Zebra X?

[Breeze]

Sometimes, one Zebra isn't enough(!). What I mean is that sometimes you want to add an additional component to a sound that one instance of Zebra can't provide, like a monophonic component to a polyphonic sound, or use more than 2 Combs, or need more than 4 MSEG, etc... a good example is how FarleyCZ had to use Zebrify to get his string slide sound (nice work by the way! )

It is possible just to multiply instances in a host, but then you have to manually manage the patches, or use a sub-host to do that. And then it struck me that the concept behind Uhbik X could very well be applied to Zebra, thus Zebra X: a minihost allowing you not only to instance multiple Zebras but also allowing for additional cross-modulation, meta-envelopes, meta-LFOs, etc... I think you get it.

I realize this is very much a pipe dream and that Urs already has years of things to do, but I thought I'd mention it. It struck me as a good idea.

[Ghostwave]

You can do that using Chainer. You have 100 slots for any virtual instrument or FX.
Save the Chainter preset and you can recall it whenever you want.

[shanecgriffo]

ahh , good old chainer,, used to use it all the time(standalone) back in the days before i got a sequencer/recorder!

[mcnoone]

I believe Rax does that too.
http://www.kvraudio.com/get/351.html

I'm pretty sure it works as a plugin for your host...maybe wrong about that though.
edit:I was wrong...it just hosts. Oh well...

There's another one for mac only, but can't find it atm.

[whyterabbyt]

You can do that using Chainer.

No, not this bit:

also allowing for additional cross-modulation, meta-envelopes, meta-LFOs, etc...

The OP already ruled out regular subhosts.

[Urs]

Well... Zebra simply isn't meant to be that.

I truely believe that allowing for more (e.g. unlimited) flexibility within Zebra will become an obstacle for the common case. I also think that the general concept does not lend itself towards anything outrageously more complex.

Keeping Zebra at the sweet spot of flexibility vs. usability is a painful task. I could add 10 more MSEGs or XMFs with only 2 lines of code and a bit of copy and paste. This would read great on paper, but it would suck for 99% of users and uses.

However, Zebrify opens up the possibility to be inserted in a synth architecture that allows for plugin hosting. This is a major reason behind making Zebrify as it is. I think that Bidule and similar hosts should be able to fulfill the task for most such demands.

Cheers,

Urs

[Teksonik]

I could add 10 more MSEGs or XMFs with only 2 lines of code and a bit of copy and paste. This would read great on paper, but it would suck for 99% of users and uses.

Out of curiosity why would it "suck"? I don't see a need for 10 MSEG's but having the option wouldn't negatively affect my Zebra experience in any way I can think of at 3:47 am.....................

[AL321]

I could add 10 more MSEGs or XMFs with only 2 lines of code and a bit of copy and paste. This would read great on paper, but it would suck for 99% of users and uses.

How about we right-click on the MSEG tab, and choose 'Add New MSEG'? Then that 99% will never have to worry about being confused.
Those two lines of code are the only thing holding Zebra back, in my eyes, and would probably turn Zebra into the only synth i would want to use. It's still my favourite synth, as it is though, so i do respect your decision.

Another thing that would help me in some situations, would be the ability to choose the MSEG's starting position (right-click a node and choose 'MSEG Start'). Then, i could have my main MSEG in bars 1-16, and 17+ can have backup experimental patterns, that i can switch to with a simple right-click.

However, Zebrify opens up the possibility to be inserted in a synth architecture that allows for plugin hosting. This is a major reason behind making Zebrify as it is. I think that Bidule and similar hosts should be able to fulfill the task for most such demands.

Ever thought about allowing Zebrify to send envelope control data to another Zebrify, or to Zebra?
So we could, for instance, use the envelope from a vocal track to control Zebra's wave morph? I know a couple of plugin manufacturers that send data between instances no problems.

A simple Zebrify to Zebrify would still be cool though.

[xh3rv]

Out of curiosity why would it "suck"? I don't see a need for 10 MSEG's but having the option wouldn't negatively affect my Zebra experience in any way I can think of at 3:47 am.....................

But would it suck at 3:47 pm? 'WTF was I doing last night?'

[Urs]

It might not be obvious why less options are an advantage here. Let's just say, total freedom of choice invites for thoughtless waste and sloppy sound design while restrictions foster thought. It's the same reasoning that's behind my reluctance to add sample playback.

[Kriminal]

Let's just say, total freedom of choice invites for thoughtless waste and sloppy sound design while restrictions foster thought.

trust me, ive seen sloppy sound design on much more restricted synths than Zebra

[Teksonik]

It might not be obvious why less options are an advantage here. Let's just say, total freedom of choice invites for thoughtless waste and sloppy sound design while restrictions foster thought.

It might not be obvious because it's not true.............

[mcnoone]

It might not be obvious why less options are an advantage here. Let's just say, total freedom of choice invites for thoughtless waste and sloppy sound design while restrictions foster thought.

It might not be obvious because it's not true.............

Are you disagreeing with one of the most highly held philosophical ideas of all time?
Less is more.

Really I'm thinking balance and symmetry are important things in design concepts. Don't you?

btw, need more mseg's? Use some user set lfo's, and then add some modmappers.
Not exactly the same things, but something greater might come from it.

[AL321]

It might not be obvious why less options are an advantage here. Let's just say, total freedom of choice invites for thoughtless waste and sloppy sound design while restrictions foster thought. It's the same reasoning that's behind my reluctance to add sample playback.

Well in my experience, restrictions mean time wasted, trying to find workarounds to do what you want to do, and limited scope for the kind of experimentation, that leads to those awesome, unexpected sounds that you wouldn't even have thought of.

When i look at the way i work with Surge, some of my best sounds have come from having crazy amounts of things routed to key areas. The real magic happens when i start slowly changing the amounts of all these different envelopes and lfos. I sometimes just hit a sweet spot with two modulators, and i get a sound unlike anything i've made before. Often, some of these combos only get used in a small section of the song, to add variation, so they are left at zero for most of the song.
If i was to try and get those sounds using just four envelopes and a few lfos, i would probably be there for days, and the sound would still be nowhere near as good.
Now if i was able to use that same technique in Zebra, with all it's osc fx etc... that could be interesting.

I'm not complaining here, just giving you a viewpoint from a user.

[Breeze]

I can see how the issue can become one of design philosophy. Take any classic synth outside of a modular and you have an inherently fixed structure within which "magic" can be discovered and/or developed. And it's a challenge to find it, working against the limitations of a machine. But it's never prevented someone from developing great sounds and finding new programming tricks.

The virtual world has spoiled us: structure is now flexible, modifications can be implemented quickly, and new design ideas can be introduced at the whim of the designer. I used to write to devs and shoot all kinds of design ideas at them until I tried to imagine what it must be like at the receiving end of all these requests... So these days, unless it's a bug, or a good idea that's easy to implement, I just keep these ideas to myself.

The only reason I dared mention this one is that it wouldn't require an extensive Zebra redesign, multiply Zebra's capabilities and keep everything in an integrated package. I do use Chainer and Bidule for these purposes currently, but I could see tighter integration if done by Urs.

My intention was never to generate a tug of war between Urs's design philosophy and his customers' wishes. Let's all just be grateful for the powerhouse we already have