Repro-1 (out now)

[beely]

So for now more people think filter 1 sounds more analogue than filter 3. Bizarro!

Indeed.

There's the old phrase "if it sounds good, it *is* good", which always bugs me, because it may sound good to you, but if your ears are crap, or you don't understand what you are listening to or have the experience and ear training to hear complicated, subtle things - then you can't make an objective decision on whether something is objectively good, only a (flawed) subjective one on what you *think* may be good...

...which I admit is a less catchy (though more accurate) phrase

[ATN69]

So for now more people think filter 1 sounds more analogue than filter 3. Bizarro!

Indeed.

There's the old phrase "if it sounds good, it *is* good", which always bugs me, because it may sound good to you, but if your ears are crap, or you don't understand what you are listening to or have the experience and ear training to hear complicated, subtle things - then you can't make an objective decision on whether something is objectively good, only a (flawed) subjective one on what you *think* may be good...

...which I admit is a less catchy (though more accurate) phrase

What a load of BS.. Of course not all people on this good earth hear things in exactly the same way. The frequency range of people differ and also with age. And on top of that you have something called "taste". It's like food, wine and many other things in life. Some people like this and others like that. Democracy rules! That's all I can say. P.S I did not like either 1 or 3 but hey, that's life D.S

[beely]

What a load of BS..

No it's not. People can't really hear compression, or distortion artifacts, unless they know and understand what they are hearing. I've done this test with people many times - in general terms, people just don't know what "sounds good" means - often they hear a bunch of over-compressed, distorted awful mixes and assume it's goog sounding - until they are educated, and can hear the difference, and now *know* what sounds good and what doesn't.

And given the amount of people here which think filter 1 sounds the best, despite it showing rather poor digital artifacts and performance, would back up my supposition, really...

If you don't know anything about the medium, your assessments will always be flawed and subjective - that doesn't make them worthless of course - I can appreciate the beauty of a ballet performance even if the ballet teacher next to me would be able to criticise it on many levels deeper than I could, and make a much better summary of how "good" it actually was.

I'd be like "it looked good to me, and I enjoyed it: and she'd be like "that was the worst travesty of a professional ballet I've seen in my life!". Just because *I* thought it was "good" doesn't make it so...

You mention "taste" and this is not at all to which I was referring - that's subjective, and *always* valid. We are talking *objective* things, which is much harder to tackle, *especially* without knowledge and experience in the medium.

[wagtunes]

What a load of BS..

No it's not. People can't really hear compression, or distortion artifacts, unless they know and understand what they are hearing. I've done this test with people many times - in general terms, people just don't know what "sounds good" means - often they hear a bunch of over-compressed, distorted awful mixes and assume it's goog sounding - until they are educated, and can hear the difference, and now *know* what sounds good and what doesn't.

And given the amount of people here which think filter 1 sounds the best, despite it showing rather poor digital artifacts and performance, would back up my supposition, really...

If you don't know anything about the medium, your assessments will always be flawed and subjective - that doesn't make them worthless of course - I can appreciate the beauty of a ballet performance even if the ballet teacher next to me would be able to criticise it on many levels deeper than I could, and make a much better summary of how "good" it actually was.

I'd be like "it looked good to me, and I enjoyed it: and she'd be like "that was the worst travesty of a professional ballet I've seen in my life!". Just because *I* thought it was "good" doesn't make it so...

You mention "taste" and this is not at all to which I was referring - that's subjective, and *always* valid. We are talking *objective* things, which is much harder to tackle, *especially* without knowledge and experience in the medium.

Except you can't equate good and bad to sound.

Have you ever heard the "noises" that Mr. Alias Pro can make? Some people would say that's the worst sounding synth ever made. But put those sounds in context and all of a sudden you have a completely different scenario.

Filter 1 may just be perfect for certain kinds of sounds that the other filters can't produce BECAUSE of those artifacts.

I hear them. I hear the nastiness of filter 1. For certain things, that's just what I'd want, which is why I'd want filter 1 and one of the other filters in the synth so I can have a choice depending on what kind of sounds I'm trying to make.

You're trying to make something subjective (sounds good) into something objective and you simply can't do that.

Now, if you want to say that filter 1 would not be suitable for certain applications, that I could accept. But to flat out say it sounds "worse" than the other filters, says who? And for what application?

Again, listen to Mr. Alias Pro and tell me that everybody who bought it (myself included) is uneducated because they like the way it sounds.

[lolilol1975]

What a load of BS..

