The Legend vs repro-1

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

As for long-winded post writers (of which, admittedly, I am one) some of us do things outside of music, like watching FA Cup games with a laptop in front of us as we write out these long posts. You don't have to read them if you're too busy making music or something.

[Ingonator]

This thread makes me almost feel bad for having requested U-he doing a Prophet 5 emulation. However, I'm not in the 'Repro-1 should have been polyphonic camp'. If only because a polyphonic Pro-1 is not the same as a Pro-5. It has been clear from the onset what Repro-1 is and what it isn't. It is an accurate emulation of a classic monosynth. So it was never targeted at people who want a polysynth.

I have always wanted a Prophet 5 and I know that I probably will never own a real one. So I hope that U-he's Pro-5 will be as much a labour of love as Repro-1 is. A must buy for sure.

Well, first i got both The Legend and Repro-1 here so i am happy do not have to choose between those two.
Last year concerning analog synths i also got a real analog Novation Bass Station II, GForce Oddity 2 and Xils Lab PolyKb III (upgrade from PolyKB II) besides the other analog softsyths (and a hardware Waldorf Pulse 2) taht i alraedy got before.


A "short" story:
Long time ago (in 2004/2005) i owned a real Minimoog Model D and always found the idea of a polyphonic version fascinating. A real polyphonic Minimoog never really existed and the Moog Memorymoog while it had a Moog filter was mostly based on different CEM chips opposing to the discrete circuits of the Minimoog Model D. It also had a lot of features not included with the Minimoog including e.g. Osc Sync and PWM. So this was NOT a polyphonic Minimoog while the Memorymoog for sure was an awesome synth and for sure one of the the best analog polysynths (and one of the very few if not the only of the more well knowns analog polysynths with 3 full featured Oscs). A 100% proper emulation of this would be maybe even much cooler than a proper Prophet 5 or Jupiter 8 emulation. A real Memorymoog in great condition seems to be very expensive, even more than a Prophet 5 or Jupiter 8 (while this one is super expensive too now). I just foudn 2 Memorymoog at EBAy at beyond 10000 € (around 11000 to 13000€).

Then there were a few Minimoog emulations with an option for poyphony like those from e.g. Arturia and GForce but those were still quite far from being proper 1:1 emulations.
I also had a Creamware Minimax ASB desktop module for a while that seemed to be teh fisrt really promising approach to a polyphonic Minimoog.

When Diva came it was possible to use this as a polyphonic Minimoog but still it was no proper 1:1 emulation so the search was still not over IMO.

During i owned a Moog Slim Phatty module i visited the Musikmesse and was able to play with a Slim Phatty poly-chain there which was really impressive but there were no plans to built a single polyphonic synth based on this and such poly-chain was quite expensive and to build that you need a lot of cables (both audio and MIDI). Not to forget that suhc polyphonc synth by Moog would be very expensive due to the prices for their monophonic synths. This would be even worse for a polyphonic Minimoog (either based on the Voyager or the new Model D they released recently).

Then NI Monark came and i was blown away by the sound of this but there were a few problems. One was that you needed Reaktor to use it, second then preset handling was a PITA, third that the CPU uses was really high, 4th after a while of uisng it is stuill felt there is something missing and last but not least i found it would be cool to use it polyphonic.
Together with the help of another KVR member i then posted a procedure at KVR about how to create such polyphonic Monark which was a real CPU killer. The way the polyphony was added also deacticated some parameters in the synth which was another problem.

Finally there was The Legend where i also participated with beta testing and factory presets. Sounds wise it finally nailed the sound of a real Minimoog D and it also had some advanced features including 4 voice polyphony which is not much but still useful.
Finally this is a Minimoog emulation that really nails both teh sound and features as good as currently possible while it still offers some advanced features including polyphony. Concerning Minimoog emulations i am very happy now and i do not feel the need to buy a hardware Mini again (which would be very expensive anyway).




So what is the point of this you might ask and how is it related to Repro-1?

Well for me the point is that even if a polyphonic Repro-1 would sound differently to a Prophet 5 it would still have been interesting to have that option. It could have been linited to just 4 voices like with The Legend and not inlcude unison. This would then later still offer an option for a Prophet 5 emulation with more voices and Unison. Maybe it would be en possible to add a poyphonic Unison mode with adjustable Unison voices and adjustable stereo spread to play more than one note with Unison.

