Zebra3 Info

Official support for: u-he.com
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Zebra

Post

Howard wrote:
pdxindy wrote:
Urs wrote:
pdxindy wrote:plus make the Env's looping.
The envs loop already, if you wish so :-o
Pardon... I meant re-triggered Env's like Bazille has (via LFO or Sequencer).. which can be tempo sync'ed
The Zebra2 envelopes can be tempo-synced as well as looped.
You cannot tempo sync the looping... in fact the looping is hard to control at all since it depends on how the envelope is set and then the speed is also affected by the Fall/Rise knob and the Loop knob. It is finicky to work with.

In Bazille, I can just re-trigger the envelope by the LFO and it does not matter how the envelope attack or decay is set, it re-triggers on that timing. Zebra envelopes are not working like that... and that is what I am asking for.

Post

I love everything about Zebra, but I do wish the EQ interface was more elaborate. I can't do it with just the four bands. I love the modulation options, so it bums me out when I have to take out my Pro Q2 for eq'ing. Zebra is so great just on its own, and I'm a freak over the reverb and delay. Just some more extensive EQ would be terrific.
Ha ha suck it!

Post

Apostate wrote:I love everything about Zebra, but I do wish the EQ interface was more elaborate. I can't do it with just the four bands. I love the modulation options, so it bums me out when I have to take out my Pro Q2 for eq'ing. Zebra is so great just on its own, and I'm a freak over the reverb and delay. Just some more extensive EQ would be terrific.
In my humble opinion, if you find the need to do extensive EQ'ing on a lot of sounds then you might need to refine or rethink your sound design process. Or are you looking for the onboard EQ to do things that actually should be reserved for the mixing stage/process?

Post

LFO8 wrote:
Apostate wrote:I love everything about Zebra, but I do wish the EQ interface was more elaborate. I can't do it with just the four bands. I love the modulation options, so it bums me out when I have to take out my Pro Q2 for eq'ing. Zebra is so great just on its own, and I'm a freak over the reverb and delay. Just some more extensive EQ would be terrific.
In my humble opinion, if you find the need to do extensive EQ'ing on a lot of sounds then you might need to refine or rethink your sound design process. Or are you looking for the onboard EQ to do things that actually should be reserved for the mixing stage/process?
there's no rules. sometimes the EQ is part of the source when programming sounds. it's embedded in the sound design.. it's just another filter.

there's no rules about when to eq or compress. a lot of people mix as they go and don't split up tasks.. it's often just one long process. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.

Post

dayjob wrote:
LFO8 wrote:
Apostate wrote:I love everything about Zebra, but I do wish the EQ interface was more elaborate. I can't do it with just the four bands. I love the modulation options, so it bums me out when I have to take out my Pro Q2 for eq'ing. Zebra is so great just on its own, and I'm a freak over the reverb and delay. Just some more extensive EQ would be terrific.
In my humble opinion, if you find the need to do extensive EQ'ing on a lot of sounds then you might need to refine or rethink your sound design process. Or are you looking for the onboard EQ to do things that actually should be reserved for the mixing stage/process?
there's no rules. sometimes the EQ is part of the source when programming sounds. it's embedded in the sound design.. it's just another filter.

there's no rules about when to eq or compress. a lot of people mix as they go and don't split up tasks.. it's often just one long process. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
Thanks, you said what was on my mind. I mostly found LFO8's comment amusing, so I let it go.
Ha ha suck it!

Post

dayjob wrote:
LFO8 wrote:
Apostate wrote:I love everything about Zebra, but I do wish the EQ interface was more elaborate. I can't do it with just the four bands. I love the modulation options, so it bums me out when I have to take out my Pro Q2 for eq'ing. Zebra is so great just on its own, and I'm a freak over the reverb and delay. Just some more extensive EQ would be terrific.
In my humble opinion, if you find the need to do extensive EQ'ing on a lot of sounds then you might need to refine or rethink your sound design process. Or are you looking for the onboard EQ to do things that actually should be reserved for the mixing stage/process?
there's no rules. sometimes the EQ is part of the source when programming sounds. it's embedded in the sound design.. it's just another filter.

there's no rules about when to eq or compress. a lot of people mix as they go and don't split up tasks.. it's often just one long process. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
Except in Zebra, you can EQ the sound polyphonically (using filters) :D

Even with the regular EQ's, I find the EQ an essential part of sound design. Plus you can get some lovely effects by modulating the EQ with the various Zebra modulators.

