Zebra3 Info

[Toddskins]

getting the existing 2.7 version and then adding the upgrade fee when 3.0 comes out would get the extra components (and probably a lot more) that are already in the ZebraHZ version (minus the presets).

This is what I was basing my post on. Do I need some correcting?

Zebra HZ has Diva filters added so it's not just the soundset. But the soundset is awesome.

As far as I know those Diva filters won't be in Zebra 3. Urs said (if memory serves me) that U-he would continue to support Zebra HZ so I don't think they would build Zebra HZ into Zebra 3.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh that makes sense. I missed that. Very good. Thanks for your informative answer.

[#rob]

ZebraHZ does more things than just 'have Diva filters', but that is also the case.

I have no information on whether or not the Diva filters will find their way into Zebra3.

Zebra3 will be an evolutionary step forward from Zebra2, but it will not be a direct replacement. We can't know what the future brings, but as it currently stands, we're planning to continue supporting Zebra2/Dark Zebra for as long as we can, even after Zebra3 is out.

[Mr D]

-Drawing oscillator waveforms is very clunky, particularly in the envelope modes. I believe Urs already said he had some ideas about how to improve this going forward, but some obvious things like double click to add a point, a modifier to switch between smooth and hard transitions, and/or bezier curves, would be welcome.

Amen, i would urge Urs to take a good look at how Cableguys do their envelopes. Their method can hardly be improved upon.

Please also take a look at the envelopes in MPowerSynth from Melda, specifically the custom envelope in the LFO. It has some very cool features, including lockable envelope points, lots of snap options etc.

What i'd also like to see is the ability to give names to envelope points, like "attack start", "attack end", "attack 2nd stage", "attack 2nd stage end". Then, if you link two of these (adjacent) points, a knob or slider is created, letting you change that part (length) of the total envelope. Because sometimes knobs or sliders are nicer to tweak (on an envelope) then a dot in the grid. And it would also make automating those points nice. And maybe even the ability to add extra knobs for these linked adjacent points like curve and amplitude, again for automation.

What would also be nice would be time markings along the X axis, in milliseconds.

And even more ultimate woulds be markings along the Y axis that reflect what the envelope if controlling. So if it's pitch, it should give pitch markings, and if you hover over a point, one should see that actual pitch at the point of the envelope. And imagine that you tweak global tune, then even this should be reflected in the markings / hover. Or if it's controlling LFO speed, it should show the speed etc etc.
This is complicated, next level shit that i believe synths of the future will have.

Just some random thoughts!

[NAD]

+1

[clangorous]

Some creative ideas there. Always good to brainstorm. For implementation though, it's good to differentiate between features and benefits.

For me envelopes/MSEGs are always configured by ear rather than by calibration marks. We do have the information display to provide a numeric indicator and I'm good with that if I need to know an exact level of something like the MSEG attack time.

It's important to know the general shape of envelope stages-convex, concave, straight-but for me not the specific time in ms or anything similar. I do get that maybe some sound designers might work differently in that regard and so I'm not going to say it wouldn't have value but for me I don't think so.

Current MSEGs do denote the attack and release stages. I haven't looked at automating the stages but that would be cool.

[Mr D]

I think it depends on the objective or what kind of music you're doing.

Say you want to do stuff like synthesize drums. Then, having millisecond markings could be very useful. When you're synthesizing a kick drum, you want to know at exactly what pitch you've reached at 30ms or whatever. It's useful because next time you want to create that sort of sound, you now roughly what the parameters need to be, rather then having to search / re-invent the wheel every time.

But you're right, for many uses of envelopes, you really don't need to be so precise and doing it by ear is fine.

[Mr D]

Oooooh, i forgot to mention before, please give us the option to zoom in on the Y axis of an envelope, for ultimate precision!!

[Howard]

But you're right, for many uses of envelopes, you really don't need to be so precise and doing it by ear is fine.

But meticulously "doing it by ear" isn't at all a careless or sloppy method (which you seem to be implying), IMHO it is the ultimate in precision!

[Mr D]

Haha, i see your point, but.............

You could use that same argument for removing all visual aids from any plugin.

What do you need those for, it's music man, just do it by ear!

[moscom_electronics]

Well, to follow up on Howard's coment, you just need that the controls are precise enough that you can tune your sound by ear exaclty how you want it. Although I used to be a supporter of the "all values should be readable" point, I am now more inclined to just listen to what comes out of the synths, and hope that the controls are fine enough that I can reach the sweet spot that I am looking for.

[Mr D]

EDIT:

@Moscom: in general i agree. But when it comes to synthesizing certain sounds that need very precise envelopes and values, i know from experience what i need to dial in to get to a certain starting point, so better markings can only help. I think it's also useful for people learning production. They have a cool sound in Zebra and they see the release is 512ms. So then later they're in Serum and they want a similar sound, they know they can start at 500ms and go from there.

[clangorous]

Zebra does show you numeric values in the information display at the top.

[pdxindy]

But you're right, for many uses of envelopes, you really don't need to be so precise and doing it by ear is fine.

But meticulously "doing it by ear" isn't at all a careless or sloppy method (which you seem to be implying), IMHO it is the ultimate in precision!

+1

[NAD]

But meticulously "doing it by ear" isn't at all a careless or sloppy method (which you seem to be implying), IMHO it is the ultimate in precision!

You can also tune your guitar by ear, but many guitarists appreciate the precision of a tuner.

[clangorous]

True...tuning to an agreed upon standard is one thing though. Shaping an envelope is another because you are not matching an agreed upon standard.

Duplicating an envelope setting from another patch is easy already because the Data Display gives you numeric values for each stage/knob with very high precision.

I realize I could be missing something here. I've used Zebra for so long that maybe I don't see certain limitations.

And that was the point of saying that we need to be clear if it's a feature we are talking about or a benefit; benefits remove limitations while features don't add to the fundamental abilities of the synth...although they might make things simpler or easier for people that want them.

So I would not balk at any of these proposed features (as long as they don't create hindrances or issues), especially if others find them valuable. I just don't see them as current limitations.