Zebra 3 feature suggestions

[Shiek927]

Urs had previously said he's not a fan of samples in synths (paraphrasing) so I'd expect no.

Aww!! that would open up a world of possibilities, but I suppose some limits are a good thing. Would still love to see some sort of granular ability since it would open things up!

Zebra 2 already has a vast sonic landscape...

not wrong!

[Razzia]

Anyone recall if Urs has talked about what the patching system might be like in Z3? One of the few things that kind of bugs me in Z2 is how patching works when not doing a strictly serial, straight up and down path. Using context menus to patch things from one lane to another, having to move modules up and down because y module needs to be "below" x module to receive input from it, etc.

It seems like a dumb question even as I type it, but man I would really love to just drag from a patch output "jack" to a patch input on another module.


edit - As I'm reading some of the older pages in the Zebra3 thread(s), I just want to add my voice to the chorus of people saying that - irrespective of whatever promises were made way back when - I would have no problem paying some reasonable fee for an upgrade from ZebraHZ to Z3. I see it as being more in my interests to support a company who would consider this sort of a free upgrade in the first place.

[audiot]

I hope that the handling of the MSEG's will be improved Compared to the handling of the drawable LFO's in Serum or LFOTool they feel a bit outdated and clunky. But to be fair ... Xfer's drawable LFO's are a class of it's own.

And of cause wavetables in wav-format ... but i'm optimistic as we already have them in hive

[Howard]

My educated guess is that editing waveforms in Z3 will much more comfortable, with maximum consistency between editors for the oscillators, LFOs, MSEGs and whatever.

[Urs]

Anyone recall if Urs has talked about what the patching system might be like in Z3?

They general idea will remain the same. But we'll surely try to make it more comfy.

I hope that the handling of the MSEG's will be improved Compared to the handling of the drawable LFO's in Serum or LFOTool they feel a bit outdated and clunky. But to be fair ... Xfer's drawable LFO's are a class of it's own.

New (and unified!) waveform/MSEG drawing tools are the main reason to rewrite Zebra into a new major version (d'oh, what Howard said while I was typing)

I get what you mean about Serum's tools, but they are not free of things to criticise. In my observation, they promote "jaggy-ness". You can easily make sawtooth-ish waveforms and buzzy stuff. Soft, evolving and sparse spectra are difficult tasks. Steppy stuff is possible, but you gotta juggle the Grid. In contrast, the Cableguys tools promote soft curves and they are also very good for steppy stuff - but they're not so good at that jaggy thing.

I would like to orient our toolset on classic curve design mechanisms. That is, set and drag points, but also allow points to become sharp corners and optionally roam free of any set Grid. I would also like to be able to select sets of points and manipulate them with tools.

I would base any sample-oriented editor on the editors we have in our mapping generators (ACE/Bazille/Zebra), but maybe extend the functionality and the visibility of editing features.

[audiot]

I get what you mean about Serum's tools, but they are not free of things to criticise. In my observation, they promote "jaggy-ness". You can easily make sawtooth-ish waveforms and buzzy stuff. Soft, evolving and sparse spectra are difficult tasks. Steppy stuff is possible, but you gotta juggle the Grid. In contrast, the Cableguys tools promote soft curves and they are also very good for steppy stuff - but they're not so good at that jaggy thing.

I would like to orient our toolset on classic curve design mechanisms. That is, set and drag points, but also allow points to become sharp corners and optionally roam free of any set Grid. I would also like to be able to select sets of points and manipulate them with tools.

I would base any sample-oriented editor on the editors we have in our mapping generators (ACE/Bazille/Zebra), but maybe extend the functionality and the visibility of editing features.

You're criticising xfer's lfo editors? Now i'm really hyped! But i agree that cableguys approach has some weak spots. I love Shaperbox but somehow i'm not feeling comfortable with the shape editor. It should feel more fluid ... more intuitive. If the handling interfers your musical flow then there's something wrong with it.

One last question: Will there be improvements to the step sequencer? I dont use step sequencers very often but keyscale-sequencers are much more intuitive than the classical ones. They take more space on the interface but in a multi-tabbed instruments this shouldnt be a problem. And if not, i'm sure that plugmon will throw out a new skin with his keyscale sequencer a few weeks or months after the release.

[Urs]

You're criticising xfer's lfo editors?

Well, I don't per se think they're bad at all. They're actually quite powerful and easy to work with, thanks to their grid-based approach which I found rather original. What I criticise is that one easily ends up with very similar results.

Actually scrap that, I was talking about the waveform editor.

The LFO shape tool is pretty good, but I find the editing tools rather basic (no selection of points or segments, hence no high level operations on those).

[medienhexer]

I would like to orient our toolset on classic curve design mechanisms. That is, set and drag points, but also allow points to become sharp corners and optionally roam free of any set Grid. I would also like to be able to select sets of points and manipulate them with tools.

