u-he

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:09 pm

bmrzycki wrote:I had a suggestion. The user can take any 2 released presets from the patch page, be it Zebralette, ZCM, or Z2.

This would be good, if it was ones own patch, and having it be a best use of XY's, or something, but I don't think too many would want to use others people presets.
Maybe if every one used the same set preset, and set different XY settings to it.
Like starting with a certain template, then modulating and change it as one wants, then use all XY pads, or something.

I'd like to do a scary movie drones, pads, sfx, for Halloween patch contest.
Hmmm, just not sure how many places, actually have Halloween?

lazerkind · Post by **lazerkind** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:02 pm

MCnoone wrote: I'd like to do a scary movie drones, pads, sfx, for Halloween patch contest.
Hmmm, just not sure how many places, actually have Halloween?

Just because you don't have Halloween you can still do scary sounds right?
But scary is very subjective (just play something out of tune to someone with perfect pitch...) but that is part of the charm in these competitions. =)
//L

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:43 pm

After reading the thread requesting for a non-modular version of Zebra, I was reminded to revisit Zebralette and started thinking.... why not use Zebralette for the next contest? Urs (or anyone else in the know) can correct me here, but by using Zebralette we won't have to worry about any compatibility issues.

Just glossing over the features, this could make for a very interesting competition especially if it's a free for all (so long as it's using Zebralette).

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:20 pm

elxicano wrote:by using Zebralette we won't have to worry about any compatibility issues.

Hmmmm... not quite sure...

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:27 am

Urs wrote:
elxicano wrote:by using Zebralette we won't have to worry about any compatibility issues.
Hmmmm... not quite sure...

That's alright. It was worth a shot anyways.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:03 pm

How many people would absolutely be against using 2.5 for ZPC5?

I'd be happier with it myself. I've not experienced any problems with 2.5.9 and I'd rather not keep both 2.3 and 2.5 builds installed on my comp. And there are, of course, a few advantages to 2.5.

If we did use 2.5 we could have a task based around the new 2.5 features - something along the lines of "do something that wouldn't be possible in 2.3".

blurk · Post by **blurk** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:53 am

hakey wrote:How many people would absolutely be against using 2.5 for ZPC5?

I'm one of the ones who voted against it before, but I wouldn't say I'm absolutely against it. It looks like it's closer to being stable now, and if needs be maybe I could install it on a different machine. In any case, I may not have time to take part in the next competition and I certainly don't believe if most people want to use it that I should have the power of veto in the comps.

sinzero · Post by **sinzero** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:01 pm

having a contest based on the 2.5 beta would have a two-fold benefit

show off new features and help uncover/quell bugs

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:03 pm

I get the feeling that people's enthusiasm for these contests, such as it was (it hasn't exactly set the forum on fire

), is on the wane. It's been a real struggle to maintain interest for the last two contests; only 8 people, excluding myself, entered this last one - two of whom seem unlikely to take part in the next one.

Put another way, if it really was such a good, viable idea participation ought to be increasing, rather than going south. I really don't want to have to exhort people to take part through bribery or just plain begging!

With already small numbers getting smaller I'm kind of thinking that it's maybe not worth carrying on with?

sinzero · Post by **sinzero** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:40 pm

nothing goes straight up

kodama · Post by **kodama** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:50 pm

A way of measuring success may be the # downloaded files.

The contests produce some carefully crafted, high quality presets!

It is kind of weird how many people don't vote though...

I wonder if there is a way to draw attention to the voting?

Maybe in the future, Urs could promote the contests and voting in his newsletter, etc...?

Also, giving away a free copy of anything plug-in might get a news story on KVR...

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:42 pm

kodama wrote:It is kind of weird how many people don't vote though...

Maybe the next one try anonymous voting. At least to try it.
Maybe write a post in the sound design forum about the contest.
I think more people would vote that way.

8 people joining a sound design contest is pretty good.
Less people join the 1 synth challenge.
Most people don't bother with making sounds, or have time to do so.
Most people here are musicians who don't go beyond small tweaking, and dj's that use loops and presets only. Developers with no free time.

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:51 pm

Okay, despondency aside, we'll carry on!

MC, I don't think the numbers voting is the main worry here, although it's probably an indicator of a general lack of interest. With respect to the vote by anon poll, if someone can be bothered to DL the patches, then find and load them into their Zebra presets folder, and then audition each patch, then surely posting their top three in the voting thread isn't going to phase them too much?

