Repro-1 (out now)

[PAK]

I could actually send my Pro-One filter to 68kHz with all modulations.

Wow. Surprised you don't have bats crashing into your windows and all the neighbourhood dogs barking when testing that. I doubt I'll hear much above 15-16kHz these days anyway, at least without slamming the volume and likely doing more damage in the process

I haven't checked the Arturia but I booted up my Matrix 12. It jumps to self oscillation when switching resonance from 62 to 63, so it only does that on the highest possible setting. It's a very different chip though.

Ahh, fair play to Arturia there then..

Low resolution hardware controls strike again

[D J SoMaR]

De mi humilde opinión me decanto por el primero, haciendo pruebas y experimentando llegue a esta conclusión y aca expongo lo logrado sabran sacar sus propias conclusiones ;=)
https://soundcloud.com/gustavo-eduardo- ... u-he-repro

[Urs]

I could actually send my Pro-One filter to 68kHz with all modulations.

Wow. Surprised you don't have bats crashing into your windows and all the neighbourhood dogs barking when testing that. I doubt I'll hear much above 15-16kHz these days anyway, at least without slamming the volume and likely doing more damage in the process

Hehe, the main thing is, a 24 dB lowpass filter has 12 dB attenuation at the corner frequency. If cutoff is set to, say, 20kHz, you'll already have noticeable attenuation in audible frequencies. Such that, being able to set cutoff to 40kHz or higher also makes a difference in the 8-17kHz range.

[reactDeveloper]

First above all else... Urs and team U-HE... thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you

I was fortunate enough to own 2 Pro Ones in my life. Once when I was 18, I got a really good condition j-wire version and I was too inexperienced to appreciate its power, so I sold it and got a high end Akai sampler with the profits, in my 30's I was able to find one again, but this time it was beat up, and was the membrane keyboard. So needless to say, its now in pieces and no longer useable until I find a good tech to bring it back to life. For me, it was all about the percussive modular sounding hits you could get from it, no envelope was as snappy and hard and versatile as the Pro One. So to have its spirit back in my laptop, I'm a bit emotional about it.

Sound wise, its very close, I'd say as close as the Roland Boutique's are to their original, probably even closer. IMHO I'd say the sound is about 95% there which is close enough for me to enjoy the type of synthesis the Pro One offered.

Being in lala land here, honestly I can't say which filter is the most authentic and realistic in a 1 to 1 comparison. 2 definitely sounds the furthest away, 5 sounds too clean, 1 and 3 and 4 to me sound like they have the most consistent resolution and depth, but they all sound different at the same mod settings. Not bad, just different. So for example if I"m on F1, and I chose 3, it sounds like the modulation applied using the mod knob drops in value, but if I move it up a knotch, it more closely matches the timbre of F1, so then I think, OK that sounds good, just at a different setting.

As much as the filter is vital, as is the resolution of the cross mods, for me the snap and extremely fast attack and rapid decay slope is equally most important to model. I'm not sure what that means overall in terms of development, I just know for me what really sets the pro one apart, besides it being a baby modular in terms of modulation capabilities, is that insanely hard percussive envelope. I have yet to hear something like that in software. Your VCA is close, very close, but IMHO it needs that extra absolute 0 snap attack. Even Arturia's Prophet, their attack doesn't go down to 0 and the numeric value displays that at the lowest knob setting its 0.15ms, thats a lot of time when we're talking percussion.

Again, so appreciative of this, I've been waiting years for someone to tackle the Pro One correctly and from the authenticity point of view.

[Urs]

Thanks!

Yes, envelopes have not been tweaked to final shape (the final bit of decay/release is too soft, feeling a tad slow). Also, the output OpAmp is currently driven at constant volume, the Master output of RePro lays behind it. The envelope shape of the final version will thus also be determined by the master volume, like on the real synth. Our ProOne has Sustain go beyond 100%, so we might need to swap some 3310s before implementing the final model(s).

[Boardwalk]

After doing some research I have the feeling that 1 and 5 are like 'opposite'. 3 is 'in between' 1 and 5.
2 is between 1 and 3. 4 is between 3 and 5.

Obviously, I could be totally wrong but I anyway: maybe nice to have a filter between 3 and 4

[Jazzonaut]

Goooood one, guys.

Hard to tell which one sounds "most analogue".

I think if Urs gave us the possibility to compare the filters with our real hardware synths by sending any audio-wave through them, it would be a more realistic voting.
Sure, not many synths have an audio-input like the ms-20.
But I think the oscis (and the OSC B Mod to VCF) of RePro produce a very "Urs"-like tone, ... which by the way none of my analogue gear is producing like this, .. and that fact may influence ones hearing and likes concerning the filters.

For now I have a Jupiter 6, A Juno 106 and a JX-8P in the Studio.
And compared to those, none of the 5 Filters behaves analogue enough.

- I like 1 for its really nasty presence, true dirty things are happening here.
- I think 5 is the cleanest and most, ok, "analogueish" peaceful one but boooring
- 2 is, in all circumstances, in extremes and soft applications, the most useless
- 3 is somehow 2 but with a bit more something
- 4 has .. mmh, effectivity and juicy, but flimmering things somehow.

I won't vote. If someone would force me I had to vote 5, but it's not the thing that will do good to the RePro-Oscis and Mod.

btw. with the setting in the attached picture you can hear ALL filters doing no good ...

[Faza]

Number 4 sounds clearest possible for me Number 1 creates noise-like sounds, so I think that one isn't the greatest filter. Both VST2 and VST3 version same very similar performance and this synth doesn't seems to be so aggressively CPU hungry, cause it used only about 15% of my CPU, while using it in DAW called Reaper in 64 bit mode, 64 bit Windows 7 with Intel Core i3-4000M 2.4 GHz CPU Also number 3 sounds quite like the fourth. Drone mode is a new interesting feature for me, it's really comfortable while tuning the synth Overall RePro sounds wonderfully good and clear. Thanks for this research project and your approach to community and your fans I hope and I would love to see more similar projects and hope as filter 3 and 4 types, will be implemented in your current and future projects ^_^

[nortle]

Sometimes I ask myself whether all this is still about making music.

[AnX]

The one i prefer is #3

[olikana]

i think the majority is right on 4 being the better choice.
it retains some of the charachter of 1 minus the nastyness and has overall more balanced sound. 5 misses all the bite and is more leaning into moog territory....
i think this setting (a ressy octave bass) is useful to highlight the properties. for even more clear difference set Res at 50 (in the image it is at 45) but then watch your ears when selecting 1.
I somehow still want the option for something like 1 even if it's nasty. can have its uses if you work around it and i bet it cuts through the mix like a knife.

[Urs]

even if it's nasty.

Maybe a Polivoks or Wasp emu might come in handy

[Raddler1]

I personally don't think the sonic differences are enough to warrant 15 pages of posts in 2 days. Kinda think this is more of an advertissement tactic.

[.jon]

Sometimes I ask myself whether all this is still about making music.

If it was, Urs & co would be researching features and UI, not how much CPU can be spent to make one part of an emulation sound like some old budget gear.

[Robert Randolph]

I personally don't think the sonic differences are enough to warrant 15 pages of posts in 2 days. Kinda think this is more of an advertissement tactic.

Yet you contribute to the thread... how odd.