Post

pdxindy wrote:You cannot tempo sync the looping...
I agree that it's tricky, but it IS possible - the trick is to set F/R to minimum.
See attached example (one note is synced LFO, the other is a synced envelope loop).

Crap preset for demonstration purposes only:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Howard on Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

dayjob wrote:there's no rules. sometimes the EQ is part of the source when programming sounds. it's embedded in the sound design.. it's just another filter.

there's no rules about when to eq or compress. a lot of people mix as they go and don't split up tasks.. it's often just one long process. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
Sure, there are no rules, no boundaries to the creative stage. I agree. However, people who design a plugin do have to think and design within certain boundaries in terms of what they let that synth do or not do. As we all well know, having endless possibilities does not promote the most creativity.

What I was saying in my previous comment is that you find yourself needing (or wanting) to do extensive EQ'ing (more than is possible now with Zebra's EQ) then maybe rethink the sound path you are applying in Zebra or use a 3rd party EQ to do that.

I get that there are certain points where you have to set clear boundaries to what you plugin 'should be' (designers choice) otherwise, where do you stop? Do you go on until you have an entire DAW within one plugin?

For us; sky's the limit. But for people who design and make products that other people use; there are (and should be clear boundaries). That was my train of thought.

Just because you 'can' doesn't mean you 'should'

Post

LFO8 wrote:
dayjob wrote:there's no rules. sometimes the EQ is part of the source when programming sounds. it's embedded in the sound design.. it's just another filter.

there's no rules about when to eq or compress. a lot of people mix as they go and don't split up tasks.. it's often just one long process. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
Sure, there are no rules, no boundaries to the creative stage. I agree. However, people who design a plugin do have to think and design within certain boundaries in terms of what they let that synth do or not do. As we all well know, having endless possibilities does not promote the most creativity.

What I was saying in my previous comment is that you find yourself needing (or wanting) to do extensive EQ'ing (more than is possible now with Zebra's EQ) then maybe rethink the sound path you are applying in Zebra or use a 3rd party EQ to do that.

I get that there are certain points where you have to set clear boundaries to what you plugin 'should be' (designers choice) otherwise, where do you stop? Do you go on until you have an entire DAW within one plugin?

For us; sky's the limit. But for people who design and make products that other people use; there are (and should be clear boundaries). That was my train of thought.

Just because you 'can' doesn't mean you 'should'
One possible benefit of having a Parametric EQ as part of the synthesis process is allowing easy editing of an arbitrary number of polyphonic key-tracked peak filters to sculpt out a custom tone shape (especially pre-distortion), while still leaving the filters free for normal filter duty.

It's the technique I used to build a Hardstyle kick in Zebra HZ (monophonic).

As weird as it seems, placing a Reverb, EQ, Compressor, and Resonator module in the per-voice Synthesis area opens a new layer of sound design possibilities.

Post

. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
the difference is that you are putting more pressure on the synth program which sucks cpu, when you could be letting your daw handle that part. id rather have all the cpu energy going into better quality oscillators or something as opposed to complex /super high fidelity eq
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

zethus909 wrote:
. what's the difference in eqing in the synth and putting an eq on a channel that the synth is on??? none.
the difference is that you are putting more pressure on the synth program which sucks cpu, when you could be letting your daw handle that part. id rather have all the cpu energy going into better quality oscillators or something as opposed to complex /super high fidelity eq
you're missing the point which is people want to do whatever they want to do and as explained above there are some benefits to using EQ in a synth. not sure why it's a big deal.

also, only thing someone asked for was more EQ bands. not "super hi fidelity eq".

Post

Urs , are there any plans to add a quantizer module to Z3 ?

The quantizer adds a huge range of interesting possibilities to Diva & Bazille . It would be great if you could quantize any signal and route it anywhere....

Post

brick wrote:Urs , are there any plans to add a quantizer module to Z3 ?

The quantizer adds a huge range of interesting possibilities to Diva & Bazille . It would be great if you could quantize any signal and route it anywhere....
Zebra has ModMappers for this kind of stuff (just like Bazille's Mapping Generator). I think we'll have presets and other ways to make this quick, easy and maybe even more flexible.

Post

Ah of course !

Too much to ask for modmapper presets and a quantizer ? :)

Post

brick wrote:Ah of course !

Too much to ask for modmapper presets and a quantizer ? :)
We'll see ;)

Locked

Return to “u-he”