Repro-5 public beta (Repro V1.1)

[EvilDragon]

You will have to wait for a later update for poly glide, as you see Urs nodding to my reply above. OK?

[Ingonator]

Another question. Are the parameter ranges in Repro-5 calibrated to match those in the real thing?

As alraeedy mentioend i loaded teh Repro-1 patches in Repro-5 that i created based on teh presets in Arturia Prophet V3 and also a little fine tuning using audio demos of the real thing.

For the first P5 factory preset "1-1 Brass" i just started first recreating the parameters from the patch sheet in the P5 manual and now fine tuning using a video with audio demos.

The Brass sound shown at around 2:28 in this video seems to sound the way it should be:


The Repro-1 patch i made a while ago sounds quite different to that. This is the problem if you try to reprogram patches if you do not have the real thing for comparison. In the past I also used a different audio demo than in the video posted above.
Staring from the parameters in the patch sheet i started tweaking abit and am getting closer to the sound in that video now...

The filter options at the Tweaks page of Repro-5 also make a quite big difference so the parametrs for a certain patch are also different with using different options there.
For example the "Poly" filter mode at the "Tweaks" page sounds much "smoother" or more dull than e.g. the "Crisp" mode that sounds much brighter.

[fmr]

Another question. Are the parameter ranges in Repro-5 calibrated to match those in the real thing?

As alraeedy mentioend i loaded teh Repro-1 patches in Repro-5 that i created based on teh presets in Arturia Prophet V3 and also a little fine tuning using audio demos of the real thing.

For the first P5 factory preset "1-1 Brass" i just started first recreating the parameters from the patch sheet in the P5 manual and now fine tuning using a video with audio demos.

The Brass sound shown at around 2:28 in this video seems to sound the way it should be:


The Repro-1 patch i made a while ago sounds quite different to that. This is the problem if you try to reprogram patches if you do not have the real thing for comparison. In the past I also used a different audio demo than in the video posted above.
Staring from the parameters in the patch sheet i started tweaking abit and am getting closer to the sound in that video now...

I am doing the same thing (recreating the Prophet-5 patches using the patch diagrams, and so far I can say that RePro-5 seems to be closely calibrated from the real Prophet-5. I just need minor tweakings.

[Ingonator]

Another question. Are the parameter ranges in Repro-5 calibrated to match those in the real thing?

As alraeedy mentioend i loaded teh Repro-1 patches in Repro-5 that i created based on teh presets in Arturia Prophet V3 and also a little fine tuning using audio demos of the real thing.

For the first P5 factory preset "1-1 Brass" i just started first recreating the parameters from the patch sheet in the P5 manual and now fine tuning using a video with audio demos.

The Brass sound shown at around 2:28 in this video seems to sound the way it should be:


The Repro-1 patch i made a while ago sounds quite different to that. This is the problem if you try to reprogram patches if you do not have the real thing for comparison. In the past I also used a different audio demo than in the video posted above.
Staring from the parameters in the patch sheet i started tweaking abit and am getting closer to the sound in that video now...

I am doing the same thing (recreating the Prophet-5 patches using the patch diagrams, and so far I can say that RePro-5 seems to be closely calibrated from the real Prophet-5. I just need minor tweakings.

As i just added to my post the Filter modes at the "Tweaks" page of Repro-5 also make a big difference to the brightness of the filter. Which setting do you use there?

[EvilDragon]

"Poly" setting is supposed to be used to match the Prophet-5 u-he modelled. Other settings are Pro-One filters (so, from Repro-1).


I am also going through the patch sheets and things are sounding pretty much how they should sound. Of course your Repro-1 tweaks for brass sound would sound different because gain staging and modulation ranges in Pro-One are vastly different from those of Prophet-5



Also, do NOT forget to set the max polyphony to 5 when using unison, in order to match the patch sheets!

[Spirit2017]

All factory presets audio.

http://www.synthmania.com/Prophet-5%20(Rev.3).htm

[Echoes in the Attic]

...and that's likely how it's gonna happen, but not for v1.0, because I would assume u-he wants Repro-5 to shine in comparisons to the actual analog hardware, so retaining the behavior of the original is important, instead of producing misleading demos.

