Improvements!

[Urs]

Does that mean there won't be any stripes any more ?

To the contrary. There are loads of stripes, and they are much nicer.

[streifentier]

Does that mean there won't be any stripes any more ?

To the contrary. There are loads of stripes, and they are much nicer.

[billstei]

Zebra Marketing Research Study #245 - Product Initial Impression

Test Subject - billstei
Test Results: "Me like stripes. Me want stripes on monitor! How much money for stripes?"

[physae]

Urs - you're a class act lad. The Bill Shankly of software development!!!

Truth.

As a softsynth noob, it took me a year and a half to start to get the hang of Zebra, MFM2, Filterscape, etc.

But the design of these instruments has encouraged my curiosity to go deeper each month.

I love the fact that Zebra is a quiet enigma at first. There is so much unspoken communication built into it that way. Urs is a master at not condescending to the user, and at not pandering to marketing hype.

Now I find myself increasingly appreciating the challenge U-he gear offers me to learn how sound works from the inside out.

I daresay that using Zebra2 has awakened my ears to sound, and relaxed my need/want for anything remotely easier to use.

I hop on Zebra to get lost in sound. And I do, every time. My laptop gives way to sonic waves and a delirium of possibilities....thanks precisely to the design principles you described, Urs.

[GMusic]

is there a demo of those movie presets someplace? like, only the preset sounds, i'm not talking about within the movie soundtrack. Just curious to hear how they sound without orchrestra/other effects. pretty sure they would use zebra to its greatest power!

[hakey]

i think these are great ideas, urs! one think i have problems with is when using a patch i made some time ago or a preset: finding out about all the modulation going on...

"what's cousing that wobble there?" then i need to look at all possible targets, i can't see it from the lfo.

I often struggle to work out how and to what degree modulation sources are affecting a destination. This is particularly the case where multiple sources - mod mixer, mod source > mod source > destination etc - are involved.

Might it be useful to have some kind of visualisation that would allow one to see 'realtime' representations of lfo rates, env curves and current position, which sources are affecting a particular destination and the combined effects of multiple sources? Maybe control clicking over a source or destination opens an inspection window? Most likely a pretty complicated idea to realise, but even something as simple as the animated lfo windows from Uhbik would help me.


The Zebra 2.5 GUI looks really nice - apart from preset management are there any other major improvements? Any changes to the arpeggiator?

[Urs]

The Zebra 2.5 GUI looks really nice - apart from preset management are there any other major improvements? Any changes to the arpeggiator?

Wait and see

[streifentier]

Wait and see

Wait???

Do you mean "Wait" as in: You can't have it now ????



Can't it ... well ... leak through ... like Zebra 2.3.2 ...???

I know, it's like a child whose favorite dish is in the making ... is it ready yet? ... is it ready yet?

[bagginz]

I finally implemented the oldest feature request ever: Collapsable folders in the preset browser

Vielen Dank Urs!

Much appreciated.

There's now also multiple selection of presets.

Excellent.

This can be used to drag them over into another folder.

Drag 'n' drop - Superb


Cheers,
bagginz

[Glich]

i think these are great ideas, urs! one think i have problems with is when using a patch i made some time ago or a preset: finding out about all the modulation going on...

"what's cousing that wobble there?" then i need to look at all possible targets, i can't see it from the lfo.

I often struggle to work out how and to what degree modulation sources are affecting a destination. This is particularly the case where multiple sources - mod mixer, mod source > mod source > destination etc - are involved.

Might it be useful to have some kind of visualisation that would allow one to see 'realtime' representations of lfo rates, env curves and current position, which sources are affecting a particular destination and the combined effects of multiple sources? Maybe control clicking over a source or destination opens an inspection window? Most likely a pretty complicated idea to realise, but even something as simple as the animated lfo windows from Uhbik would help me.

Again, this brings back the issue that I raised in my post. The design of the modulation system from a GUI standpoint has a LOT of room for improvement and I think it unwise to completely ignore it.

Now I understand and appreciate Urs' decision to use a higher refresh rate for modulation sources and the subsequent need to limit how many mod sources there can be to save CPU, so I'm not going to take issue with that.

However, there were two other points made that I think are debatable:
1) The idea that a limited domain for creative tools is necessary to the creative process

I understand the point being made and do agree with it to a certain extent, but I think if limitations are needed for the creative process then it should be self imposed and NOT imposed by the tools themselves. otherwise we might as well be banging rocks together to make music. I want the most unlimited number of possibilities for creative design available to me that can be accomplished with modern technology, I want that big blank sheet of paper. I may not necessarily USE it all the time, but if I come up with an idea and set out to do it, I need to be able to get to that goal via the easiest and most intuitive way possible. Coming up with workarounds to try and overcome the limitations of my tools only adds a lot of extra effort and energy that KILLS the creative process, as my creativity and time is now being focused on trying to overcome my tool's limitations rather than being used to come up with ideas for sound and music.

2) UI design balance between initial perception and experience
I think that whole argument is a lot of fluff that dances around what fundamentally boils down simple good design vs. bad design. It shouldnt matter whether it is easily accessible to new users or not, what matters is "does this design accomplish the most with the least amount of effort". That's it. If you have a design element that requires time and experience to understand and use, when that same element COULD be done in a way that is immediately more intuitive and powerful, then it should be changed to the latter. Again, there are examples out there (in my mind) of UI designs that offer MORE power and flexibility in a more intuitive, practical way, thus accomplishing much more for much less effort. That is good design.

Keeping elements limited in power and less intuitive/more difficult to achieve one's goals (or to conceptualize when looking at other patches) is foolish. There is no need to make a tool a puzzle. A tool is meant to be used, so its design should reflect that in a way that maximizes its power and usability.


