Getting Hive?

[ghettosynth]

Wag, really, you are becoming too emotionally about this.
Haven't said I'll buy it yet but I like it and I'm tempted but I know Zebra 3 is on its way so... we'll see
Goodnight...

Yeah, because I want Zebra 3 to sound like Eurorack and not Sylenth1.

I'd bet money and my sister's underwear that it won't sound very much like either. That's not a criticism, BTW, simply a recognition of reality.

Yup... Eurorack is more Bazille territory than Zebra.

Except Zebra is promoted as a semi-modular synth. Modular, to me, says Eurorack more than it says wub-wub supersaw.

In fact, I know Urs can do a much better Eurorack than just about anybody. I've been wishing he'd do that for a long time now.

You're missing some key ideas about generalized audio rate modulation. pdxindy was not just talking about the specific character of the sound, rather, the underlying technology and how it gets you closer to the way that people are able to use Eurorack. Zebra 3, AFAIK, will not have anything close to that level of generalized modularity.

This is why I disagree with the overuse of the phrase "semimodular." I own semimodular hardware, it still allows generalized audio rate modulation, it's semimodular because it is an immutable set of pre-configured modules behind a single panel and has a set of pre-configured routings that can be overridden.

The Matrix-12 is not, IMO, a semi-modular synth, yet it is the prototype for what people call semi-modular in plugins.

[spunkmuffin]

Zebra3 is going to sound like a super-stack of 16x 0-Caost's.

like this:

blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop
blip blip bloop blooooop blllipp-blop bloooeeeaaawwwb blooooooooooooop

[pdxindy]

You're missing some key ideas about generalized audio rate modulation. pdxindy was not just talking about the specific character of the sound, rather, the underlying technology and how it gets you closer to the way that people are able to use Eurorack. Zebra 3, AFAIK, will not have anything close to that level of generalized modularity.

This is why I disagree with the overuse of the phrase "semimodular." I own semimodular hardware, it still allows generalized audio rate modulation, it's semimodular because it is an immutable set of pre-configured modules behind a single panel and has a set of pre-configured routings that can be overridden.

Yeah, Zebra is 'semi-modular' in that the modules in the audio signal path can be freely re-ordered. It still however, has a separate audio path and modulation path with the modulation path at control rate, not audio rate. You also cannot create any feedback loops in the audio path.

Lots of people call Aalto semi-modular, but it is actually a fixed and unchangeable audio path. Quite few synths that have complex modulations but a fixed audio path (with a few hardwired options like say Massive) get called semi-modular, but I think the term has almost no meaning when used that way.

[Urs]

My gawd what is happening

Let me just say this: I do not believe in "this or that synthesizer has a certain sound". This is putting things way too simple, it's like the desease of the world where everyone strives for easy answers to very complex questions. Example: Saying "climate change is a hoax" will help creating some jobs, but they might cost the tax payer a lot more in hidden costs than "more government" would in transparent cost.

Each synthesizer is made up of different parts. Each part contributes to the sound in a very dynamic way. That is, a filter can destroy or enhance the perceived quality of an oscillator. Maybe in conjunction with the envelopes. Or maybe it needs a bug in the LFO. Or maybe the guy who chose the top level presets had a hang over that day.

But then, you can probably imagine my eye-rolling experience when people compare waveforms of synthesizers - which they sample after the filters (I'd either stick a hardware oscilloscope into the box or keep my opinion for myself)

Anhow... Hive and Zebra 3... Hive has been subject to three research goals for Zebra 3: Fastest possible wavetable playback, optimizing oscillator unison detune laws and fastest possible non-linear zero delay feedback filters. These fields of research are completely oblivious to "sounds like this or that". They just create a box of candy that developers at u-he can choose from. We might add a drop down for some detune laws in Zebra 3 oscillators, and maybe one will match that of Hive's "Normal" engine. Or another. Who knows. Hive has 3 different engines where each filter is not only made up of a different topology, it is also solved with a different method. I'm sure we'll use one or two of these methods in Zebra 3, but we don't know yet for which topology. I'm not into using the same parts twice.

