..............

ok, so now you have steered this back to xils somehow...

...............

OK, so you're dumbing down the process of making a wub wub dubstep bass even further... It's something that can be done in massive just using the internal sequencer pretty easily, or any other synth that you can modulate a tempo locked LFO speed with a sequencer... The bass sounded pretty smooth *but*, lacked edge if you ask me. Maybe that was the programming rather than the sound, but who's to know... Your synth doesn't even exist yet.

How many K does your white board hold? That must be mounted on
a long long wall

This concept is so simple and so good, it needs just a square of about 50 x 50 cm to warp a smile on each of our faces.

ETA?

If you cant understand the difference between playing a bass in a natural way and getting this result, and playing "any" bass and then make more or less complicated automation in a Daw , then you might have missed a part of what *music* is about. You can also make a synth by taking a sine wave in your daw, add an external filter, and draw the LFOs with the mouse in the automation panes. See, you dont really need "synths". I already mentioned that Massive could eventually make this sort of instruments, with a different sound though, not in the same way, or not with the same interaction with the musician playing.

Then of course, the bass is not by design, you know the synths come bundled with ready made instruments made by the gremlins inside the machine. See when Agent K opens the door of the chest in MIB II to get a more complete explanation of this phenomenon. Unfortunately our gremlins are very bad programmers, like all the things we do, as you're well aware of.

Finally, It doesnt exist but it makes sound.

Here is an example I made *really* quickly: Ugly Beast

A few tricks to get more "edgy" sounds out of Zebra:

A few tricks to get more "edgy" sounds out of Zebra:

Here is an example I made *really* quickly: Ugly Beast

Cheers
Dennis

Okay - I've had the urge to buy yet another software synth recently. I hear that happens sometimes.

I was thinking of getting something a bit more aggressive and digital than my usual fare; perhaps Cyclop or Massive - or even Helix (despite the GUI).

The problem is, I bought both Zebra and Alchemy some time ago. As ever, when I'm tempted to buy a new synth, I have a big guilt trip and go back to these favourite two to see if I can do something that sounds appropriate with them.

So - with Massive in mind - I sat down with Zebra and found that with a little effort, I was getting massively distorted, growly basses and weird jangly leads out of it that weren't a million miles from the synth I was considering. I was surprised. I had assumed that Zebra lacked aggression. I was wrong.

So:

Bar 'workflow/UI' preferences*, has anyone found anything in Massive, Cyclop or Helix that just can't be done with these two? In fact, is there a patch in any non-sample-based synth that can't be made almost identically in Zebra?

This genuinely isn't meant to be flamey-troll-bait, nor hubris. I'm just finding that the major distinction between software synths these days seems to be 'workflow/UI', 'reduced aliasing', or 'decent audio-rate FM'... and that's it.

Am I missing something? Has anyone else found this 'Huh... I'll just do it in Zebra' mentality creeping in?



*Workflow/UI is - of course - an entirely valid reason to prefer to use something over Zebra. In my case, it might not be sufficient to convince me of a purchase, though!