Repro-1 (out now)

[Urs]

no multiplier on the LFO when synced to host?

When synced to host you need the "Clock" setting which also works for the Arp. The clock settings go from 8/1 to 1/64.

To me it seems weird that the LFO rate is dependent on the SEQ rate ( if both are host synced ), should have its own multiplier - the knob is there.

Thing is, the original hardware could sync the sequencer to an external clock, but not the LFO. Most of the time however the sequencer would run with the rate set in the LFO. Each time the LFO cycles, the sequencer would jump one step ahead.

To be able to have both the normal feel of the original sequencer/LFO combination and host sync, we decided to have the LFO sync to the same Clock, which replaces the external Clock input in the original hardware.

[Urs]

Good news about CPU:

I just had a look into the filter code. It still uses a call to a pretty expensive math function, like once per stage, with 4 stages, 8 times oversampling and an average of 5 iterations... like 160 times per sample...?

That's an overhead which will be gone in a few days. I expect the filter code to fly from then. Half the CPU of the beta might very well be a possibility.

[zvenx]

Good news about CPU:

I just had a look into the filter code. It still uses a call to a pretty expensive math function, like once per stage, with 4 stages, 8 times oversampling and an average of 5 iterations... like 160 times per sample...?

That's an overhead which will be gone in a few days. I expect the filter code to fly from then. Half the CPU of the beta might very well be a possibility.

and still sound the same?
that's fantastic news.
rsp

[penguinfromdeep]

That's an overhead which will be gone in a few days. I expect the filter code to fly from then. Half the CPU of the beta might very well be a possibility.

As long as it doesn't change the sound

[izonin]

!!!DO NOT TOUCH THAT FILTER!!!



Most CPU issues can be solved by disabling the fx, anyways.

[Urs]

Lol, it's a function that changes the filter tuning accuracy from 1/100 cent to 1/10 cent or so. It'll sound even more analogue with the faster code

[Cinebient]

I would pay the same again to just get the Jaws as FX plug-in.
It´s as impressive as the synth itself. It´s so agressive but without sounding totally distroyed.
Routing midi shaper to the (great as usual) midi learned knobs.....
I also wanted to have a poly version but this thing get so fat that i need to get a half voice mode instead
It also let me focus on that one fat voice while creating patches instead of watching the meters with huge chords, long crossfading releases and stuff.
I really would like to see U-he one day with a stunning physical modelling synth which kicks ass of the ones we have today.

[Ingonator]

Good news about CPU:

I just had a look into the filter code. It still uses a call to a pretty expensive math function, like once per stage, with 4 stages, 8 times oversampling and an average of 5 iterations... like 160 times per sample...?

That's an overhead which will be gone in a few days. I expect the filter code to fly from then. Half the CPU of the beta might very well be a possibility.

Wow, this sounds very promsing. Did not expect it would be possible to reduce that much CPU load so soon.

If it would have an impact on the sound maybe there could be a switch in the tweak page to select between higher and lower CPU use.

[Urs]

I haven't done it yet, but it's looking very good.

[thecontrolcentre]

This thing sounds fantastic, and to my ears its as near as dammit to the hardware ... great job Urs. The fx are pretty awesome too. I'm getting around 40% cpu in Live9 on an i7 processor, so looking forward to the next version.

[bibz1st]

Regarding the ARP, the ones I've tried never seemed to trigger the same as real Pro One but Repro has it just right, how come? What is different about Repro's and indeed Pro-Ones?

[spunkmuffin]

Good news about CPU:

I just had a look into the filter code. It still uses a call to a pretty expensive math function, like once per stage, with 4 stages, 8 times oversampling and an average of 5 iterations... like 160 times per sample...?

That's an overhead which will be gone in a few days. I expect the filter code to fly from then. Half the CPU of the beta might very well be a possibility.

Hmm this sounds very fishy to me. I thought you coded the filter yourself and if you did surely you would have noticed this earlier.....hmm.

So it's either:

1. You left the expensive math function call in deliberately just so you could say half way through beta 'Oh I'm going to cut the CPU hit in half on release.'

or...

2. Somebody else has been coding the filter. Maybe some Russian maths genius that you have been outsoursing development to, and he has come up with a better solution just now.

Either way, well done!

edit: actually both 1 AND 2 could be true. Now that would be clever!

[musikmachine]

^That's promising about the cpu.

[Ingonator]

edit: actually both 1 AND 2 could be true. Now that would be clever!

What about 3.): Maybe you are just slightly paranoid in this case and Urs had not noticed this yet and just found it while he had some time to re-check the code...

[Vortifex]

..