Repro-1 (out now)

[Alex von Elzer]

Why vote

Just add in the final release an extra knob, above the mastertune, which you can select a filter type suitable for you project. Everyone is happy

[urosh]

Depends what your definition of "properly" is.

It sure does not, I didn't throw word "properly" into discussion. Fmr said that he's not convinced 1, 3 and 4 "are working properly", and since 2 and 5 are objectively not behaving like Pro One, than none is working "properly", end of discussion.

[AnX]

Why vote

Just add in the final release an extra knob, above the mastertune, which you can select a filter type suitable for you project. Everyone is happy

Cos its the same filter.

[pdxindy]

hakey,Are you saying you followed the same procedure on RePro One as Urs' video?

Yes- the first test with increasing resonance. Filter 4 is closer to this behaviour than filter 3, which changes pitch noticeably.

Filter 3 may be the more expensive algo, but it doesn't accurately replicate every aspect of u-he's Pro One. Presumably the intention is to capture generic Pro One behaviour rather than that of a specific instance (though I seem to recall that the latter was hinted at somewhere along the way).

Actually, I think that in the current state, Urs intention as just to check which model was "perceived" as the most analogue. They are still working on it, AFAIK, so, probably there still things to be perfected. And since all filters are actually the "same" (except for the calculation method, then the model is the same, which means that, after choosing one (or two?) calculation methods to stick with, the model has to be worked on the aspects that are less faithfull or accurate.

U-he mentioned that the filter(s) in RePro still need some tweaking... for example keytracking is currently not quite right... etc. So subtle scaling differences with the actual Pro One may not be at the ready to check stage. Perhaps that is partly why the question was which sounds more analog, not which sounds more exactly like the Pro One demo.

[louderr]

I used to have a Juno-6 and the envelopes on it were a lot faster then Diva's. I would love to be able to make snappy stabs with Diva. Faster envelopes pretty please ?

snappy is the word. the slowish envelopes of many analogue modelers are a deal killer, even if the overall sound is good. either they just dont respond to MIDI fast enough or its the envelope attack not packing a punch, i dont know. but when the attack is instantaneous its thrilling.

I think it's worn out potentiometers in vintage hardware synths. Their overall resistance changes, shifting the parameter range a fair bit. For anything pitch or pulsewidth you get a trim pot, but never for envelope times. So yes, they're fast and all of that, but the useful range in the center is often crippled.

You won't believe how distorted the "linear" pots in our Pro-One are. Their resistance is all over the place. It's slowly dawning on me that a major reason for different sound between two synths may be broken pots, maybe because they killed them with contact spray whatsoever.

That said, I'd be interested to see if a Juno-6 envelope is any different from a Juno-60. I think we completely nailed the Juno-60/Jupiter-8 envelopes in Diva's "Analog" setting. The reason Diva's Minimoogish env doesn't go shorter is based on the opinion of a famous user (won't disclose the name, it wasn't HZ) who suggested that "this setting hits the spot". Well. We might add an alternative option.

thx for this info, Urs

[fmr]

Depends what your definition of "properly" is.

It sure does not, I didn't throw word "properly" into discussion. Fmr said that he's not convinced 1, 3 and 4 "are working properly", and since 2 and 5 are objectively not behaving like Pro One, than none is working "properly", end of discussion.

Which may be exactly the case...

[urosh]

Which may be exactly the case...

That definitely is the case. Urs is using simplified model compared to model typically used in circuit simulation, which is again simplification and high level abstraction, and then only 3 calculates model accurately, to an extent (you cant do much about aliasing beside even more oversampling, this is regardless of solver used). That's why the question is "which one do your ears like the most as analog impersonation", not which one is behaving exactly like particular analog synth.

[PAK]

It sure does not, I didn't throw word "properly" into discussion. Fmr said that he's not convinced 1, 3 and 4 "are working properly", and since 2 and 5 are objectively not behaving like Pro One, than none is working "properly", end of discussion.

Fair enough. What was written could be read more than one way.

the question is "which one do your ears like the most as analog impersonation", not which one is behaving exactly like particular analog synth.

Quite how people were supposed to give a sensible answer, if the choices were between varying degrees of muffled or "artifacts", only on resonance and resonance modulation, on an otherwise identical sounding synth, I'm not sure. Seems more likely to confuse people than anything.

Also, why post a filter sweep if it's a case of "actually, none of the models can really match that yet"?

If you're left scratching your head about these things, and more, you're not alone. But I guess it works well as a marketing exercise.

It's worth remembering it's marked Alpha for a reason though. With that in mind I'll now wait for a finished product, which will hopefully speak for itself, and will leave others to have fun testing

[llze]

Also, why post a filter sweep if it's a case of "actually, none of the models can really match that yet"?

that was a request by u-he to check if their pro-one behaves in a similar way than the ones other people got at home. Hence the request of the recorded audio files, doing that sweep. Just a confirmation that everything is working as it should afaik.

[pdxindy]

Also, why post a filter sweep if it's a case of "actually, none of the models can really match that yet"?

that was a request by u-he to check if their pro-one behaves in a similar way than the ones other people got at home. Hence the request of the recorded audio files, doing that sweep. Just a confirmation that everything is working as it should afaik.

It is a waste of time to try and take someones conspiracy theories away from them... they will cling to them in the face of all evidence to the contrary

[louderr]

The way I read Urs' comments there was a (practical) production reason and a (smaller) marketing reason. The practical reason was to see if a filter could be compromised somewhat to make it use less resources. And so he gave us a live prototype to test the sound and see which we felt "sounded most analogue". The marketing angle was innocent enough: they get a lot of snarky comments in the press and at trade shows about being CPU hogs. So part of the exercise was to convince us that, no, you can't make deep budget cuts without getting shittier roads. And hopefully we, the torch-bearers, will go forth and say "yup, we heard it with our own ears and the better filters cost more CPU."

-Or something like that Both motives were experimental. He was trying to tease out a lot of information at once. I'm sure he got more information from us than we realize.

[PAK]

that was a request by u-he to check if their pro-one behaves in a similar way than the ones other people got at home. Hence the request of the recorded audio files, doing that sweep. Just a confirmation that everything is working as it should afaik.

It is a waste of time to try and take someones conspiracy theories away from them... they will cling to them in the face of all evidence to the contrary

Actually, there's no "conspiracy" mr white knight.

I was referencing the audio posted on page 16 of this thread demonstrating the filter, and not the Youtube video asking for people to check their Pro One against the video, which Suloo might've been talking about. It's not clear why that is posted on page 16 without reading the preceeding pages, and so I'm still unsure of the reason for its inclusion.

In either case, that doesn't really matter. It acts as a handy comparison people can check against and - get this - decide for themselves if the product can replicate. That's right - without caring about my opinion, nor any notion you may have of what constitutes "evidence".

If the final product actually matches that it will be very impressive. So no need to go all fanboy on someone. Sheesh.

[llze]

yea, i ment that video, and the request from this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=6412939#p6412939

[hakey]

why post a filter sweep if it's a case of "actually, none of the models can really match that yet"?

The RePro and Pro One filter FM clips Urs posted sounded close enough to me.

[urosh]

Quite how people were supposed to give a sensible answer, if the choices were between varying degrees of muffled or "artifacts", only on resonance and resonance modulation, on an otherwise identical sounding synth, I'm not sure.

???