Please don't mimic the behavior of most curve tools. Double-clicking a point to switch between curved and pointy *always* malfunctions and either moves the point or activates some OS stuff for highlighting or some other strange thing which without fail leads to me getting angry at the editor. Or when in curve mode, these typical dots connected by lines for angle and radius... they *always* end up screwing with events the line is supposed to catch. So instead of changing the selected point, I end up adding new points or moving a point or whatever can go wrong depending on the application.

And it's not me, I'm an expert mouse clicker

I'm not impatient by any means but stuff like notes being played back where there are no events, inactive automation being played back, inactive clips being played or curve tools keeping me from stuff that's supposedly simple just because a double-click misfires or is caught by the DAW or the OS or *the evil double-click-catcher* , that's the stuff that takes the fun out of music.

Apple had it well figured out with curves in Pages a major release or two ago. I utterly enjoyed making all sorts of stuff with that version. All modifiers were intuitive to me, as well. With the latest version, it's okay but not great. Used to be that you had to create either a text document or a design document. And that took away a lot of stuff interfering like the background being a text document and listening for click events.

[audiot]

You're criticising xfer's lfo editors?

Well, I don't per se think they're bad at all. They're actually quite powerful and easy to work with, thanks to their grid-based approach which I found rather original. What I criticise is that one easily ends up with very similar results.

Actually scrap that, I was talking about the waveform editor.

The LFO shape tool is pretty good, but I find the editing tools rather basic (no selection of points or segments, hence no high level operations on those).

My phrasing was a bit misleading. I should have wrote "You're criticising the shape-editors in xfer's lfo's?". Sorry for that! And what I meant was: If you have a better approach I will not complain

I have no doubts that Zebra 3 will be epic and with some workflow improvements like the new drag'n'drop modulation system you will attract a lot of new customers. A lot of developers underestimate UI design and handling. Some others understood that lately. I have tested Arturia Pigments last weekend and I have to say that the handling is really intuitive. Sound-wise it didnt convince me. Zebra and Hive are simply the best wavetable synths ... and Serum You can argue about Serums sound but workflow-wise it's a masterpiece.

[Urs]

Please don't mimic the behavior of most curve tools. Double-clicking a point to switch between curved and pointy [...]

No worries.

The shape of a segment is defined by the segment, not the point. There'll be tools to smooth out / corner two adjacent segments, and maybe they'll be available on right-click of the point they share. But if two or more adjacent segments are selected, any option to change shape to presets (linear, smooth, whatever) will be available on right-click anywhere in the editor.

Curve modifications will be available through actual tools. You can choose whether you wish to do simplified cubic L/S shaping (like in current Zebra2 MSEGs), free L shapes with a second degree of freedom, or if you wish to display actual handles for full control. Handles will be displayed only for selected points and segments, hence no clutter.

Like in our Mapping editor, selections can be manipulated, i.e. moved, inverted, extended, shrunk. Shift-dragging a rectangle can select multiple points/segments at once.

There's extensive and fast zoom and navigation. There's going to be a lot of control over detail.

The main problem yet to be solved is the question how to morph between waveforms/envelopes with a different number of segments, and how to edit/visualise this. There are some radical ideas, but nothing has been fully explored yet.

The UI of the ShapeSequencer in Hive is a byproduct of this. Under the hood there are multiple use scenarios (different roles for mouse/menus), there's the option to have external widgets (like the shape selectors underneath the zoomed view) and what not.

We'll see...

[Urs]

If you have a better approach I will not complain

Yeah, hehehe, here's the thing: I don't think it'll be better in terms of speedy workflow. But it will alllow for a lot more precise work, and not be overly complicated either.

I mean, just think abut drawing a little shape in the left corner of the editor, then drag-unrolling this thing to the right to make a dozen copies of it. Then select the whole lot and pinch it on the left to create a rising sequence. We're thinking absolutely stellar editing tools to create sequences and whatever people do with MSEGs, LFOs and wavetables. It will be fast, but it won't for instance automatically insert horizontal lines to make a curve more cornery like Serum does.

[omiroad]

Will Zebra 3 be amazingly anti-aliased?

[audiot]

I mean, just think abut drawing a little shape in the left corner of the editor, then drag-unrolling this thing to the right to make a dozen copies of it.

... that sounds awesome! I havent seen something similar in any other synth

And if you think about group editing options, maybe the cubase automation-editor could be an inspiration for you:

cubase_midi_editor_2.gif

[Urs]

Yeah, that kind of stuff...

[Hanz Meyzer]

Surely this was posted already, just in case :=)

- Graphical indicator of target automation of a control, e.g. a separate ring indicating range and actual position of a controlled target. See avenger or other recent synths. Also right click on it for a context menu for disabling/removing, showing entry in matrix and so on, practical tools. Right moving on it for inc-/decreasing the range and so on.

- Even more flat, less photoshop-shadowy and rationalized design, see plugmon.jp "Neumann" skin, very nice IMO

Thanks.