The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Synths for sale     Latest  Trending
u-he RePro-Alpha (Free/Researchware & poll)
View Poll Results: To your ears, which filter behaves most analogue?
1
4 Votes - 7.14%
2
3 Votes - 5.36%
3
15 Votes - 26.79%
4
15 Votes - 26.79%
5
19 Votes - 33.93%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Old 4th April 2016
  #1
Lives for gear
u-he RePro-Alpha (Free/Researchware & poll)

Update May 2nd 2016: Our solution & conclusion available in a geeky little PDF:

http://www.u-he.com/downloads/UrsBlo...s_Unveiled.pdf

Hi all,

As predicted during Superbooth and elsewhere, today we're unleashing a new Researchware plug-in, RePro-Alpha.



It is an excessively CPU hungry anti-optimized monophonic synthesizer, in essence a stripped down version of the Sequential Circuits Pro-One we're currently modeling. The final version will be full-featured but we'll need some more weeks/months to get there.

The research part is, we have implemented the same pretty extreme model of the CEM3320 Curtis filter chip in our vintage Pro-One using 5 different numerical methods, each costing a very different amount of CPU. We wish for you to spot the method that sounds "most analogue" to your ears and vote for it in the poll. By that we wish to see if it is worth spending a lot of CPU or if we could get away with something cheaper. Furthermore we wish to discuss the following questions:
  • what differences do you spot between the models?
  • when do these differences become audible, i.e. which settings promote these differences?

Please download the plug-in, check it out, it's free forever (but won't be updated other than to the final commercial version), try some stuff, build an opinion, take your time, discuss and vote here in this thread.

Repro_001_4365_Mac.zip (AU/VST/VST3)

Repro_001_4365_Win.zip (VST2/VST3)

Also, even though we're happy to discuss further questions about RePro-1, we would like to concentrate on just the filter differences in this thread. I.e. if your Pro-One (or Synthex whatever uses CEM3320) sounds "utterly different", we'll be happy to request audio examples from you, but this isn't the focus of this thread.

Note: We are sorry if some of you can not run this plug-in due to CPU consumption. This isn't an indicator to the final version being CPU hungry as well, it is just a necessity for the trial - several filter algorithms are always run in parallel so that one can not spot the most accurate one by CPU hunger.

Enjoy,

- Urs

Last edited by Urs; 2nd May 2016 at 04:48 PM.. Reason: new information
Old 4th April 2016
  #2
Lives for gear
 
worm's Avatar
 

oooh!

the difference is pretty subtle but i say #5
Old 4th April 2016
  #3
Gear Nut
2 and 3 is pretty similar to me. But I prefer sound of 5. Similar to 1, but don't like "hard" slope on the first. Also there is slightly hearing vibration in the 5 which maybe means great emulation of VCF behavior maybe...anyway - great synth!!!
Old 4th April 2016
  #4
Lives for gear
 
payt's Avatar
 

Nice synth. Can't wait for the full version

As for the filterts: number 1 sounds a bit more sparkly to me, whereas 5 seems to be a bit more organic.

Having said that, in a blind test I'd absolutely be unable to tell which is which. I'd be happy with any of these filters I think. I'd have to compare it to a real Pro-1, which I don't have. All I have is a Mopho KB, which in general sounds a bit different, perhaps a bit less refined (but every bit as ballsy, if it has to, as it turns out)
Old 4th April 2016
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Jeeroj's Avatar
 

Take your time, lads, it's not a race...
Old 4th April 2016
  #6
Lives for gear
 
autoy's Avatar
If you want to test software filters just use audio-rate modulation and play with the filter envelope.

Sweeping cutoff in 2 and 5 completely break under audio-rate mod (slow attack, top resonance, VCO2 Lo Freq. modulating filter at the highest octave, no tracking). 1 breaks in a rather noisy fun way (steppy, so low quality giving it away). 3 and 4 hold audio-rate mod really well, being 3 perhaps a little smoother for my taste and 4 a little bit wilder. I like both of these last two, hard to pick just one really, though I'd stick with 3 for nicest. 5 is the most polite and clean of the bunch, definitely.
Old 4th April 2016
  #7
Lives for gear
 

The pro 1 in my closet hates you guys.
Old 4th April 2016
  #8
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Other Guy View Post
The pro 1 in my closet hates you guys.
Well, you're the one who put it in a closet

@ Urs : can't wait to try this! I however am still hoping for a bit more of 21st century telemetry.

Wouldn't it be nice to let it send out JSON (for instance) dumps from time to time to measure all kinds of activity, or at least poke the user that they can now mail a data dump to u-he headquarters? (kind of like an Ableton Live crash report, only positive ). The use of the synth itself at least never lies; and you could have clear "both 3 and 4 are favourite with 4 just a bit in the lead" or "2 is favourite for percussive sounds because the settings all point to that, while 5 is preferred for bass"?

I don't think anyone's doing this because it's probably a mess in terms of privacy and you have to carefully anonymize the data, but hey, you're signing up for a researchware plugin, so you could know what you're getting into.

Also, the final word on Pro-One accuracy I'd say is making a MIDI file of the Don't Go Replica on http://www.unease.se/proone.htm. Patch charts are shown on that page as well.
Old 4th April 2016
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Wuhoo!

Can't wait to try this out! Have been waiting ever since I heard about this new project by Uhe!