To address the lack of participation I think that it's important that the next ZPC is one that will be accessible to less experienced users.

Some related observations:

1.There seems to be tendency towards big complex patches that use many modules, particularly in the voice grid. I know this is just a subjective opinion, but I far prefer efficient, focused patches - kind of what artists call 'economy of line'. More importantly, some people may be put off taking part because they see these Byzantine creations and think that they couldn't possibly compete.

2.Looking at the past ZPC winners all except ZPC4 have used all four XY pads (XY pad use wasn't allowed in ZPC4). I think that there is a danger that using all XY pads will become the default paradigm for submissions and, for several reasons, I think that this is not a good thing - the most important of which, with regard to participation, is that it would discourage those from entering who just don't feel the need, or want, to assign every XY pad.

3.There is also some tendency for patches to be impressive in a 'wow factor' sense, rather than generally useful. Perhaps if these contests generated more patches that were relevant outside of the ZPC's (there's an awful and overused term that I'd rather not mention - something to do with baked yeast-risen powdered grass seed and emulsified bovine mammary gland secretion) then it might generate wider interest leading to increased participation?

To address points 1 and 2 my first thought would be to have a set limit for the number of modules and XY pads used in future ZPC's BUT, I realise that this might be contentious, particularly the XY's, so, how about a points penalty for every extra module or XY used above the limit? Say, by default, 3 modules in the voice grid and one XY would be allowed (this is more-or-less in line with the factory presets and if it's good enough for Howard..), but for each additional mod or XY 2 points would be deducted. This hopefully would make people consider whether that extra module or XY pad is really necessary.

Point 3 is just a case of choosing tasks that would steer the results towards a particular direction. I reckon 3 out of 4 contests should be, at least in part, focused on producing musically useful patches. The other 1/4 could be more exotic tasks, freestyle, unlimited modules/XY's etc.

Anyway, I think that the ZPC5 should be a simpl-ish task, perhaps with limited module use and in some way geared toward useful patches and something using the new features in 2.5 - maybe a duophonic patch?

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:37 pm

I just want to suggest that maybe some tutorials or simplistic examples be given. I think sometimes even the contest themes can sound very intimidating just due to the terminology used, which can sound very foreign to a new user. This could be part of the reason why there's not a lot of participation, since I'm sure some don't even know where to begin.

I do and don't agree with usage of the X/Y pads. I do think there should be a clear focus on the playability/usability of a patch first, but I also think that the X/Y pads are a useful tool that really show the versatility of the instrument. I believe the usage of X/Y pads should remain since I would imagine most work on the patch itself and then work on the X/Y pads later, which simply means the patch would sound the same if no one touches the X/Y pads (user or creator). With that said, during voting there really should be a greater emphasis on the patch, instead of the X/Y options since the patch should sound good before introducing any additional variation.

With that said, I would be in favor of occasionally more restrictive contests (much like the 1 module per grid contest) but not in favor of a penalty option for utilizing more features (which can also be considered efficient so long as the additional features are required to optimize or generate a specific sound).

I also think that once the website is finished and the contests can be moved there, we may see more participation. Having the contest on a dedicated website could possibly solve quite a few problems, so I think a bit of patience might be needed for waiting for this contest to evolve into what it is has potential to become (when considering a large Zebra user base).

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:08 pm

elxicano wrote:I believe the usage of X/Y pads should remain

I didn't say ban the use of XY's, rather that there should be a points cost for using more than one XY pad - multiple XY's could still be used, but patch authors would, one hopes, consider there use more carefully.

My main argument with regards to XY's within the ZPC's is that there is a danger that using all of the XY pads becomes necessary if one wants to be competitive, which could have the consequence of deterring those who would rather not have to assign all 4 XY pads, or who don't think that doing so would actually make a particular patch any better.

I'm not against the use of XY pads per se. I'm certainly not against people using all 4 XY pads, where it is appropriate. I am against a situation where the use of all XY pads becomes the norm. And I do think that sometimes the overuse, or innapropriate use of XY's, detracts from a patch.

Re: basic tutorials. Yes it is an idea; but who produces them? It could end up being quite a bit of work; you'd want to be sure that it really would have the desired effect, i.e. pulling the punters in.

u-he

KVR Audio

Patch Contest #5?