one who wouldve passed if P5 wouldnt be mentioned.

[Urs]

Software doesnt.

Obviously it does. Simple marketing 1x1

Why?

Because a 99$ polyphonic Pro-One emulation would reduce Diva sales. But Diva sales is what I pay 15 employees from. Even a 3% loss of revenue costs a job. Hence a poly version of Repro-1 will be substantially more expensive than 99$ (still a tad cheaper than Diva though, I guess)

Why would a poly repro1 reduce diva sales? They dont share any elements. Repro1 is essentially a one trick pony (not in a bad way) like Monark and Legend.

Also, going by its reception here and other places, repro1 seems to have been a hit. Why would you not continue that path, because a few ppl like me dont agree with your philosophy? Doesnt seem logical.

It's more complicated than that.

(sorry, I'm getting a bit tired of arguing, I have a busy day ahead... I might follow up on this in a different place and at a different time)