P.S. It would appear that I'm harshly criticizing Zebra by my posts. I'm really not, I'm actually a huge fanboy and do appreciate a lot of the design in Urs' creations. My arguments above are generic in nature and are meant to point out that ignoring the possibilities of better workflow design shouldn't be ignored. I'm merely suggesting to think about ways to update Zebra and related plugs' modulation design/workflow, which I think can be improved only because I've seen how some other companies are doing it in new ways that are very powerful and intuitive. I'm trying to help make Zebra better.

[Urs]

Again, there are examples out there (in my mind) of UI designs that offer MORE power and flexibility in a more intuitive, practical way, thus accomplishing much more for much less effort. That is good design.

Well, I simply don't agree here

Some other products require terrible drag'n'drop orgies to accomplish tasks that can be less strenuously met without aiming the mouse while holding the button. Some of these products clutter the screen with virtual wires. I think Zebra's Grid is cool in that respect: You have short ways to drag and the structure is immediately recognizable. I find it funny that Zebra's concept of abstraction (Grid and Rack are two perspectives of the same structure) hasn't been copied yet. I think it's an abstraction that works very well with humans even though it's an almost perfect reproduction of the digital implementation. A major property of humans is the ability to think abstract and adapt to models. Once interpreted, Zebra's model is really quite easy and fast to work with. And I'm convinced that it's faster to work with than 99% of other products of the same complexity.

Some other products blink and flash and shine, as if the gui elements are in competition with each other. They distract from *listening*. I'm heavily against loud visualization of modulations. I'm convinced that it's more important to *hear* the modulation and not be trapped by visual clutter. I think one nice proof of that concept is the fact that no single person has ever asked for more precise parameter readouts. There are no numerical visualisations of parameters other than the temporary value display on the top. I'm convinced that too much visual feedback is counterproductive in music.

I'll happily think about right-click assignments of ModMatrix slots. I just don't see the major advantage over choosing the target in the drop down list of the ModMatrix

Other than that, even the most eccentric sound designers seem to be happy with the results they get out of Zebra. Thus I think the feature set (or rather, the concept) is exhaustive enough as it is. I actually think it's the right balance between flexibility and ease of use. For instance I think that sounds which require MSEGs with 1000 steps are better done with multiple instances. If you want sampling, you need a sampler, if you want wave sequencing you need a Wavestation. The point made here is, Zebra does what it's supposed to do. That means, a paradigm change (i.e. 8 Mod slots for each knob, or 1 LFO + 1 Envelope for each parameter) is not what Zebra is and thus is out of question. Small improvements will always be made, but there isn't ever going to be any dramatic change of concept.

Cheers,

Urs

[Howard]

On the other hand, well, it's also a certain paradigm that Zebra is designed by...(snip). Zebra forces one to work economically. I also believe that creativity needs a *frame* within which it can unfold...(snip). And just like a blank piece of paper can be paralysing, I think that unlimited possibilities within a synth defeat the purpose.

for that. I also enjoyed reading your later posts about short-term / long-term gratification (which I'd never thought much about) and the latest one (which reminds me why e.g. the VCS3 beats any other analogue synth at patching speed / "readability")

Finally, a big for improving the browser!!

[Howard]

is there a demo of those movie presets someplace? like, only the preset sounds, i'm not talking about within the movie soundtrack. Just curious to hear how they sound without orchrestra/other effects. pretty sure they would use zebra to its greatest power!

Actually, that might be a good idea. I hate doing demos, but I'll certainly consider posting some of the more prominent movie sounds "solo" as audio clips. Hmmmmm....

[xh3rv]

Might it be useful to have some kind of visualisation that would allow one to see 'realtime' representations of lfo rates, env curves and current position, which sources are affecting a particular destination and the combined effects of multiple sources?

One can use a MMap object this way - set it as a 0-size source for something to get it to display, select 'map quantize' or 'map smooth' and set the modulation to whatever you want to monitor. It's a little more readable if you shape the MMap graph to a block or a ramp or something, only the horizontal movement reflects anything going on with the modulation.

[e] I played with this a bit when figuring out MMix objects, that was helpful, not really useful in normal usage. If something is too complicated for the ears to figure out what's going on, what's the point

I'll happily think about right-click assignments of ModMatrix slots. I just don't see the major advantage over choosing the target in the drop down list of the ModMatrix

Here's my case: as a user, my reaction to the ModMatrix menus is - there's a lot of stuff in the lists and it's generated via internal parameter lists, and it's displayed flatly - contrary to the visual structure of the GUI. As an example if I would want to map the modwheel to Env3 Velocity->Sustain, the list of parameters via ModMixer is a sublayer in a list tree that can be crowded and a little difficult to read. I think it might be quicker and a little more open to experimentation via right-clicking on the GUI since that's the 'real' Zebra, and it feels consistent with putting something on an XY control*. On the other hand the way it works now means one should only use the ModMatrix carefully and deliberately, which isn't a bad thing.

* Currently I can right-click on something and get MidiLearn/Unlearn, assign to->(XY 1-4), a fourth entry 'ModMatrix #X' with X being first available ModMatrix slot seems to me like it would be quick.

[hakey]

Might it be useful to have some kind of visualisation[...]

One can use a MMap object this way - set it as a 0-size source for something to get it to display, select 'map quantize' or 'map smooth' and set the modulation to whatever you want to monitor.

Ah! I remember looking at an MMap and not being able to work out what it did - and now I know. Thanks for explaining that.

only the horizontal movement reflects anything going on with the modulation.

So, I wonder what's the horizontal division for if there's no information plotted on the y axis?

And +1 for Right Click Mod Mix Assignment.