[murnau]

My gawd what is happening

The usual KvR thing..

PS. Thanx for the statement, should be obvious one would think.

[spunkmuffin]

They just create a box of candy that developers at u-he can choose from.

I knew it. u-he synths are made from candy!

[Urs]

Yesterday it occurred to me that, back in the days, a synthesizer was judged pretty much exclusively by its features. Hey, it's got 8 voices, not only 6. But nowadays features are available in abundance, it would take up too much forum space to count them all. So maybe that's why people go for sound instead. Which one can't just count, like 7 is more than 3. Everything was better, back in the days.

[ATN69]

You can build the best sounding plugin in the world but in the hands of a person who doesn't know what he/she is doing, it might sound bad anyway ..and what sounds good or not is just a matter of any ones opinion so there is no right or wrong, just different taste.
Just relax and enjoy KVR

[ghettosynth]

Yesterday it occurred to me that, back in the days, a synthesizer was judged pretty much exclusively by its features. Hey, it's got 8 voices, not only 6. But nowadays features are available in abundance, it would take up too much forum space to count them all. So maybe that's why people go for sound instead. Which one can't just count, like 7 is more than 3. Everything was better, back in the days.

Hardware has been talked about like people talk about software for as long as I can remember. People have always talked about "sound" and always come off as a little lacking when that discussion lacks some technical depth.

After a while, if you have a lot of hardware, you start to realize that not all similar features are created equally. You also start to realize that differences among some features make much more of a difference in sound than others do.

[wagtunes]

My gawd what is happening

Let me just say this: I do not believe in "this or that synthesizer has a certain sound". This is putting things way too simple, it's like the desease of the world where everyone strives for easy answers to very complex questions. Example: Saying "climate change is a hoax" will help creating some jobs, but they might cost the tax payer a lot more in hidden costs than "more government" would in transparent cost.

Each synthesizer is made up of different parts. Each part contributes to the sound in a very dynamic way. That is, a filter can destroy or enhance the perceived quality of an oscillator. Maybe in conjunction with the envelopes. Or maybe it needs a bug in the LFO. Or maybe the guy who chose the top level presets had a hang over that day.

But then, you can probably imagine my eye-rolling experience when people compare waveforms of synthesizers - which they sample after the filters (I'd either stick a hardware oscilloscope into the box or keep my opinion for myself)

Anhow... Hive and Zebra 3... Hive has been subject to three research goals for Zebra 3: Fastest possible wavetable playback, optimizing oscillator unison detune laws and fastest possible non-linear zero delay feedback filters. These fields of research are completely oblivious to "sounds like this or that". They just create a box of candy that developers at u-he can choose from. We might add a drop down for some detune laws in Zebra 3 oscillators, and maybe one will match that of Hive's "Normal" engine. Or another. Who knows. Hive has 3 different engines where each filter is not only made up of a different topology, it is also solved with a different method. I'm sure we'll use one or two of these methods in Zebra 3, but we don't know yet for which topology. I'm not into using the same parts twice.

Urs, all I know is this. When I use Zebra 2, I hear "X". When I use Hive, I hear "Y". They do not sound anything alike to me. I am not bashing either synth. I own all your synths. I am one of your companies biggest fans. You make a synth, I will buy it. But they don't all sound the same. I would hope that much you'd agree with.

All I'm saying is, when Zebra 3 comes out, I want it to sound closer to Zebra 2 than to Hive. I don't think we need another synth that does what Hive does best.

Bottom line: If Zebra 3 comes out and I hear more of Hive's sound and less of Zebra 2's sound, I will be disappointed. I know some people obviously don't agree with me, but I think Zebra 2 is a better sounding synth for general purpose. I'm sorry, but that's how my ears hear things. What do you want me to do, put a gun to my head and blow my brains out? I can't change how I perceive sound, even if it's a faulty mechanism that's doing the perception.

