Zebra3 Info

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

Post

Urs wrote:Zebra is a UI/workflow concept in the first place. It's good for a certain degree of patch complexity, but as soon as you add more than 8 or so modules on each side, it slows down.
I thought it's 4-5 e.g. 4 oscs are taking 100% of left pane and this is slow-down point.
Murderous duck!

Post

It is possible to make an LFO in Zebra unipolar in a few different ways. You could use a Mod Mixer and "scale sum by constant", or just use a two step "User" waveform to change the polarity. But I've been tinkering with Hive for a while, and the "+" button saves SO much time. I'd love to have something like that in Zebra :)

Post

Sound Author wrote:It is possible to make an LFO in Zebra unipolar in a few different ways. You could use a Mod Mixer and "scale sum by constant", or just use a two step "User" waveform to change the polarity. But I've been tinkering with Hive for a while, and the "+" button saves SO much time. I'd love to have something like that in Zebra :)
Of course ;)

Post

david.beholder wrote:
Urs wrote:Zebra is a UI/workflow concept in the first place. It's good for a certain degree of patch complexity, but as soon as you add more than 8 or so modules on each side, it slows down.
I thought it's 4-5 e.g. 4 oscs are taking 100% of left pane and this is slow-down point.
It's about the possibiity to have everything you need to work on a part of the sound in plain sight. For that it's commonly enough to see about 3 or so modules. But the ones you don't see require space in the back of your mind. Humans can do that, keep the overview, to a certain degree, without wasting much thought. Beyond that there's a lot of "what else do we have...". However, being able to see the signal flow in the Grid helps a lot. It's a good placeholder, if not a reminder, for the modules you don't see. And you can click any of those at any time to make them appear on the left hand side. Which is why these modules can be bigger. They have extra clues.

However, once you have a lot of identical modules in a patch it becomes harder to keep awareness of what does what. It's easier to have different modules with contrasting personalities and visuals in a patch. Hence, instead of more envelopes, I'd rather see how far we get with West Coast-ish function generators.

Post

Urs wrote:
pdxindy wrote:The multiple outputs on the Bazille LFO's are so useful. One LFO is multiple LFO's!!
So true, but possible source of complications in hindsight of Zebra. I do have the possibility of this on my check list.
In Bazille, the quantizer, lag generators and rectifier combined with multiple output LFO's means I effectively have more than a dozen LFO's! I quite like that I can use 1 LFO to create a variety of different shapes for different parameters and the speed of all of them can be changed with 1 knob... add in that the same LFO can also be looping 1 or more envelopes and wow! Haven't even mention what incredible LFO's a Bazille Osc makes!

Sure I would love some of that in Z3!! :tu:

Post

I don't know who else here actually codes (I do), let alone understands DSP (I sorta do) and design (I don't), but let me tell you, just because it sounds like a good idea, doesn't mean it is.

"It's about the possibiity to have everything you need to work on a part of the sound in plain sight."

This is THE KEY. I've been working on my own attempt at solving this problem, and it is NOT easy. Honestly whether or not I continue on this side project largely depends on how future iterations of Zebra turn out -- I'm a pretty lazy guy, Urs has 100x the experience/expertise I do, I would much rather use his results, and I hope he doesn't get derailed by requests that miss the point. So there, I Iay my cards all out on the table.

When I hear "I'd like moarrr envelopes" I think, in light of the guiding directive above, "it's perhaps time for a new, more powerful modulator" -- something that gives people the power they feel they're missing without compromising the design vision.

Urs is talking about "west coast function generators," I have NO IDEA what that is, but then, the only "hardware" I've ever touched is a guitar. But it sounds promising!

Let me end with this:

My day to day job is to talk to very big companies about their problems and propose solutions -- management consulting. What usually happens, though, is the "problem statement" they give me is really their conception of what the solution ought to be. But they lack the tools to come up with the best solution, which is why they called me in the first place. So the bulk of my job is actually peeling back that proposed solution, getting at the TRUE underlying problem, and then countering with a solution that will actually be great for them -- far better than what they initially came up with.

I think the same basic dynamic applies here. You want more envelopes for FM? OK, that's a SOLUTION. What is the actual PROBLEM you're trying to solve with more envelopes for FM? And here is where it's worth having a little faith in the guy who puts his name behind is product; give him a clear sense of the problem you're experiencing, and he'll almost certainly come up with a better solution than you would have thought of, especially when you actually get your hands on it.
Makin' Music Great Again 8)

Post

aumordia wrote: Urs is talking about "west coast function generators," I have NO IDEA what that is
This is actually not as complex or specific as it sounds. A function generator is nothing more than a voltage slope generator (EG, LFO, noise, slew) .. but with a distinctly none linear tie. For example an LFO that has variable non-standard shapes, that can be modified over the cycle period. Fancy words for goofy looking waveform that provides a non-predictable pattern to whatever it’s assigned to.

In the most simplistic/generic definition
East Coast = use subtractive synthesis with a keyboard, largely influenced by Moog

West Coast = non-standard controls and synthesis methods (bleep bloop) largely influenced by Buchla

West Coast emerged from people that were doing experimental music with things like tape splicing. With Morton Subotnick probably being the first guy to make an impression with that form of experimental “sound scape” non-structured type music.

In general Moog was trying to provide instruments to traditional musicians and his company was based in NY. Buchla was providing instruments to the art crowd in SF. The needs/wants of the two groups was vastly different. I’ve heard/read various renditions of who invented what, but in general it seems the two guys invented CV instruments simultaneously with a slightly different approach to how they applied it.

In essence Moog strive to produce repeatable predictable instruments, Buchla strove to create abstract random unpredictable instruments.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

I'm also pretty happy with the number of modulators in Zebra.

There are 4 envelopes... 4 MSEG's... so that is 8 envelopes right there. But the Mod Mappers also work great as envelopes.

Much of the time when making a sound, the modulators have relationships to each other. So for example, Envelope 2 is modulating a parameter, then I use a Modmapper on map smooth controlled by Env 2 and draw the shape of the envelope in the Modmapper. Then adjusting the speed of Env 2 keeps them both aligned. Very handy.

So adding the 4 Modmappers, that makes 12 envelopes.

I can also use the Mod Mixers to create additional envelope shapes by combining the above modulators though I wish the Mod Mixers had more modes... like a basic multiply.

I don't want to just have more and more modules... I don't enjoy tweaking a whole bunch of individual envelopes when they often are similar and related. I want ways to make more flexible use of existing ones. (see Bazille)

I think 8 LFO's, 8 Env's, 8 MSEG's would be a workflow nightmare in Zebra.

Post

Good post there on synthesis approaches, SJ_Digriz.

Post

Also, Buchla / West Coast stands for modules that are super simple, yet highly multi-functional whereas Moog / East Coast stands for modules that are specialized and optimized for one purpose. A few examples of typical West Coast Modules:

Lowpass Gate: Simple filter & VCA in one unit, with a specific "reaction time" on the control side. This little module can act as VCA, filter *and* envelope at the same time. Google the fabled "Buchla Bongo". It's a great module which adds a lot of functionality with a minimum amount of sound design effort. This module often has no knobs at all, it gets away with one or two switches. Ok, better ones have a knob or two.

Function Generator: Basically a simple Up/Down or Up/Hold/Down envelope. It can be a LFO if set to cycle mode. It can be an oscillator if used with key tracking. It can be a slew rate limiter if any modulation signal is used instead of a gate signal. It can be a voltage controlled filter if used like a slew rate limiter on an audio signal and the Up/Down phase is modulated. It can be all of this with typically just two knobs and two switches. A third knob is sometimes used to set the curvature of the slope between log, linear and exponential.

Post

aumordia wrote:I think the same basic dynamic applies here. You want more envelopes for FM? OK, that's a SOLUTION. What is the actual PROBLEM you're trying to solve with more envelopes for FM? And here is where it's worth having a little faith in the guy who puts his name behind is product; give him a clear sense of the problem you're experiencing, and he'll almost certainly come up with a better solution than you would have thought of, especially when you actually get your hands on it.
Thank you!

My feeling is that typically sets of envelopes look rather similar in many patches. Maybe a good solution would be multi-outs for not just for LFOs but also for envelopes, where the additional outs can be scaled or warped versions of the same settings (different slopes, different rates, different levels).

Post

Thanks for the west coast enlightenment, that is fascinating stuff. And the "multi-out" modulator thing sounds useful, in my experience I very frequently need variations on an envelope and I traditionally just have to resort to creating multiple envelopes, this sounds like a nice way to address that problem.

Maybe I should start a "movement" -- no more feature requests, only problem statements! I just need a catchy name for it and some branding and jargon, then I can appoint myself the guru and make a living running clinics. Haha I'm cracking myself up here... anyway back to Zebra!
Makin' Music Great Again 8)

Post

aumordia wrote:"It's about the possibiity to have everything you need to work on a part of the sound in plain sight."

This is THE KEY.
Well, that might be the key for your own developments. It was not the key when I chose Zebra. And I strongly doubt that Zebra with its many tabs will be one day a one-page-synth.
I have TAL Uno and like it, but there it wasn't the UI either, it was the sound that I was into.
Not that usability isn't important - it is indeed important. But you have to make a tradeoff between features and simplicity. Still you can use just 1 envelope in Zebra too, when you strictly prefer a more TAL Uno like approach.
Looking at the nature of Zeba, it is truely a geek synth which results in a geek interface. But that was never a big problem. Instead Zebra is so appealing because of its possibilities.
aumordia wrote: I think the same basic dynamic applies here. You want more envelopes for FM? OK, that's a SOLUTION. What is the actual PROBLEM you're trying to solve with more envelopes for FM? And here is where it's worth having a little faith in the guy who puts his name behind is product; give him a clear sense of the problem you're experiencing, and he'll almost certainly come up with a better solution than you would have thought of, especially when you actually get your hands on it.
My problem is mostly that some people argue they know better in what way I should work!
Was the DX7 such a big mistake in history that working with dedicated envelopes is now a NoGo?
Urs wrote:Maybe a good solution would be multi-outs for not just for LFOs but also for envelopes, where the additional outs can be scaled or warped versions of the same settings (different slopes, different rates, different levels).
This is a good idea for some situations, especially those where you want to tweak multiple things at once (similar to the cutoff offset in the XMF which is truely great!).

On the other hand I have to understand a patch and it is easier when there are ENV1 for FMO1, ENV2 for FMO2 and so on. Also it can be weird if you want to alter just one detail and everything else changes too. So I would have to re-adjust the scalers too everytime when I only want to change the "pure output".

Still I like this idea, and I think it has something in common with the Absynth Master Envelope.
I imagine it could be useful if there would be no "pure output" and the master section is only for overall control so that there won't be any concurrency to the slaves. And each slave would have knobs for A, D, S, R.

Post

jme-audio wrote:My problem is mostly that some people argue they know better in what way I should work!
Was the DX7 such a big mistake in history that working with dedicated envelopes is now a NoGo?
I think the problem is that every developer has to draw a line at some point.

Zebra can't emulate the sound of my D-50 or my TX16W even though the synths does "something with samples". I have to accept that this is way outside the scope of Zebra. FM is a great addition to the existing palette but I don't think that this is the main feature of the synth.

BTW: Urs, please please create a u-he sample mangling synth...

Post

Benutzername wrote:BTW: Urs, please please create a u-he sample mangling synth...
I wouldn't know when to do that...

Locked

Return to “u-he”