Repro-1 (out now)

[do_androids_dream]

I like 1, it fizzes and gurgles like the WASP filter, though obviously that's not the point. From what recall of my Pro One, it sounds as dirty and rude, and it has the wide oscillators too. Playing with the PWM elicits similar memories too, though manually it's a bit odd. FWIW I don't recall the filter of my Pro One being as wild as 1.

Now if you could make it double trigger and play every third note like a real J-Wire version, it'll be the most authentic one out there.

Side note - is there a chance this will lead to a version with polyphony later, so we finally get a good P5 emulator? Diva has already made me think twice about an OB6...

From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.

[Boardwalk]

I'm kind of excited; what are we going to test next?

[rustyvst]

I like 5 the best, so far...........

[EvilDragon]

From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.

Well, not all analogs are created equal. There are polite and flat sounding analog filters as well.

[moscom_electronics]

My 2 cents:

do not like 5 at all, sounds lifeless and weak. 2 does not touch me much.

1 clearly has some artifacts at high resonance around the 5-6 position on the cutoff knob. And then I am left with 3 and 4. And I tend to prefer 4, I find that it has more ummmmphhh.

Also, Urs, it seems like the filters are not all tuned identically. This may bias our listening, no? For example, 1 and 4 seem to be tuned almost identically while 2,3 and 5 are identical but different from 1 and 4. I tested this with Spectrum in Live.

I still keep my vote, I want to test them more in depth. But this is a fantastic idea

[gravehill]

I can't install, even as Administrator. Win 8.1 x64

I got the exact same error happening when installing Podolski. After several tries it worked. I don't think I actually did or changed anything. Windows 10 64 bit.

(Haven't tried installing RePro yet)

[do_androids_dream]

From a lot of these posts it's clear that not a lot have actually used analog synths. 1 and 2 are the only ones that actually give me a sense of using a real analog filter. 3,4 and 5 are progressively politer and 'flat' sounding - which sounds more like what software sounds like in general. The results here don't surprise me.

Well, not all analogs are created equal. There are polite and flat sounding analog filters as well.

While this is true, the filter on a pro one is, really, the exact opposite of this - very chunky, weighty and fat as opposed to something polite (can't think of a 'polite' analog filter offhand.. maybe 'softer' - something like sem filter).

[hugoderwolf]

#3 is the winner for me, the only one I couldn't blow up with extreme settings.

The rest in descending order of preference: 2, 5, 4, 1

[bmrzycki]

#3 is the winner for me, the only one I couldn't blow up with extreme settings.

The rest in descending order of preference: 2, 5, 4, 1

That was my preference order too.

[autoy]

My 2 cents:

do not like 5 at all, sounds lifeless and weak. 2 does not touch me much.

1 clearly has some artifacts at high resonance around the 5-6 position on the cutoff knob. And then I am left with 3 and 4. And I tend to prefer 4, I find that it has more ummmmphhh.

Also, Urs, it seems like the filters are not all tuned identically. This may bias our listening, no? For example, 1 and 4 seem to be tuned almost identically while 2,3 and 5 are identical but different from 1 and 4. I tested this with Spectrum in Live.

I still keep my vote, I want to test them more in depth. But this is a fantastic idea

Yep, I came to exactly the same conclusions.

[EvilDragon]

can't think of a 'polite' analog filter offhand...

MKS-70, for example. I find it quite tame and polite.


Back to Pro-One, I really don't think the real one blows up like filter 1 in RePro does at audio rate modulations. It's really quite nasty and unlike anything I've heard from any real analog.

[moscom_electronics]

I think that 3 is winning for me actually. Here are two sound examples why... The first example is a sound I made played at C3. The sound is played 5 times, each time with different filter from 1 to 5 in chronological order.
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c3-test

the second one is the same patch played two octaves higher (C5)
https://soundcloud.com/moscom/c5-test

On these examples, the following things are pretty clear :
- 1 is digital and noisy as hell when modulation is extreme
- 2 and 5 just weaken the sound and make almost inaudible
- 4 is good, but has some weird artefacts
- 3 is clearly the winner, musical all along.

This is why my vote goes to 3.

Also, I am starting to think that it'd be fun that we start posting audio examples of sounds that we find compelling and nice, eventually comparing the filters on these sounds to explain what we find nice. What do you think?

[woodsdenis]

1 is slightly louder with audio on some settings which may skew results.

[moscom_electronics]

I do not think that the noise I got from 1 in my example comes from a problem with loudness

[db3]

I'm liking #4