Yep.

Does that mean all factory patches are not supposed to be using velocity sensitivity or aftertouch? I think I've found a bunch of offenders that are going outside the original behavior if so! Those effects aren't helping either!

[Greggers]

What was the one from 0:00 to 0:29, that one is superb, the rest are horrible.

nah, mate, not fair to waltercruz, he did good, quite close to studio version. prove otherwise with your patch, not with your talk

first is Howard's second go at his original patch for Repro-5. up to Arturia sample it's all Repro-5, in fact.

and OP-X is everything but horrible. that Czech guy has one synth, but that's the muddafuggin synth!

clangorous that's some bitchin' lead work you have goin' on there, mate!

When Korg bought the remains of Sequential

Wasn't it Yamaha?

CS80 & VCS3, as those two historic synths deserve to be preserved in software

didn't Memorymoon and Xils-Lab do well with the task?

[Urs]

This is the problem if you try to reprogram patches if you do not have the real thing for comparison.

That's absolutely true.

If the video you posted is the one which we compared our Prophet-5 to, then it has the filter calibrated differently from our Prophet-5. So even if you have the hardware, you need to allow for a few percent of tolerances.

[clangorous]

clangorous that's some bitchin' lead work you have goin' on there, mate!

Thanks a lot Greggers!

[Urs]

...and that's likely how it's gonna happen, but not for v1.0, because I would assume u-he wants Repro-5 to shine in comparisons to the actual analog hardware, so retaining the behavior of the original is important, instead of producing misleading demos.

Yep.

Does that mean all factory patches are not supposed to be using velocity sensitivity or aftertouch? I think I've found a bunch of offenders that are going outside the original behavior if so! Those effects aren't helping either!

Obviously, Repro-1 has had Velocity sensitivity added. So we're slowly improving there over the years. But if we did it for R1, how could we omit it on R5?

Anyhow. Velocity sensitivity is an obvious add on. The lack of Glide is something that many people simply don't know about.

[Ingonator]

This is the problem if you try to reprogram patches if you do not have the real thing for comparison.

That's absolutely true.

If the video you posted is the one which we compared our Prophet-5 to, then it has the filter calibrated differently from our Prophet-5. So even if you have the hardware, you need to allow for a few percent of tolerances.

In Repro-5 I just started again from the patch sheet values of the "1-1 Brass" factory preset. Then i slightly increased the Cutoff to make it a little brighter.
The settings at the Tweak page used are "P5" for Oscs, "analog" for envelopes and "Poly" for the filter.

Attached to this post you find the Repro-5 patch where i added voice panning, a bit of reverb and aftertouch routed to Cutoff. Maybe some more tweaking is necessary but this one already sounds really good for my taste.

[EvilDragon]

Yep, that one is pretty much nailed!

[EvilDragon]

BTW, here's a question for Urs.


What happened to Prophet-5's Release button? I know it's sorta related to sustain pedal, but it kinda seems pretty useful for performance, too (without forcing us to MIDI learn the amp release knob, since that wouldn't really work the same way across all presets, for obvious reasons).

[HunterKiller]

nah, mate, not fair to waltercruz, he did good, quite close to studio version.

Not at all, the first one is miles ahead of the others. This has nothing to do with fairness, a person's worth is not determined by their ability to make a good patch on a computer synthesizer. You are crossing your wires friend.

prove otherwise with your patch, not with your talk

Faulty logic. It's like saying: travel across the world to my place and demonstrate extensively that you are a trustworthy person, do it right now, because I say you must, and if you don't, you aren't trustworthy.

That's the logic you're employing.

You do realize that someone can be correct, without having to prove themselves. In other things, one can have an opinion that may be hard for others to accept, but it is usually because their self-worth is in some way intertwined with their work or other external factors. That's where the problem lies, not in trashing a preset. Sure everyone tries to do their best, but one's work is always in progress, and it is by no means a determinant of the value of one's character.

I've made plenty of shit presets in my time, and plenty of stellar ones. So what.