Btw, Uhe is the reason I've sold all my analog synths..
Old 4th April 2016
  #10
nice...I have had the pleasure of beta testing this and Im struggling to discern quality differences in the filters-just differences...but then, I dont feel the quality setting on Diva makes it more 'analogue'...just more accurate digital...less accurate digital can sound cool too - eg classic instruments like the Wave...(note I admit draft setting on Diva is least favorite...but apart from that...its negotiable)...

I suspect the answers will be all over the place and confirm that it may not be worth making the algorithm super expensive...

Looking fwd to the full version!
Old 4th April 2016
  #11
It sounds nice so far, looking forward to a much lighter version, as I have 8gb on my laptop and one instance goes up to 70% on Ableton Live. There is no noticeable difference on the filter modes, more of a different 'feel' to them. Also a very friendly price would be welcome. Something like 50-70$ max. It's way too simple to be more expensive (I own Diva though and it's worth it's high price).
Old 4th April 2016
  #12
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
8 GB of RAM doesn't really come into play here

Live isn't a particularly CPU efficient host, either...
Old 4th April 2016
  #13
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
5 for sure. 1 is by far the worst, with a great deal of aliasing and weird digital artifacts, with 4 being second worse. 2 sounds good, but 5 sounds very, very smooth.
Old 4th April 2016
  #14
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Actually, those are not just purely aliasing artifacts (as mentioned by Urs in related KvR thread).

"Hehehe, that isn't aliasing, that is the resonance still being there and locking in with the harmonics of the oscillators. People in the office also came over and said "Uh, it aliases like hell". Then I pressed a key on the Pro-One with same settings and "uh, ok"."
Old 4th April 2016
  #15
Lives for gear
 
redloheb's Avatar
 

this thread is going to bring a lot of fun may be even more than Diva vs Oberheim did
Old 4th April 2016
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
I also like that this is a tech demo for lossless scaling. Congrats on the rendering engine, it really looks great!
Old 4th April 2016
  #17
Lives for gear
Well, what I (deliberately?) missed to say was that all algorithms except for the most expensive one (the only one using an iterative solver) had to be tweaked to work at all. If it wasn't for some kind of safe guarding and limiting the cutoff frequency range, some of those filters would blow up into oblivion. Which still shows at some point, which is nothing a properly functioning analogue filter would do.

It needs to be said that we're emulating the Pro-One, not a Minimoog. Latter is designed to be an sweet spot synth through and through with comparably tame modulation depths. Think 2 octaves for FilterFM. The Pro-One on the other hand does 12 octaves of FilterFM even when the oscillators have gone well into supersonic territory. While arguably the Minimoog may have the more elegant, crisp and precious sound than a Pro-One, the Pro-One is the tougher one to emulate. I think the Pro-One is the most challenging vintage monosynth to model and it needs (deserves?) to be judged in extreme sonic territory.
Old 4th April 2016
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Would be worth putting in a vote for least preference - this brilliant opportunity is only going to happen once and it would be great to extract the maximum information - I think a lot of people are going to verbally tell you they don't like 1 because it's so clearly different to the rest, but you won't know that if you stick to just one vote for best only. Ideally putting them in order would be the ideal for extracting information, even though you might argue that people would be less likely to vote (I think not on here, but still adding a least also is the best of both worlds IMHO). Just 2p.
Old 4th April 2016
  #19
Lives for gear
Hehehe, I think I said it somewhere, the discussion is more important than the actual vote - otherwise I guess we would have done random-for-everyone paired with a submit button like Protoverb.

There's also a little subversion built into this: People obviously hear differences in certain settings. Hence - as a nice side product - we are setting a precedent within the debate of zero delay feedback filters.
Old 4th April 2016
  #20
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
#5 for me.
Old 4th April 2016
  #21
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Looking forward to the Linux version when you have it completed!
Old 5th April 2016
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Yutaka's Avatar
 

I picked #1 , and #4 is my second choice.
Old 5th April 2016
  #23
Lives for gear
 
redloheb's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yutaka View Post
I picked #1 , and #4 is my second choice.
after 5 minutes I totally agree 1 is most characterful and most abrasive
2 and 5 are non zdf
Old 5th April 2016
  #24
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
1 is non-ZDF as far as I'm concerned. The filter totally blows up with more extreme modulations.
Old 5th April 2016
  #25
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
What's most interesting is that the poll results here are so different than on KVR.

I'm still sticking with #4 . Sounds best when doing filter mod stuff and takes resonance well in that situation as well. Sounds not unlike the Prophet 6.
Old 5th April 2016
  #26
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
Sounds not unlike the Prophet 6.
Prophet 6 has bipolar FilterFM with square and sawtooth though, it might be difficult to compare directly.
Old 5th April 2016
  #27
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Prophet 6 has bipolar FilterFM with square and sawtooth though, it might be difficult to compare directly.
Sure, but I always take these things with a few grains of salt. I'm never looking for an exact copy of anything... not much fun in that. I'm more interested in a good sound and a general characteristic that's inspiring. I'd say you nailed it for sure. I'm not looking for a replacement for my Prophet 6. That's staying. What would make me the happiest is if I saw this filter tech in Zebra 3. Pretty please?
Old 5th April 2016
  #28
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
What would make me the happiest is if I saw this filter tech in Zebra 3. Pretty please?
That's the whole idea behind RePro.
Old 5th April 2016
  #29
Lives for gear
 
payt's Avatar
 

Well looks like this is turning out to be more of an exercise in psychology than an objective test of filters.
Old 5th April 2016
  #30
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
It was never meant to be objective, I think.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump