Self-Oscillating Filter (a la Prophet)

[Suntower]

OK, I'll re-read the manual. But hopefully this is constructive criticism... this is one area of the program that could be a bit more intuitive.

But back to the original thing. If I could ask you to give me a clue as to which of the filters and Oscillators are most 'Prophet-like' (or rather 'NI-like.)

Zebra does everything except deliver a pizza, but all the flavours of filters and tone generators is -dizzying- and I think a good starting point is emulating 'the classics'.

There is a certain 'fat' colour that NI analog synth filters have (Reaktor, Massive) and I get the sense Zebra can do this, but I haven't figured out how to -quite- get there yet. That's the point of this exercise.

Any thoughts?

Thanks again,

---JC

[mcnoone]

Maybe try running through a lot of presets, until you hear something similar to what your looking for, then examine what was done to create that.
http://www.u-he.com/PatchLib/zebra.html

[Howard]

OK, I'll re-read the manual. But hopefully this is constructive criticism... this is one area of the program that could be a bit more intuitive.

Fair enough. I could try to make that bit of the manual more clear (if possible), but I think the functionality itself can't be made more "intuitive". Different strokes...

If I could ask you to give me a clue as to which of the filters and Oscillators are most 'Prophet-like' (or rather 'NI-like.)

Filters are much more important than oscillators for that. Someone else might like to chip in here: TBH I don't care much for the basic sound of the Prophet filters (nor any of NI's subtractive synths), so I never tried to nail that sound.

[Suntower]

To paraphrase my grandfather: An interface is like a joke: if you have to explain it, it doesn't work.

I went back and looked @ the manual and at the risk of sounding even more snarky towards Zebra, I don't think it's the manual (although adding a sentence as you said before with the word 'from' would be good IMHO.) I quite like the manual---it's a bit like the program: concise, but complete. The example on Page 14 is fine.

I just dislike that -interface- detail. The program is so deep that everything 'on top' needs to be dead simple. My other current grouse are the knobs---they don't represent well the -sound-. The difference between a '1' and a '2' is barely a sliver on screen but usually makes a HUGE sound difference---as much as the change from 50-100. I wish they were 'visually tapered' to match their sonic effect.

AFA the NI filters, I have heard people who dislike them and this may be a -generational- thing. So many of today's sounds seem much -thinner- to me or are all about overdrive, high q, and about 10 layers of delay. But I think the Reaktor ladder filter sounds huge. Or maybe it's just that the envelopes work like I expect them to. What I find more and more with Zebra---and this is why I mentioned the knobs---you can definitely mimic other synths, but -everything- is so deep that you can't just slap on an envelope and twist two knobs and get a Mini-Moog sound. You'll likely have to tweak -14- knobs because of all the options.

If there was ONE documentation thing? I wish there was a WRITTEN (not video!) tutorial called 'How to emulate 25 classic synth sounds' with one page showing knobs for each sound (like the old Arp manuals.) I know there's a tendency to want to document all the cool things Zebra does that, say a Mini-Moog -can't-, but I'd rather learn all the new stuff -after- I understand emulating the basic subtractive functions.

Best,

---JC

OK, I'll re-read the manual. But hopefully this is constructive criticism... this is one area of the program that could be a bit more intuitive.

Fair enough. I could try to make that bit of the manual more clear (if possible), but I think the functionality itself can't be made more "intuitive". Different strokes...

If I could ask you to give me a clue as to which of the filters and Oscillators are most 'Prophet-like' (or rather 'NI-like.)

Filters are much more important than oscillators for that. Someone else might like to chip in here: TBH I don't care much for the basic sound of the Prophet filters (nor any of NI's subtractive synths), so I never tried to nail that sound.

[pdxindy]

To paraphrase my grandfather: An interface is like a joke: if you have to explain it, it doesn't work.

I went back and looked @ the manual and at the risk of sounding even more snarky towards Zebra, I don't think it's the manual (although adding a sentence as you said before with the word 'from' would be good IMHO.) I quite like the manual---it's a bit like the program: concise, but complete. The example on Page 14 is fine.

I just dislike that -interface- detail. The program is so deep that everything 'on top' needs to be dead simple. My other current grouse are the knobs---they don't represent well the -sound-. The difference between a '1' and a '2' is barely a sliver on screen but usually makes a HUGE sound difference---as much as the change from 50-100. I wish they were 'visually tapered' to match their sonic effect.

When you right click on a module, you select which input to use. Isn't it self evident and clear that input is from not to? I never looked at the manual to grasp that. The ease of wiring modules how you want and seeing at a glance how they are wired has always been one of my favorite aspects of the synth. How would you make the top simpler?


