DIVA and REPRO 1 & 5

[Urs]

A "perfect" digital recreation would not be desirable as it might break.

[hebex]

A "perfect" digital recreation would not be desirable as it might break.

As you know, I´ve repeated several times that I mean a perfect digital recreation SOUNDWISE.

BTW, Urs, you haven´t answered my question to you.

[Lbdunequest]

Gosh, you rave against computer based music production (and thus probably insulting the majority of people here) and then you get all whiny when you're called out about it?

No, I didn´t rave against computer based music production per se at all.

I just call those out who claim that the mentioned VST-instruments of today are -- SOUNDWISE -- perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers.

Are you perhaps among those, Urs?

I think he might be since he created prophet emulations.

So, no potential for improvements then?

What improvements if they sound perfect the way they are? Its your own subjective opinion aka do called souless vst synths and mindset that limits you.

So, in your opinion, the mentioned VST-instruments are perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers?

Perfect the way they are.

[vurt]

A "perfect" digital recreation would not be desirable as it might break.

As you know, I´ve repeated several times that I mean a perfect digital recreation SOUNDWISE.

are you the anti bones
analogarmageddon is nigh!!!

[hebex]

No, I didn´t rave against computer based music production per se at all.

I just call those out who claim that the mentioned VST-instruments of today are -- SOUNDWISE -- perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers.

Are you perhaps among those, Urs?

I think he might be since he created prophet emulations.

So, no potential for improvements then?

What improvements if they sound perfect the way they are? Its your own subjective opinion aka do called souless vst synths and mindset that limits you.

So, in your opinion, the mentioned VST-instruments are perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers?

Perfect the way they are.

That´s a non sequitur that does not necessarily answer my question.

Also, feel free to tell me why your opinion is worthwile. Have you ever used the hardware originals so that you in any way know what you are talking about?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

hebex, you're the one making the assertions, it's on you to back those up.

You're saying that VSTi's don't sound as good as the originals. Ok...based on what? Do you have audio examples you can provide? Have you ever tried to actually compare RePro-5 to a Prophet Rev 3? You're not even saying what doesn't sound right about them. Why not go into depth about your first-hand experiences with both and describe where you think the software falls short in detail?

Here's are my first-hand experiences, and I feel like I talk about this a lot but: I've got a Prophet Rev 4. It sounds AMAZING. Love it. The experience of playing it and programming it is a true joy. But, if I throw it in the Rev 3 filter mode, then tighten up the Vintage knob to minimum (i.e. the Rev 4 setting), I can get RePro-5 to sound basically indistinguishable to the Rev. 4 hardware. I've done the comparisons, even at some extreme settings (e.g. audiorate poly-mod). Knob positions and depths don't match up 100%, but dialing them in by ear, it's totally possible to end up with, "hmmm...other than the noise floor maybe, it honestly doesn't matter which is which they're so close". It's only when I start slop up the Rev 4 by increasing the Vintage knob that I feel that the hardware sounds significantly better. And that's because that added feature in the Rev. 4 works differently than RePro-5's "Detune" knob (which is somewhat comparable but not entirely the same). If U-he added more individual control over per voice Tuning, Envelope, and Filter offsets on the Tweaks page, I bet the results would be equally as good.

Now, is RePro as fun to play? Not when I've got my Prophet running through some good hardware FX. The hardware is massive and the user experience of playing it is incredible. But the Rev 4 doesn't offer all the convenience of the software either including RePro-5's great FX chain, full recall, easy automation, multiple instances, per voice distortion, more filter types, etc.

I honestly think soundwise is where the difference between the two is smallest. All the other differences are much greater with the hardware winning on user experience and the software winning on convenience.

But then again, not all analog emulations are as good as RePro. I wouldn't put the ones from Korg, Roland Cloud, earlier Arturia, etc. up there. So on aggregate, maybe you have a point in that "on average, virtual analog synth VSTi's don't sound as good as their hardware" (I'd agree on the whole if that were your assertion) but that's not to say it CAN'T be done today IMO. It already has. The top-shelf stuff like RePro gets close enough to where it doesn't matter IMO.

[hebex]

hebex, you're the one making the assertions, it's on you to back those up.

