Sequential Circuits Pro-One vs U-He Repro-1 Software Synth Compared

This video, via Starsky Carr, compares the sound of U-He Repro-1 to a vintage Sequential Circuits Pro-One.

“The similarities are simply stunning,” notes Carr. “I take a look at the oscillators, followed by the filters then make a couple of useable sounds and add a sequence. Finally, I look at the more complex challenges for a soft synth – FM with oscillator sync.”

Topics Covered:

Basic Oscillators 1:30
Filters 10:30
Some Sounds 15:30
Sequencer 17:00
Frequency Modulation 19:20
Oscillator Sync 21:30
Repro-1 extra features 25:30
JAWS waveshaper 26:30

Check it out and let us know what you think!

13 thoughts on “Sequential Circuits Pro-One vs U-He Repro-1 Software Synth Compared

  1. How sad, as I’ve read recently that people don’t like classic analogue synth clones, and the closer a replica they are the more disliked they are. It’s a respect thing apparently. Consequently I expect Urs will receive a lot of hate for this product because people have very consistent and logical views on this topic


    1. This is a (rather awesome sounding) VST emulation of hardware created by the small team at U-He; it’s not the same comparison at all. What would be the same comparison is if Native Instruments came out and said “We’re going to make clones of Diva/Bazille/Repro-1 and sell it for 1/10 the price. We can do this because we underpay our employees and have the manufacturing resources to keep it cheaper than a smaller company.”

      That wouldn’t happen for a number of reasons (and I don’t have reason to believe NI underpays their employees), however with Behringer… well just take a look at their Glassdoor reviews.

      1. You people should really stop with this “sell for 1/10 of the price” and drawing unfair comparisons. In case of NI you are speaking mostly of a 1:1 clone, right? Well, sure, would be an unethical thing to do. But do you all (saying Behringer sells the same thing Moog makes ten times cheaper) really believe it’s the same? I don’t see neither keyboard, nor metal chassis, nor woodsides, nor mostly everything that makes minimoog, well, that iconic minimoog we recognize and know.

        That is pretty much similar if KIA team of engineers said they recreated a ‘car’ they are willing to sell you for 1/10 of what Ferraris are priced. But then you look at it and see it doesn’t include doors, a hood — well mostly everything that makes a car, — and only thing you are given is a V8-like engine. Would you also say they are undercutting Ferrari?

        1. Solid points. The argument I was originally trying to make is comparing how people feel about 2 hardware synths of similar design to a hardware synth vs VST is kind of faulty logic as you’re essentially buying two different products at that point.

          Personally I don’t have a problem with the Behringer Moog for the reasons you’ve stated. If they do start releasing almost 1:1 versions of currently in production synths, then I think it is a bit shadier even if the build quality is cheaper.

  2. As I peel back a couple layers of sarcasm, I think I get your point.

    In the world of synth hardware and software, there are clones, emulations, samples, and a general copying or a specific homage to a particular design. Some people always prefer the original for a variety of reasons. Some people celebrate the evolution of technology and the increased availability.

    Your comment/argument about consistency makes no sense. You claim that because a variety of people hold a variety of views– one person’s opinions contrasting with those of another separate individual, that you claim that therefore each person is “inconsistent” or “illogical”. It just means that different people have different opinions.

    I don’t doubt you can find individuals who carry conflicting opinions. But I wouldn’t assume that because a topic is controversial that inconsistency is the norm.

  3. They actually don’t sound that similar in some of these tests to me. Some things do sound pretty similar, but some don’t–which I mostly attribute to little differences in sync/detuning between the oscillators and pulse width amount. If he really wanted to I bet he get them closer. The nerd in me can’t help but point out that they don’t sound identical. That said, I think Repro-1 is incredible. The realism of the filter might be the best I’ve heard in software, and it’s got great, snappy envelopes. The effects are truly unique. U-he should offer these effects as a separate plugin. I want those effects.

  4. Remarkably similar?!!

    They are night and day!

    Roland has been castrated for making closer emulations!

    (not saying, that I wouldn’t buy this and enjoy it)

  5. For about 5 years my live rig was a prophet 600 and a juno 60 each on an ultimate support a frame stand above each of those boards were a Casio CZ-1000, and then I had two Pro One’s above each of those. I had a guy who was an electronics geek for my roadie who always kept the Pro One’s in tune and calibrated for me. I would buy this emulation with no regrets. JMHO

  6. Why bother with the reliable, less expensive soft synth version? The exciting thing about owning an original Pro One is waiting for that J wire keyboard (earlier version) or membrane keyboard (later version) to die on you.

  7. the repro is just way cleaner, the osc drift in the pro-one really humanizes it, that being said – in the context of a track I don’t know that it would make too much of a difference.

  8. As somebody who bought the PRO ONE the day it came out back in the day, and gigged with it, recorded with it, etc., I can say that this plugin was “what I was waiting for” as I could not justify the cost of a fully restored version. This plugin nails it 100%. I can load in the factory patches, put it through my spring reverb and I’m “right there” back in 1984/5. Worth every penny to those of us who love this synth. if you never owned one and say it doesn’t sound the same, blame the video, not the virtual synth. Urs and UHE have a home run. Full stop. period. Done. I bought it. Love it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *