u-he

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:15 pm

Hm, no issues with reading lettering in a bright room here...

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:14 pm

Urs wrote:Difference of filter computation methods is obvious, but putting a finger on the best algorithm is hard

Will they all require the same processing power? If one is more expensive, that'll be the one that people prefer, regardless of how it sounds. (I'm a cynic, I know

)

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:21 pm

hakey wrote:
Urs wrote:Difference of filter computation methods is obvious, but putting a finger on the best algorithm is hard
Will they all require the same processing power? If one is more expensive, that'll be the one that people prefer, regardless of how it sounds. (I'm a cynic, I know )

Very cynical indeed. Perhaps accurate, I'm unsure. Yet I do know that I do not look at CPU cost when cycling through the models (I don't even have a meter to see it). What sounds the best to my ears is the one(s) I prefer.

That said, they all sound very nice. Some sound thicker and deeper than others that sound brighter and more open. It is a delicate trade off of ascertaining which is the porridge just right.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:23 pm

I can only speak for myself, but i don't really watch the CPU meter, when comparing if something sounds better than the other thing.

If there's really people judging by the CPU meter, then i must say that is pretty silly. Wouldn't be VERY surprising if it was so, though.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:25 pm

Frantz wrote:Looking forward to trying this out.

That RePro UI is very low contrast. The lettering is so dark that it is hard to read in a bright room.

Looks easy to read in full size on my screen

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:32 pm

It will be fun to try and find some settings where the differences between the filter models really become apparent.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:13 pm

The current alpha version calculates either 2 or 3 algorithms in parallel, so it is impossible to tell what one is listening to

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:32 pm

mholloway wrote:
Urs wrote:Exact replica

(Difference of filter computation methods is obvious, but putting a finger on the best algorithm is hard)
Awesome news. I like the less-is-more replica approach, and wish there was more of it going on. Sound should be the priority, not software bells and whistles (though they can have their place, e.g. all those LFOs on the Minimonsta are pretty darn useful)

There's only two synths that I've dreamed of having "near perfect" software replicas of: the ProOne and the Xpander. So, you're potentially making half of my dreams come true

Cheers!
-M

It's been years since I briefly had my hands on a Pro One and never owned one so I cannot really comment on the sonic accuracy of it.

Okay, having said that, I gotta hype this a bit cause it's exciting!...

This thing is fun! The Alpha doesn't have any modulation except the filter envelop and filterFM via Osc B and it is still a blast to play.

One thing I have not felt with a softsynth before... I could be happy with this synth if it did not save presets. Partly that is because it is simple. But it is also because it has lots of big wide sweet spots and lots of easily accessible character. If I had a hardware controller, I would feel confident to perform live without presets.

Sound-wise, it is up my alley. I generally like older analogue synths better. They tend to be more characterful whereas modern tends to be more hard and driven.

I just spent the past 2 hours playing lead sounds and didn't save a single preset. A couple tweaks and the sound has some new and equally pleasing character. This synth begs to be tweaked and played! So I agree with you, it does not need anything more (feature-wise) than the original Pro One.

nilhartman · Post by **nilhartman** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:20 am

Can't wait.
pdxindy, can you spot any differences between the different filter algos?

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:41 am

Differences are quite huge with extreme modulations.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:22 pm

nilhartman wrote:Can't wait.
pdxindy, can you spot any differences between the different filter algos?

Like EvilDragon said... at more extreme settings, the differences are significant.

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:00 pm

You guys are already running a beta of the alpha? I'm assuming a time machine is involved. I'm jealous.

aaron aardvark · Post by **aaron aardvark** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:42 am

I have owned a Pro-One since 1981 and that is my least favorite thing about it: no patch memory. I would be really disappointed if it does not eventually have factory presets and patch memory. Really looking forward to trying RePro-1 or at least hearing it. Well maybe it will have memory right off the bat. pdxindy's comments kind of scared me I guess. OK, I checked out the Repro-1 gui and I see patch memory buttons, so that is good.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:35 am

aaron aardvark wrote:I have owned a Pro-One since 1981 and that is my least favorite thing about it: no patch memory. I would be really disappointed if it does not eventually have factory presets and patch memory. Really looking forward to trying RePro-1 or at least hearing it. Well maybe it will have memory right off the bat. pdxindy's comments kind of scared me I guess. OK, I checked out the Repro-1 gui and I see patch memory buttons, so that is good.

Oh... of course it has presets!

I was making a comment on how easily RePro sounds good!

aaron aardvark · Post by **aaron aardvark** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:48 pm

Just me getting hysterical and overly paranoid.

u-he

KVR Audio

[ANN] Repro-1