You're saying that VSTi's don't sound as good as the originals. Ok...based on what? Do you have audio examples you can provide? Have you ever tried to actually compare RePro-5 to a Prophet Rev 3? You're not even saying what doesn't sound right about them. Why not go into depth about your first-hand experiences with both and describe where you think the software falls short in detail?

Here's are my first-hand experiences, and I feel like I talk about this a lot but: I've got a Prophet Rev 4. It sounds AMAZING. Love it. The experience of playing it and programming it is a true joy. But, if I throw it in the Rev 3 filter mode, then tighten up the Vintage knob to minimum (i.e. the Rev 4 setting), I can get RePro-5 to sound basically indistinguishable to the Rev. 4 hardware. I've done the comparisons, even at some extreme settings (e.g. audiorate poly-mod). Knob positions and depths don't match up 100%, but dialing them in by ear, it's totally possible to end up with, "hmmm...other than the noise floor maybe, it honestly doesn't matter which is which they're so close". It's only when I start slop up the Rev 4 by increasing the Vintage knob that I feel that the hardware sounds significantly better. And that's because that added feature in the Rev. 4 works differently than RePro-5's "Detune" knob (which is somewhat comparable but not entirely the same). If U-he added more individual control over per voice Tuning, Envelope, and Filter offsets on the Tweaks page, I bet the results would be equally as good.

Now, is RePro as fun to play? Not when I've got my Prophet running through some good hardware FX. The hardware is massive and the user experience of playing it is incredible. But the Rev 4 doesn't offer all the convenience of the software either including RePro-5's great FX chain, full recall, easy automation, multiple instances, per voice distortion, more filter types, etc.

I honestly think soundwise is where the difference between the two is smallest. All the other differences are much greater with the hardware winning on user experience and the software winning on convenience.

"hebex, you're the one making the assertions, it's on you to back those up."
No, logically, it´s those who make the claim that a computer VST-plugin would sound perfectly identical to the physical hardware that need to back it up, because that is the claim that is fantastic, not the other way around.

Other than that, my compliments to a thoughtful comment, even if I disagree that Repro -- SOUNDWISE -- is on par with the hardware.

[Lbdunequest]

I think he might be since he created prophet emulations.

So, no potential for improvements then?

What improvements if they sound perfect the way they are? Its your own subjective opinion aka do called souless vst synths and mindset that limits you.

So, in your opinion, the mentioned VST-instruments are perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers?

Perfect the way they are.

That´s a non sequitur that does not necessarily answer my question.

Also, feel free to tell me why your opinion is worthwile. Have you ever used the hardware originals so that you in any way know what you are talking about?

I dont understand whats not to understand "they are perfect the way they are".

[hebex]

So, no potential for improvements then?

What improvements if they sound perfect the way they are? Its your own subjective opinion aka do called souless vst synths and mindset that limits you.

So, in your opinion, the mentioned VST-instruments are perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers?

Perfect the way they are.

That´s a non sequitur that does not necessarily answer my question.

Also, feel free to tell me why your opinion is worthwile. Have you ever used the hardware originals so that you in any way know what you are talking about?

I dont understand whats not to understand "they are perfect the way they are".

Ok fine. That´s your opinion, based on what? Have you used the hardware and done a direct comparison?

[vurt]

even based on the hardware, yours is an opinion.

[hebex]

even based on the hardware, yours is an opinion.

So there is no objective truth about this?

[vurt]

even based on the hardware, yours is an opinion.

So there is no objective truth about this?

not without actual proof.
can you provide this?

[vurt]

just saying stuff, without evidence, is opinion.
especially when another person states the opposite, while also owning the hardware. so both are just opinion.

[Lbdunequest]

What improvements if they sound perfect the way they are? Its your own subjective opinion aka do called souless vst synths and mindset that limits you.

So, in your opinion, the mentioned VST-instruments are perfect digital replicas of the original analog synthesizers?

Perfect the way they are.

That´s a non sequitur that does not necessarily answer my question.

Also, feel free to tell me why your opinion is worthwile. Have you ever used the hardware originals so that you in any way know what you are talking about?

I dont understand whats not to understand "they are perfect the way they are".

Ok fine. That´s your opinion, based on what? Have you used the hardware and done a direct comparison?

[vurt]

and, cards on the table, i don't own the hardware synth. but dave smith did send me a prophet shot glass and enamel badge.