u-he

Timerider · Post by **Timerider** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:16 pm

Hello all,

I've just been introduced to this synth, some of the sounds sound amazing, and i'm fussy!

A couple of questions, is it cpu friendly, and is it fully automatable?

I run Cubase SL3.

Many thanks,

T.

beej · Post by **beej** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:29 pm

CPU - it's a semi-modular synth, which means a patch could be one oscillator taking up virtually no CPU, or 4 4-layer oscillators, 2 physical modelled oscillators, 4 FM oscillators, 4 filters and tons of modulations - that's going to require a lot of CPU.

So it really depends on the patch. In general, for the sound-per-cycles, Zebra2 is quite efficient.

ATS · Post by **ATS** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:34 pm

maybe it is the patches I am choosing but I found Zebra to need a good amount of cpu but won't matter in a while because I will have a new computer.

tboulette · Post by **tboulette** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:01 am

When I bought Z2, I had a rather long in the tooth Athlon 1600+, and it could handle all but the most demanding patches with nothing else substantial running. Two weeks ago, I built myself a new Core 2 Duo system, and now, me happy. Me very, very happy...

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:09 am

What beej said. In case you really wanted, you could even bring the most modern system to its knees more or less easily.
But then, to me, one of *the* key benefits of Zebra is that even a single OSC patch, probably with some filter or whatever sound mangling device attached can do more than a lot of other synths would only dream of. And in all those cases, CPU useage is nothing else but excellent.
Oh, beej said that as well already...

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:35 am

Zebra 2 uses a TON of CPU. I would not call it efficient. I duplicated a simple PWM patch from the Pro-53 factory bank to Zebra 2 and I ended up using literally 4x the CPU that Pro-53 did for that exact patch. Great synth, but efficient? I don't know how anyone could honestly say it is.

wonshu · Post by **wonshu** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:07 am

whitch patch did you emulate? I wanna try and see for myself!

tylenol · Post by **tylenol** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:09 pm

zircon wrote:Zebra 2 uses a TON of CPU. I would not call it efficient. I duplicated a simple PWM patch from the Pro-53 factory bank to Zebra 2 and I ended up using literally 4x the CPU that Pro-53 did for that exact patch. Great synth, but efficient? I don't know how anyone could honestly say it is.

I'm not sure that you can draw inferences about the efficiency or lack thereof from designing/duplicating one patch...there is no way to know whether the CPU involved in PWM is representative of the rest of the synth, for instance. Or whether this is something that Pro-53 had heavily optimized.

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:10 pm

wonshu; "Fat Bright Pad", patch 112 (second) in the factory bank.

tylenol; the same applies for any sound. I've used Z2 to duplicate patches from numerous different VSTs I have and it inevitably uses far more CPU. On my PC, a 4 voice chord with one osc, no filter, no FX, no modulation (etc) and just the default saw wave takes up 9% of my CPU. That's pretty high.

In the exact same scenario, Synth1 takes 2%, Pro-53 takes 4%, FM8 takes 5%, Albino takes 6%, impOSCar takes 5%... I could go on.

I'm not saying Zebra 2 is a bad synth. I bought it nearly the day it came out and I've been blown away at how powerful it can be. I may have a gripe with the presets and handling of PWM, but overall, I'd be hard pressed to NOT recommend it. All that being said, I couldn't say it's CPU-efficient.

Howard · Post by **Howard** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:08 pm

zircon wrote:I may have a gripe with the presets and handling of PWM...

Which method do you use for PWM - wave-morphing or Phase or Symmetry?

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:52 pm

Zebra2 and FM8 are just about the same for me on cpu use for a basic no frills sound. Both 8% for 4 note chord.

Since Zebra2 is modular, it nay well use a bit more cpu than a more simple hardwired synth, but it seems efficient to me.

Blue - sine wave, 1 osc, no filter or effects 12% for 4 voices

Tera - 14% (I am not sure if everything is disabled when turned off) but that was as low as I could get for 4 voice chord

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:35 am

Howard wrote:
zircon wrote:I may have a gripe with the presets and handling of PWM...
Which method do you use for PWM - wave-morphing or Phase or Symmetry?

I have tried it both ways. I am discussing it with Urs in the other topic to pursue a specific sound. I find both methods to be a little unintuitive compared to a simple "pulse width" knob that you can apply an LFO to. But that is a pretty small complaint.

u-he

KVR Audio

Just found out about Zebra 2!