Which knobs would you want parameter scaling on?


ps - If you have to explain it, it doesn't work does not necessarily fit for an interface. It really depends on your objective. If your objective is to prioritize not using the manual and making everything self evident for the beginner, you may make the interface less fluid for the experienced user. If you make the interface as fast as possible for the experienced user, it may not be as self evident.

[Howard]

I wish there was a WRITTEN (not video!) tutorial called 'How to emulate 25 classic synth sounds' with one page showing knobs for each sound (like the old Arp manuals.) I know there's a tendency to want to document all the cool things Zebra does that, say a Mini-Moog -can't-, but I'd rather learn all the new stuff -after- I understand emulating the basic subtractive functions.

Sorry, but Zebra2 simply isn't a "sweet-spot" synth and never will be. Emulating classic synths in Zebra2 will remain more complicated than in Diva.

[Suntower]

I don't wanna come off as a grouser so this is it for me...

1. Certain params like Envelope Attack s.b. 'tapered' differently. The difference between 0 and 210 is bigger than the difference of 11-50.

2. The reason people keep wanting products like Diva is -not- IMHO 'the sound' so much as 'the familiarity'. As cool as Zebra is, it's comforting to open a product like Diva or Arturia's stuff and find everything where you expect it.
Thirty (has it been 30?) years ago I bought a DX-7 and spent -ages- figuring it out and getting -seriously- frustrated since -none- of the moog stuff carried over. But it was worth the effort. It did a LOT more than people realise... even the presets I hear -today- just sound like the same cliches from 1985!

If I grouse a bit or want emulation help, it's not because I am lazy or want Zebra to be something it's not. It's because there aren't enougb HOURS in the day to -really- learn more than a couple of synths. Another reason people buy tons of synths (despite all the talk of 'features') is because they hear a sound they dig and rather than spent -ages- figuring out how to program what they have, they buy a new one. Saying 'RTM' or 'explore the presets' isn't great because it's TIME CONSUMING. I'd like to get inside Zebra and wish there were more efficient ways to do it. Otherwise? I'm just going from one synth to another for 'the presets' (like most people) and never -really- getting more than 20% out of the thing.

Thanks for the help. You guys are great!

---JC

[pdxindy]

I don't wanna come off as a grouser so this is it for me...

1. Certain params like Envelope Attack s.b. 'tapered' differently. The difference between 0 and 210 is bigger than the difference of 11-50.

I assume you mean 0-10

Yeah, it might be a bit more elegant to adjust the scaling of that knob... As a rough guess maybe 75% of my presets are in the first 25% of the knob range... but you also have different envelop scales so that is something to consider

8sX
16sx
10 sec
1/4
1/1
4/1

a shorter one would put more knob range to cover what is currently 0-10 for 8sX

ps - you always have shift for finer increments, but that is a bit less fluid

[pdxindy]

2. The reason people keep wanting products like Diva is -not- IMHO 'the sound' so much as 'the familiarity'. As cool as Zebra is, it's comforting to open a product like Diva or Arturia's stuff and find everything where you expect it.
Thirty (has it been 30?) years ago I bought a DX-7 and spent -ages- figuring it out and getting -seriously- frustrated since -none- of the moog stuff carried over. But it was worth the effort. It did a LOT more than people realise... even the presets I hear -today- just sound like the same cliches from 1985!

Well, that is not so for everyone. I am interested in Diva for the sound. If it sounded the same as Zebra but was a bit more streamlined for quick editing at the expense of sonic flexibility, I doubt I would have given it a second glance. And many people who have praised Diva have done so for the sound specifically.

I agree though that there are also many people who value simplicity.

[xh3rv]

I'd like to get inside Zebra and wish there were more efficient ways to do it.

Sometimes people say think outside the box but that definitely means less structured thinking. Zebra IMO is an example of thinking inside a much better box.

I definitely appreciate that the learning curve for Zebra is steeper at the beginning than most other synths. With a little experience there's a lot of clarity though, and an ability to read into patches very quickly, to think about playing scrabble with the grid components to make new things, or to put up a couple oscillators and a filter like a classic synth and start tweaking in under 10 seconds. Ultimately that initial curve is a tradeoff for speed, flexibility, and comprehensibility for things that take a lot of tedious bouncing around at every step in other synths (or other modular environments ...) if they're even possible. The stuff that's confusing doesn't stay that way for long.

[Howard]

Saying 'RTM' or 'explore the presets' isn't great because it's TIME CONSUMING. I'd like to get inside Zebra and wish there were more efficient ways to do it.

Some things are just too complex to master as quickly as you would like, without making more of an effort than you would like. Guitar, trumpet, particle physics, neuroscience or Zebra2!

BTW: Agreed that more comfortable knob laws ("taper") in Zebra2 would be great. It's a can of worms, though.