Yeah...the placebo FX!hakey wrote:I became more convinced once I knew it was the expensive algorithm. The difference is night and day.Vesius wrote:I became more convinced by 3's quality over time
Repro-1 (out now)
-
- KVRAF
- 5169 posts since 16 Nov, 2014
- KVRAF
- 2465 posts since 6 Jul, 2013
hakey wrote:I became more convinced once I knew it was the expensive algorithm. The difference is night and day.
- KVRAF
- 4633 posts since 21 Jan, 2008 from oO
Not a bad example thenSuloo wrote:Made some comparison files with these settings, modulating the OSC B to Filter modulation:
Filter1
Filter2
Filter3
Filter4
Filter5
With these setting Filter 3 sounds best to me, while Filter 5 is also nice. Filter one sounds broken, and Filter 4 also has some of the grit of Filter 1. Filter 2 and 3 do not differ too much.
-
- KVRist
- 40 posts since 18 Mar, 2016
For a long time I'd convinced myself that 5 was the expensive algo because it is so well behaved, and muted up high.hakey wrote:I became more convinced once I knew it was the expensive algorithm. The difference is night and day.Vesius wrote:I became more convinced by 3's quality over time
This behaviour very much turned me against it however.
I'm just glad I said wayyyyyy before hints were dropped that I was leaning towards 3.
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Of course This says it all I'd say that, given the results, if it is that much more expensive CPU wise, the difference doesn't pay, since it was perceived by the vast majority as inferior to others. In the end, we may conclude that there is no clear answer to the original question, and it very much depends on the musical background of each one, age, musical preferences, and even past experience with analogue synthesizers. Something I must say I was expecting.hakey wrote:I became more convinced once I knew it was the expensive algorithm. The difference is night and day.Vesius wrote:I became more convinced by 3's quality over time
Last edited by fmr on Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fernando (FMR)
- KVRAF
- 21191 posts since 8 Oct, 2014
Well, if 3 is the most expensive then this poll proves that the folks at KVR have crappy ears.
The poll says it all.
The poll says it all.
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
No, IMO; it just proves that it doesn't stand out as much as could be expected, which means that more expense doesn't pay. OTOH, having so many people preferring #4 (which sounds broken to me) may prove that theory about the crappy earswagtunes wrote:Well, if 3 is the most expensive then this poll proves that the folks at KVR have crappy ears.
The poll says it all.
BTW: For me #2 was he second best, which means I am clearly apart of the crowd, since I voted in the fourth and fifth Maybe my ears are crappier than average
Last edited by fmr on Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRian
- 1153 posts since 11 Aug, 2004 from Breuillet, France
So, Urs told us that all the algorithms sound like 3 for a very high oversampling ratio / sampling frequency, and that the high oversampling ratio 3 sounds like 3 at 96 kHz. Which means that this is the most accurate algorithm, and that all the other ones are approximations of 3 with a lower CPU load.
- KVRAF
- 2465 posts since 6 Jul, 2013
They are all models of the same filter, just implemented differently. By the looks of it, option 3 is the most expensive algorithm, ie the one that is the most mathematically accurate implementation of that model.chk071 wrote:But is it also the one which is closest to the Pro-One filter in u-he's opinion?
- KVRAF
- 2110 posts since 5 Oct, 2015 from Swedish / Living in Hong Kong
The question of the poll was "To your ears, which filter behaves most analogue?". In reality this is a highly subjective and individual question. It means that no answer is wrong or right, or you can say all are wrong or right. No one have crappy ears, just different taste.
In reality you can have 2pcs of Pro-One hardware standing next to each other and I guarantee they will not sound exactly the same. Many factors come into play. Hardware and components have it's natural tolerances, aging of components matters, etc. I voted filter 5 because it sound most analogue to me and obviously to 58 others. But most people (91 to be exact) seems to think filter 4 sounds most analogue. I have no problem to accept that result and I bow for the majority.
In reality you can have 2pcs of Pro-One hardware standing next to each other and I guarantee they will not sound exactly the same. Many factors come into play. Hardware and components have it's natural tolerances, aging of components matters, etc. I voted filter 5 because it sound most analogue to me and obviously to 58 others. But most people (91 to be exact) seems to think filter 4 sounds most analogue. I have no problem to accept that result and I bow for the majority.
Win 10 -64bit, CPU i7-7700K, 32Gb, Focusrite 2i2, FL-studio 20, Studio One 4, Reason 10
-
- KVRist
- 378 posts since 18 Aug, 2014
hehe couple that with folks who have eyesight issues (i.e trouble finding volume dials) I'd say technology like the Repro is wasted on us.wagtunes wrote:Well, if 3 is the most expensive then this poll proves that the folks at KVR have crappy ears.
The poll says it all.
just kidding
-
- KVRAF
- 35262 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Alright, thanks.beely wrote:They are all models of the same filter, just implemented differently. By the looks of it, option 3 is the most expensive algorithm, ie the one that is the most mathematically accurate implementation of that model.chk071 wrote:But is it also the one which is closest to the Pro-One filter in u-he's opinion?
-
- KVRAF
- 8414 posts since 4 Jul, 2012 from Alesia
that or we all just have different preferences.wagtunes wrote:Well, if 3 is the most expensive then this poll proves that the folks at KVR have crappy ears.
The poll says it all.