[recursive one]

I think about zebra as a construction kit, where it is possible to create signalpaths having completely different character using different filter models, different oscillator effects and stuff. Im finding none of these characters especially convincing but im obviously in the minority since almost everybody love Zebra. Ofc im not expecting that Z3 will be able to recreate any hive preset sounding 100% the same, but i would love to have something sounding close to Hive supersaw and acid patches in the new Zebra.

I would buy Hive if i didnt already own the two main competitors. On the other hand, im ready to pay for a synth capable of making Hive-like sounds as a part of larger featureset.

[wagtunes]

I think about zebra as a construction kit, where it is possible to create signalpaths having completely different character using different filter models, different oscillator effects and stuff. Im finding none of these characters especially convincing but im obviously in the minority since almost everybody love Zebra. Ofc im not expecting that Z3 will be able to recreate any hive preset sounding 100% the same, but i would love to have something sounding close to Hive supersaw and acid patches in the new Zebra.

I would buy Hive if i didnt already own the two main competitors. On the other hand, im ready to pay for a synth capable of making Hive-like sounds as a part of larger featureset.

A Zebra 3 with a sound engine closer to Zebra 2 will probably have a better supersaw than Hive and probably be able to make better acid patches. And that I could get behind as well. But that's not the same thing as sounding like Hive. Lots of synths do supersaw and acid and don't sound like Hive.

I'm expecting Zebra 3 to blow Zebra 2 and Hive out of the water as far as features, sound and whatever else you want to compare.

Maybe I'm expecting too much. Maybe I'll be disappointed. It's quite possible I will.

We're both going to find out when Zebra 3 is released.

[S0lo]

A pro sound engineer or a veteran developer can't afford to always trust his limited and continuously aging human hearing. A spectrum analyzer is much much more quantitative in showing each and every ingredient of a sound. Learn to use the right tools, discover the WHY behind what sounds like this or like that. You'll be able to skulpt almost any sound you want from basic tools.

Much of the commonly hyped about terminology now a days stems from the Unobtanium effect. In the 80s digital was unobtanium, so people where literally selling there analog gear for scrap to get a DX7 or a Roland D-50. Now the worlds flipped. Digital is as cheap as free, and vintage analog is partly unobtanium. Did the sounds of these machines changes. NO. But people perception of whats "Valuable" or "Good" has changed.

Words like "It sound analog" perceived usually as a good thing. "It sounds digital" perceived usually as a bad thing. "Aliasing" bad, "Worm" good, "Dull" bad... "Fat" good, "thin" bad. A pro sound designer or engineer who has tried every thing, would look at those sounds as mere tools. Each tool is good for a something and bad for something else. He would not isolate himself from using any tool were it fits well.

To a developer on the otherhand. There is always a technical reason for every thing. There is no magic, be it analog or digital. Unfortunately, the dev won't be able to tell you every thing all the time. He has his own secrets. Some times the secret is simple, but he can't tell you. And even if he tells you might not understand it because it's simple only to him, but too technical to you. There is a huge gap between what the public knows about sound and what a developer knows.

[chk071]

Dude, that's all good and stuff. But tell that to the people buying all those expensive Moogs back in the days. I think the important point most commonly missed is that it's not about the ability to make everything "sound good" in a lot of tedious detail work, it's about having tools which make life easy for you, because they sound good right out of the box, or give you what you're after, without much of that tedious detail work. But, hey, if you feel like you can do anything with Synth1, i guess there won't be much of a need for Hive either? Or would there?

[S0lo]

Dude, that's all good and stuff. But tell that to the people buying all those expensive Moogs back in the days. I think the important point most commonly missed is that it's not about the ability to make everything "sound good" in a lot of tedious detail work, it's about having tools which make life easy for you, because they sound good right out of the box, or give you what you're after, without much of that tedious detail work. But, hey, if you feel like you can do anything with Synth1, i guess there won't be much of a need for Hive either? Or would there?

I agree, "out of the box" is very useful, I admit, I enjoy things like that. And I'm big sinner my self . But too much of that can let you get carried away and forget that there is a reason for everything. Some times sitting for an hour or two to analyse something technically can make all the deference for years to come.