Repro-1 (out now)
-
- KVRist
- 40 posts since 18 Mar, 2016
I don't mean to come across as a killjoy. Urs, it's amazing. That saw! Damn! I'm already getting filter sounds that are genuinely reminiscent of some of my favourite synth sounds of all time. Overall, it feels right. Which is amazing. Amazing.
-
- KVRist
- 40 posts since 18 Mar, 2016
I struggled to get similar effects in any of the other modes. 3 kind of dropped out before it became an issue. 5 was a good boy and never really got there. 2 was kind of like 3, and 4 was a very naughty boy indeed but it all got reined in at the last second.Urs wrote:I see what you mean. But that's not specific to a mode or is it?Vesius wrote:Get rid of all the modulation. You can hear the aliasing with just the filter resonance up and sweeping the cutoff. Turn the osc volumes right the way down to 0, and cutoff mod too. It is right there.
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 30188 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Lol, thanks, no worries, I *know* there's aliasing. It's not such a big issue at this point of time because we have many options to improve on it before we finish the final thing. Which is much easier once we decide on the algorithm or a set thereofVesius wrote:I don't mean to come across as a killjoy. Urs, it's amazing. That saw! Damn! I'm already getting filter sounds that are genuinely reminiscent of some of my favourite synth sounds of all time. Overall, it feels right. Which is amazing. Amazing.
-
- KVRAF
- 8072 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
I think my overall favorite, if we really have to pick just one 
would be 4. 1 is the most interesting but sometimes more wild than one might want. 5's smoothness is handy sometimes but it doesn't have a lot of flavor. 3 is my least favorite and 2 is a little less interesting than 4.
I know "which is your favorite" isn't exactly the question, but my experience with actual analog filters within recent enough memory to matter is limited to the Steiner-Parker in the Microbrute (which I love), the Meeblip's twin-T (which I didn't), and the SID (which isn't the best). (I did used to have a Micromoog, and its filter was pretty great but that was in the 80s and I don't trust my memory.)
would be 4. 1 is the most interesting but sometimes more wild than one might want. 5's smoothness is handy sometimes but it doesn't have a lot of flavor. 3 is my least favorite and 2 is a little less interesting than 4.I know "which is your favorite" isn't exactly the question, but my experience with actual analog filters within recent enough memory to matter is limited to the Steiner-Parker in the Microbrute (which I love), the Meeblip's twin-T (which I didn't), and the SID (which isn't the best). (I did used to have a Micromoog, and its filter was pretty great but that was in the 80s and I don't trust my memory.)
-
- KVRist
- 296 posts since 1 Jun, 2011
I've made my choice and I wouldn't be unhappy if my chosen one turned out to be the cheapest one. That would be pretty fortunate.
Because 4th just sounds awesome.
That would be pretty fortunate. Because 4th just sounds awesome.
Last edited by Vospi on Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://soundcloud.com/vospi
I love music, worked with a number of music/rhythm/dance games like Pump It Up, In The Groove, Cytus and Deemo, and teach music production.
I love music, worked with a number of music/rhythm/dance games like Pump It Up, In The Groove, Cytus and Deemo, and teach music production.
-
- KVRist
- 96 posts since 11 Dec, 2013
No the others did not do it, but I have no comparison anymore.Urs wrote: Not sure. It's unpleasant, but then, it may be possible to get with the other modes as well?
Then again. 1 does usually more on same settings, like in this example (all filters in their respective order):
https://soundcloud.com/andrussik/repro1-2/s-gVWK8
First sounds wicked, in my opinion.
-
- KVRAF
- 1767 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
What’s there is nice enough. I guess I’d hoped for bigger differences between the types.. As well as that, if you click a model, and it causes a change, if you then switch back to the previous model, it will sometimes maintain a change rather than revert to what it was doing previously..Things that make you go hmmmm.
Some of the models seem to make the envelopes more clicky at certain settings, adjust pitches, set a rate faster or slower, open the filter or close it more, raise resonance, etc. That’s what I hear - more like small calibration type changes rather than bigger changes in model details, unless you’re counting lack of oversampling (or something causing more noise?) in the first model above certain res settings.
Anyway, I’ll be curious to see what it's testing to see is being noticed FWIW I found it rare to make a difference going beyond great quality on Diva.
Some of the models seem to make the envelopes more clicky at certain settings, adjust pitches, set a rate faster or slower, open the filter or close it more, raise resonance, etc. That’s what I hear - more like small calibration type changes rather than bigger changes in model details, unless you’re counting lack of oversampling (or something causing more noise?) in the first model above certain res settings.
Anyway, I’ll be curious to see what it's testing to see is being noticed
FWIW I found it rare to make a difference going beyond great quality on Diva.-
- KVRAF
- 2429 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
I was able to narrow it down to 3 and 4 without any real doubt.... then it got tough.
I think it's odd that so many are testing by just cranking resonance way up and comparing extreme modulation settings; wouldn't the further point be to make actually useful, playable patches and see if there's a notable difference between the filter settings? You know, the kind of patches one might actually use in a song?
Anyway, I loaded it into Live, added Live's Arp to replicate the internal sequencer style sequencing, and tweaked, and tweaked....and.....the winner is FOUR.
Feeling pretty solid on 4. Runner up is 3.
-M
I think it's odd that so many are testing by just cranking resonance way up and comparing extreme modulation settings; wouldn't the further point be to make actually useful, playable patches and see if there's a notable difference between the filter settings? You know, the kind of patches one might actually use in a song?