Technically there should have been an option to switch between an authentic monophonic synth like Repro-1 is now and a poyphonic version within the GUI like it is possible in The Legend and a bunch of other plkugins that are originally based on monophonic hardware synths.

Anyway as the synth engine of both is mostly similar IMO there should be a discount for existing Repro-1 customers if a Prophet 5 emulation would be released. I would even recommend this with the current monophonic version of Repro-1.

Well, all this does not mean that Repro-1 is actually bad at all and i had purchased it myself (at an early stage during the public beta) but IMO it would have been nice to add a poly mode, even if it would have been just 4 voices like in The Legend.

Besides that i would be very happy to have a 100% proper Prophet 5 emulation with the same quality as Repro-1 and The Legend. Anyway some additional features would be welcome there too like e.g. enhanced polyphony, adjustable Unison (voics, stereo spread, poly-unison mode), an additional mod matrix like in Repro-1 and some effects. Until this is available i got both Repro-1 and Arturia Prophet V3 which includes the Prophet 5, Vs and a bybrid snth of both (got the first version of this back in 2006).
In the U-He forum i also posted a collection of Repro-1 patches based on Porphet 5 presets recrated with the help of Arturia Prophet V3 (+ original patch sheets and some audio demos of the real thing).




PS:
Independent of the poyphony discussion concerning the original question in the OP as alraedy mentioned by myself and others here both synths sound and feature wise are just too different to recommend one of those to you. you really hav to decide what you need or if you even need both maybe.

[Caine123]

f**k authenticity. we are in a time where an option shouldnt be a prob. if someone wants it authetic he could just left a polyphony option in the menues. I hate that devs still dont take the possibilities and narrow shit down. mostly it's because of own sales which they dont want to interfere.....

[Urs]

I feel like there'd be huge success in a hybrid approach of:

Yeah, we thought of that - and similar concepts. But as always, there isn't a simple formula

The reality of releasing a plug-in is quite different. There's never enough time to leverage the code of a new product into another right away or shortly thereafter. Otherwise we would have already had a Lyrebird and a Jaws plug-in in our shop. It's not like adding-something-to-Diva is like spending another day or two - it's a major surgery leading into a major update. It's nearly as much work as a new release.

As for the same-same aspect... of course the Repro-1 modules have a different character. But they are not so different from, say, the Synthex modules. So in my opinion, Synthex and Prophet are mutually exclusive for Diva inspirations, and I'd prefer the Synthex.

There have always been thoughts about turning Diva's sets of modules into plug-ins on their own, possibly with the original levels and parameter ranges. But that sounds a lot like slavish work to me, not like anything that gets me out of bed in the morning. I'd do that if cash was all I was doing this for.

[Teksonik]

But then wouldn't $50 monosynths compete against Repro-1 ?

I haven't said what we'd do for that price tag

So........

I'm sure we could have done something really beautiful in the 50$ bracket even.

What you're saying is those $50 bracket would be rubbish compared to Repro-1 and therefore not compete against it.........

[Teksonik]

Always true which is why price matters so much. Every new synth that you buy decreases your need for more new synths.

You're failing to consider the other factor in purchasing a product besides need........desire.

I don't need any more synths but there are some that I still desire and will most likely purchase at some point.

[Teksonik]

Wonder if all you long-longer-longest post writers actually make music or just producing words, words, words...
By the way: opinions are opinions and seldom the one and only truth.
This thread is in some parts entertaining but in too many other parts really tiresome.

And yet here you are...........

[Urs]

f**k authenticity. we are in a time where an option shouldnt be a prob. if someone wants it authetic he could just left a polyphony option in the menues. I hate that devs still dont take the possibilities and narrow shit down. mostly it's because of own sales which they dont want to interfere.....

Are you saying we have a moral obligation to be less authentic for the sake of market demands? And because we have missed that moral obligation, we are greedy people? Seriously?

That said, there are very valid technical aspects that prevent us from doing a polyphonic Repro-1. It will *never* happen. We can repackage some of its modules into a polyphonic synth, but it will not have the same feature set.

[Urs]

What you're saying is those $50 bracket would be rubbish compared to Repro-1 and therefore not compete against it.........

Kind of. Something simple like a Prodigy, a Wasp or a SH-09 maybe. Pieces of cake compared to Pro-Ones or Cats or Odysseys

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I'll take a $50 Prodigy right now! Wasn't the Rogue paraphonic like the MG-1? Maybe that one will satisfy the polyphony and authenticity requirements and make everyone happy!