No it's not. People can't really hear compression, or distortion artifacts, unless they know and understand what they are hearing. I've done this test with people many times - in general terms, people just don't know what "sounds good" means - often they hear a bunch of over-compressed, distorted awful mixes and assume it's goog sounding - until they are educated, and can hear the difference, and now *know* what sounds good and what doesn't.

And given the amount of people here which think filter 1 sounds the best, despite it showing rather poor digital artifacts and performance, would back up my supposition, really...

If you don't know anything about the medium, your assessments will always be flawed and subjective - that doesn't make them worthless of course - I can appreciate the beauty of a ballet performance even if the ballet teacher next to me would be able to criticise it on many levels deeper than I could, and make a much better summary of how "good" it actually was.

I'd be like "it looked good to me, and I enjoyed it: and she'd be like "that was the worst travesty of a professional ballet I've seen in my life!". Just because *I* thought it was "good" doesn't make it so...

You mention "taste" and this is not at all to which I was referring - that's subjective, and *always* valid. We are talking *objective* things, which is much harder to tackle, *especially* without knowledge and experience in the medium.

OTOH, "sounding good" is highly subjective.

For instance, lots of people *love* distortion. Guitar amps are made for that, the purpose of some plugins is just for that. Other people *loathe* the distortion of an electric guitar. Who is right ?

What you *can* judge is sounding fidel to the original or adding (un)wanted harmonics, that's about it.

[chk071]

Yeah, arguing that "good" or "bad" sounding is objective is wrong, because those are purely subjective terms. My good is your bad, and vice versa. That said, i haven't tried RePro, or the different filter models. I'm quite stunned at what people are all hearing out of it though. I'm sure Urs reads the one of the other comment with a smile on his face.

[niektb]

What you *can* judge is sounding fidel to the original or adding (un)wanted harmonics, that's about it.

But then again, what are wanted and what are unwanted harmonics? That depends on hand on the situation but also (very much) on taste...

[ATN69]

Yeah, arguing that "good" or "bad" sounding is objective is wrong, because those are purely subjective terms. My good is your bad, and vice versa. That said, i haven't tried RePro, or the different filter models. I'm quite stunned at what people are all hearing out of it though. I'm sure Urs reads the one of the other comment with a smile on his face.

There are a bunch here in KVR that are the "wine experts" of sounds ..I just laugh my ass of every time I come across threads here that have been frequented by such "experts".

[beely]

Now you see why that phrase bugs me.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Let's:

1. Stop trying to lobby for our favorite filter. There's no need to try to convince others which sounds best, but there's nothing wrong with describing what you heard and why you voted how you did. I'm pretty sure Urs has known all along which model would make it into RePro and this is more about trying to find out from users what they associate with analog, and how close that is to reality in order to inform future designs.

2. Keep in mind that the difference between filter 1 and 3 is a statistical tie. In fact, with the number of votes cast, filters 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all within the statistical margin of error based on a sample of this size, so if you want to get technical, the only one that was ruled out is number 2.

[AnX]

Filter 1 is NOT the 'most analog'. I'll bet my house on it... any takers?

[fallacy]

Let's:

1. Stop trying to lobby for our favorite filter.

or... all 5 in this case

[AnX]

2. Keep in mind that the difference between filter 1 and 3 is a statistical tie. In fact, with the number of votes cast, filters 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all within the statistical margin of error based on a sample of this size, so if you want to get technical, the only one that was ruled out is number 2.

I think that just shows that the majority of ppl who did the test either did it wrong or dont know what they are doing.

[lectrixboogaloo]

i wonder why 4 is beating 3 by so much?

[JJ_Jettflow]

What a load of BS..

If you don't know anything about the medium, your assessments will always be flawed and subjective - that doesn't make them worthless of course - I can appreciate the beauty of a ballet performance even if the ballet teacher next to me would be able to criticise it on many levels deeper than I could, and make a much better summary of how "good" it actually was.

I'd be like "it looked good to me, and I enjoyed it: and she'd be like "that was the worst travesty of a professional ballet I've seen in my life!". Just because *I* thought it was "good" doesn't make it so...

But your example is flawed as you are only counting two people's opinion; yours and the ballet teacher. However, if 500 other people in the audience found it good then regardless of the teacher's credentials, she would be a lone voice, a crank, a troll you might say, compared to the majority. How many top selling records get poor reviews...lots..yet they still sell.

The average person tends to disregard the critic's opinion because most critics come off as know-it-alls or snobs which tends to get their opinions ignored.