Anyway, I loaded it into Live, added Live's Arp to replicate the internal sequencer style sequencing, and tweaked, and tweaked....and.....the winner is FOUR.
Feeling pretty solid on 4. Runner up is 3.
-M
-
- KVRist
- 296 posts since 1 Jun, 2011
I second on that.
I feel you could be pretty well informed about the character you like without cranking everything up, just by seeing how it behaves on somewhat generic settings, how it resonates, handles noise and so on.
I feel you could be pretty well informed about the character you like without cranking everything up, just by seeing how it behaves on somewhat generic settings, how it resonates, handles noise and so on.
Last edited by Vospi on Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://soundcloud.com/vospi
I love music, worked with a number of music/rhythm/dance games like Pump It Up, In The Groove, Cytus and Deemo, and teach music production.
I love music, worked with a number of music/rhythm/dance games like Pump It Up, In The Groove, Cytus and Deemo, and teach music production.
-
- KVRAF
- 3034 posts since 6 Jul, 2013
They are all models of the same filter, just implemented differently.mholloway wrote:I think it's odd that so many are testing by just cranking resonance way up and comparing extreme modulation settings; wouldn't the further point be to make actually useful, playable patches and see if there's a notable difference between the filter settings? You know, the kind of patches one might actually use in a song?
At regular, "easy" settings, the character is so similar it's pretty meaningless - it's only really with more extreme stuff that the differences between them become more readily apparent, and the behaviour at handling those extremes shows up (the more expensive models supposedly handle these things better.)
Which is why we are investigating those things, after obviously checking out the character on basic stuff to familiarise ourselves with the filters and verify that they do indeed sound very close at the "tame" end...
-
- KVRAF
- 24411 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Pro One emulation lives or dies EXACTLY depending on how it handles the extreme cases.
-
- KVRer
- 11 posts since 4 Apr, 2016
After a little test run - 4 for extreme sounds, 1 for warmth.
Thaks Urs for releasing this and novel approach to releasing software.
Thaks Urs for releasing this and novel approach to releasing software.
-
- KVRAF
- 2429 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
Re: "Pro One emulation lives or dies EXACTLY depending on how it handles the extreme cases."
Yeah, I get all that; my point wasn't to say people shouldn't test extreme settings at all, but that they shouldn't ONLY be testing the extreme settings, especially if everybody just winds up testing the same things. And while perhaps that seems obvious, look how many people cast their vote on day one before really trying the thing across broader usage cases, deeper experimentation, crafting of actual patches, etc. If the whole point of this vote is just to see how everybody subjectively feels about resonance and modulation cranked to 100% and the perceived quality of the shrieking that results, fine, but I personally don't find that very enlightening or interesting.
And when playing with the RePro and Live's arp playing back a tight EBM style sequence, then adjusting the envelopes, resonance and modulation all within "non extreme" settings, I do feel that a difference could be heard between the filter models, fwiw.
Not trying to start a shouting match though, just posting some thoughts / reactions to the general thread and product!
Loving the synth, btw
-M
Yeah, I get all that; my point wasn't to say people shouldn't test extreme settings at all, but that they shouldn't ONLY be testing the extreme settings, especially if everybody just winds up testing the same things. And while perhaps that seems obvious, look how many people cast their vote on day one before really trying the thing across broader usage cases, deeper experimentation, crafting of actual patches, etc. If the whole point of this vote is just to see how everybody subjectively feels about resonance and modulation cranked to 100% and the perceived quality of the shrieking that results, fine, but I personally don't find that very enlightening or interesting.
And when playing with the RePro and Live's arp playing back a tight EBM style sequence, then adjusting the envelopes, resonance and modulation all within "non extreme" settings, I do feel that a difference could be heard between the filter models, fwiw.
Not trying to start a shouting match though, just posting some thoughts / reactions to the general thread and product!
Loving the synth, btw
-M
-
- KVRist
- 318 posts since 3 Nov, 2002
1 is good
Induljon a banzáj!
-
- KVRist
- 40 posts since 18 Mar, 2016
Under less extreme settings, I still favoured 4. Although, I'd be the first to throw my hands up and say that could be confirmation bias as it was done after the extreme stuff. My natural response was to push it, and push it hard in all the ways I know digital filters struggle.
The reason I still preferred 4 was the resonance. I felt it 'sat' in the sound best - that is to say around the point of self-resonance it seemed most like it was 'in' the sound, rather than pasted on top of the sound. Interestingly, under those conditions, 1 put up a much stronger showing ... and those settings were relevant in my poll choice. I'm just an old war dog and know what I'm looking for and how to establish that very quickly - which doesn't mean of course that it's the best option for anyone else, or that it's technically the 'best' choice! 2 suffered here as there were points where it seemed to lose bass response. 3 did OK as did 5. But maybe I'd already been put off 3 and 5 because of the extreme tests.
That's my thought process as I'm conscious of it.
The reason I still preferred 4 was the resonance. I felt it 'sat' in the sound best - that is to say around the point of self-resonance it seemed most like it was 'in' the sound, rather than pasted on top of the sound. Interestingly, under those conditions, 1 put up a much stronger showing ... and those settings were relevant in my poll choice. I'm just an old war dog and know what I'm looking for and how to establish that very quickly - which doesn't mean of course that it's the best option for anyone else, or that it's technically the 'best' choice! 2 suffered here as there were points where it seemed to lose bass response. 3 did OK as did 5. But maybe I'd already been put off 3 and 5 because of the extreme tests.
That's my thought process as I'm conscious of it.