u-he

autodafe · Post by **autodafe** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:53 pm

If you are interested, I have checked my two patches (made with Z2.3) into 2.5 (the very first beta that Urs posted).

If loaded in 2.3 mode they sound exactly the same (at least I don't hear any difference) as in 2.3
If loaded in 2.5 mode they sound quite different, more noticeably on one of them, altough I didn't use anything so "exoteric" in them (osc, noise, filters, MSEGs....)

Anyway, off to bed now...Just wanted to add that I am fine with any decision you will take (unless I have to rewrite my patches, of course

)

It's a fun contest after all, right?

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:47 am

I used the same preset that I made for the contest using 2.5(2.3mode) then changed it, to make a new one in Zebra 2.3.3.
Now it has a problem with modules in the 4th slot. I pinned it down to 1VCF(formant) module.

The modualtion wheel is causing one of the VCF parameters to modulate. Except there is NO modulation wheel source assigned to any of those modules in the 4th slot of the grid.
Maybe it's still using some mod settings from the version2.5 before it was redone in 2.3.3.
Urs if you want the patch to see this problem, let me know.
It's like a ghost in the machine. The modwheel is modulating a source without a mod wheel setting.
I guess I'll have to start from the init patch, and redo it.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:24 am

I'm leaning towards extending the deadline until next week (midnight Sunday 11th 24:00/Monday 12th 00:00 GMT/UST). That, hopefully, will allow enough time for everyone to hear about the problem and, where necessary, redo their patches in 2.3.

Just so that everyone understands - this is a problem about compatibility of patches between different versions of Zebra (not between different modes of the 2.5 beta). Many patches created in the public beta 2.5.7b using its "2.3 mode" are not backward compatible with the last official (non beta) release of Zebra 2.3.3. The contest rules stated that patches should be 2.3 compatible.

The deadline extension is to allow people the chance to check that their patches are 2.3 compatible. Patches built in 2.3 need not have anything done to them; patches built in 2.5, even where "2.3 mode" was used, need to be checked in a 2.3 build Zebra.

@Urs - I don't think this was anyone's fault

- just one of those things. If anything I could maybe have been clearer about what the rule "2.3 compatible" meant.

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:35 am

@hakey...you described how to install both versions 2.3&2.5 on a windows system.

Do you or anyone else know how to have both versions on a mac osx?

I'm thinking, I can just copy over the 2.3 AU with a 2.5 AU, and leave the VST as the 2.3 version. Is that possible? Has anyone tried this?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:53 am

MCnoone wrote:@hakey...you described how to install both versions 2.3&2.5 on a windows system.

Do you or anyone else know how to have both versions on a mac osx?

Sorry MC, not my area. I'm someone here will be able to help you out.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:58 am

MCnoone wrote:Urs if you want the patch to see this problem, let me know.

Bring it on!

A little note: Some of the areas that exhibit bugs have been changed from 2.3.1 to 2.3.2/3 already. The only version that *probably* does not contain any loading bug is 2.3.1

As I said, some of these are mysterious and rarely happen at all. Loading a patch with complex modulations, playing a few notes, relasing them, waiting a second or two, then loading another patch with complex modulations might be the best chance to get them.

However, none of these have been spotted to occurr when loading a patch into a fresh instance of Zebra. (as far as I can tell...)

Urs

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:34 am

Urs wrote:
MCnoone wrote:Urs if you want the patch to see this problem, let me know.
Bring it on!
Urs

Okay. I just have to figure out how to have 2 different Zebra versions on mac osx at the same time.
Is that possible?

Maybe I should install the latest 2.3.1 instead of 2.3.3 in order to avoid any problems.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:45 am

MCnoone wrote:
Urs wrote:
MCnoone wrote:Urs if you want the patch to see this problem, let me know.
Bring it on!
Urs
Okay. I just have to figure out how to have 2 different Zebra versions on mac osx at the same time.
Is that possible?

Maybe I should install the latest 2.3.1 instead of 2.3.3 in order to avoid any problems.

You can only get two different ones at the same time with at least one VST. You could install 2.5 for AU, then overwrite the VST with the older version. Then, in a host like Live that does both AU and VST you can load both at the same time.

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:00 am

Urs wrote: You can only get two different ones at the same time with at least one VST. You could install 2.5 for AU, then overwrite the VST with the older version. Then, in a host like Live that does both AU and VST you can load both at the same time.

Thanks Urs.

@hakey: I guess it's okay to do the ZPC sounds using 2.3.1 instead of 2.3.3?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:17 am

MCnoone wrote:
Urs wrote: You can only get two different ones at the same time with at least one VST. You could install 2.5 for AU, then overwrite the VST with the older version. Then, in a host like Live that does both AU and VST you can load both at the same time.
Thanks Urs.

@hakey: I guess it's okay to do the ZPC sounds using 2.3.1 instead of 2.3.3?

Yes, of course

(that's what I'm using too - I don't know how 2.3.3 got into my head)

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:27 am

I think the next ZPC should be to use v2.5 only. As I'm really quite shocked

at how much better it is. As in, I've got sounds here that could never have been done in prior versions.
Those XMF's are just wonderful.

blurk · Post by **blurk** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:48 am

Sorry, I haven't been on the forum for the last few days (it was frantic enough just getting the patches done).

I have to say I am one of those strange people who has stayed away from the 2.5 beta. So no I would not be happy to install 2.5 just to vote in the competition, particularly since it was stated from the outset to be 2.3 competition. I have stayed away from 2.5 because I am in the middle of an unrelated project using Z2, and don't want to compromise the integrity of that project by installing beta software, particularly given some of the bug reports I was reading about in the other thread.

But it looks like we have agreed to stick to the original plan of using 2.3? Hakey, would you be so kind as to update the first page post within the revised deadline? And would I be cheating to make use of the extra time to make my entries less sucky?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:15 am

blurk wrote: Hakey, would you be so kind as to update the first page post within the revised deadline?

Will do.

And would I be cheating to make use of the extra time to make my entries less sucky?

No, that shouldn't be a problem.

autodafe · Post by **autodafe** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:56 am

blurk wrote:And would I be cheating to make use of the extra time to make my entries less sucky?

and....can I subimt a third patch in this additional week ???

(just joking, I won't have time to create another patch!!!)

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:18 pm

MCnoone wrote:I think the next ZPC should be to use v2.5 only. As I'm really quite shocked at how much better it is. As in, I've got sounds here that could never have been done in prior versions.
Those XMF's are just wonderful.

Yes, I know what you mean, but, bearing in mind the slight snafu we're dealing with right now, I think it would really be best to wait until an official, stable 2.5 release - which, I guess, is probably unlikely to happen before the next ZPC. Maybe the one after that? And we could even have a 2.5 themed task of some kind.

u-he

KVR Audio

Patch Contest #4