[zerocrossing]

Also, parameter ranges are very different. For instance, one can't fully open the filter with the cutoff knob alone on a Prophet-5. I originally thought this was a flaw of Pro-53 and Pro-V, until I got the vintage hardware.

Ah, got'ya. Well, consider me excited regardless. I'd be happy with just a great Prophet 5 emulation (with the usual appreciated performance extras that make the U-he stuff so damn useful ) but I'd pee my pants for something that also give a bit of VS functionality as well like Prophet V attempts. Actually, that's all I use Prophet V for, it's 5/VS mode, but just being able to swap out 5 oscillators for VS oscillators would probably be good enough for me. Doesn't really have to be "vector" synthesis.

[chk071]

I'll take a $50 Prodigy right now!

Same what i was thinking. Fun little synth.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I'd be happy with just a great Prophet 5 emulation (with the usual appreciated performance extras that make the U-he stuff so damn useful ) but I'd pee my pants for something that also give a bit of VS functionality as well like Prophet V attempts. Actually, that's all I use Prophet V for, it's 5/VS mode, but just being able to swap out 5 oscillators for VS oscillators would probably be good enough for me. Doesn't really have to be "vector" synthesis.

I think this kind of illustrates the challenge every developer faces when doing any kind of emulation. It starts with a 1:1 emulation request, then folks say, stuff like:

1. Hey can you add a mod matrix? Done.
2. Can you add some effects? Done.
3. Can you add a sequencer? Done.
4. Can you add polyphony? Uhhh...
5. How about unison?
6. Vel to amp/filter?
7. A VS mode?

And I'm not trying to call you out, I'm definitely guilty of this too. It's just got to be hard to decide what to include/exclude, and where to stop. That one feature that you'd think would be really cool, might not matter at all to me and vice versa.

I don't envy Urs or other developers that deal with this.

[Teksonik]

What you're saying is those $50 bracket would be rubbish compared to Repro-1 and therefore not compete against it.........

Kind of. Something simple like a Prodigy, a Wasp or a SH-09 maybe. Pieces of cake compared to Pro-Ones or Cats or Odysseys

I wonder if the Prodigy, Wasp, or SH-09 emulations would be significantly different in sound to justify needing or wanting more than one of them ?

Anyway would a $99 Cat or Odyssey compete against Repro-1 ? If so then the assertion that poly versions of mono synths would cut into DIVA sales kind of loses some weight.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time in the least bit. Uhe makes really great products and is one of the most respected companies in the market there's no doubt about that. All I'm saying is I'm pretty set for mono synths so a new one would have to generate desire for me to own it since need is already covered. That's just my opinion and does not presume to reflect the opinions of the general marketplace.

I'm sure $50 versions of the Prodigy, Wasp and SH-09 would sell like hotcakes. But again just in my opinion I'd be more interested in complex emulations and perhaps even going away from analog. A spot on emulation of the Ensoniq VFX would create an immense amount of desire here.........

[H2its]

Run through the topic quite fast ( in fact just read every Urs post ). Just want to add my contribution.

Try both, legend and repro. ( I am an engineer and designer, so technical and ergonomics are important to me )
From a technical and ergonomics view point, I find repro ahead. Modulation Matrix (especially drag and drop), the tweaks page, the design make repro, really really really easy to use. An hybrid approach like this is what we have to expect from good company's now. Legend really miss that. The best of the past and the present at the same time. Well done U-he !

For the sound, both are the perfect emulation of their original, it is a non sense to compare them. You buy the one you need, but it seems hard for some people to take time to think of what they really need. The presence of this topic show that.

For the mono part that make everybody here. I will thanks U-he. For me working only with a mono synth was an incredible source of idea and inspiration, I don't need a poly version. Having some limitation is always good for inspiration. ( Even if I won't say no to a p5 or p8 emulation, but it need two different product )

So both are the best vsti of 2017, but U-he is easier and more funny to use.



Then i have question for you Urs. You said that a pro-1 is the hardest synth to model. Was it your strategy, to invest a lot of time and money into this emulation to gain technical knowledge. Or was it to make money quickly ?

With all this new knowledge ( a quantum leap as you said once ) Can we expect more synth in the coming years or the average development time of a synth is still the same despite all this new knowledge ?