Improvements!

[djsubject]

did i mention the chorus in Diva?

stick that in a VST & put it on some toast!

& and i also love the chorus thing in Diva!

Oh, & while i'm at it the Chorus in Diva is flipping amazing!

& did i mention the Chorus in Diva?..........

[3ee]

the diva reverb is surprisingly good. it sounds must smoother than the uhbik one to me.. is it based on the same thing? that would be interesting cause it would mean my ear is deceiving me

Could be an experience related thing... (as DIVA sounds so good to begin with)
I consider the Uhbik reverb very smooth and cool sounding... too bad I've got troubles (CPU-hangovers and false latency reporting) running it ..as it would be my go-to reverb! :/

No worries, we've done better reverbs (Uhbik, Diva) and it'll show in one of the next updates.

yay!

[mcnoone]

did i mention the chorus in Diva?

stick that in a VST & put it on some toast!

& and i also love the chorus thing in Diva!

Oh, & while i'm at it the Chorus in Diva is flipping amazing!

& did i mention the Chorus in Diva?..........

You know, I've been thinking the same thing for a while.
I could imagine how many sounds in Zebra would benefit from having that amazing chorus, with each of the 3 settings too.
The other fx in it are great too imo.

[3ee]

I agree, the DIVA chorus sounds lovely!

I always have to trick Zebra to deliver better chorus results! Like modulating the delay ratios with the Delay module for a BBD thickness.

What I currently discovered is that you can turn the ModFX phaser into a BBD-ish chorus as well.

There are several other ways of course .. but these two alternatives use the less amount of CPU for what they give back!

[Urs]

I'm constantly pondering over the issue. Many modules in Zebra are simply 10 years old - some may have made it from Zoyd to Zebra to Zebra2, with only little change.

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

Also, just adding more and more modules feels messy too, but might be way to go for this year, where it's still packed with all sorts of things to do.

Hmmm...

Urs

[Howard]

I'm constantly pondering over the issue. Many modules in Zebra are simply 10 years old - some may have made it from Zoyd to Zebra to Zebra2, with only little change.

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

Also, just adding more and more modules feels messy too, but might be way to go for this year, where it's still packed with all sorts of things to do.

Hmmm...

Urs

Having spent a LONG time working with Zebra, I have some thoughts I'd like to put on the table concerning improvements to usability

[foldy]

Hey Urs, how are you? I forgot to mention to you when we met up on friday that the lfo's in zebra do not seem to work the way they should. For example when it is on free mode and you have a 1/4 bar time it seems to start from the same point for about a bar and then starts to move. I always seem to come across some sort of weird behaviour with the lfo's, but the weird thing is that the issues are not consistent but rather always change.

[bmrzycki]

Having spent a LONG time working with Zebra, I have some thoughts I'd like to put on the table concerning improvements to usability

(psst Urs, I'd take a moment to talk with that Howard guy...A little birdie told me he knows a thing or two about Zebra and sound design... )

[rockin1]

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

It's messy but it does make it easier to update presets 1 module at a time. This could be a process where you deprecate the old modules and eventually remove them allowing time to update presets...

[pdxindy]

I'm constantly pondering over the issue. Many modules in Zebra are simply 10 years old - some may have made it from Zoyd to Zebra to Zebra2, with only little change.

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

Also, just adding more and more modules feels messy too, but might be way to go for this year, where it's still packed with all sorts of things to do.

Hmmm...

Urs

Almost all of the presets I use these days are 2.5... I hardly notice the 2.3 mode at all... It is quite unobtrusive.

So a 3.0 mode does not seem particularly clumsy to me and I imagine after 6 months 2.3 and 2.5 modes would be mainly invisible.

[mharnishfeger]

I'm constantly pondering over the issue. Many modules in Zebra are simply 10 years old - some may have made it from Zoyd to Zebra to Zebra2, with only little change.

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

Also, just adding more and more modules feels messy too, but might be way to go for this year, where it's still packed with all sorts of things to do.

Hmmm...

Urs

Almost all of the presets I use these days are 2.5... I hardly notice the 2.3 mode at all... It is quite unobtrusive.

So a 3.0 mode does not seem particularly clumsy to me and I imagine after 6 months 2.3 and 2.5 modes would be mainly invisible.

I think this is a really good point. Either way I would be a happy camper, but right now this zebra 3 talk makes me very excited.

[mharnishfeger]

I'm constantly pondering over the issue. Many modules in Zebra are simply 10 years old - some may have made it from Zoyd to Zebra to Zebra2, with only little change.

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

The other idea is, we could just do a similar thing as we did with V2.5, in that we add a 2.5 compatibility mode on top of 2.3. Then we would just swap the algorithms but keep the modules. While this would ensure backwards compatibility, I kind of get a bit of a messy feel about that.

Also, just adding more and more modules feels messy too, but might be way to go for this year, where it's still packed with all sorts of things to do.

Hmmm...

Urs

Almost all of the presets I use these days are 2.5... I hardly notice the 2.3 mode at all... It is quite unobtrusive.

So a 3.0 mode does not seem particularly clumsy to me and I imagine after 6 months 2.3 and 2.5 modes would be mainly invisible.

I think this is a really good point. Either way I would be a happy camper, but right now this zebra 3 talk makes me very excited.

[xh3rv]

What I would love to do is a clean cut. A Zebra 3 with just the latest incarnation of things, preserving the variety and feel, but swapping dated algorithms that had to be fast back then for slightly more expensive newer ones.

However, that would mean a complete loss of preset compatibility, and we would need to maintain Zebra2 next to Zebra3. Ditching a 10000+ preset library for a new version number isn't exactly a decision that's taken lightheartedly.

One thing that made the 2.3/2.5 shift pretty seamless (well, at least to me and rockin1, pdxindy, mharnishfeger) is I think filters are / were very easy to tweak up for moving stuff to take advantage of them. The sound isn't so radically different, just upgraded, and really no more than a couple knobs twists can handle unwanted discrepancies. Updated FX would probably be the same way.

I'm not sure that would be the same for other modules. Sound generation modules can show up much earlier in the signal chain and I think that means everything past them needs to get tweaked as well, and that tweaking would exponentiate in complexity. I feel the same about the envelopes but not quite as strongly. If several component modules of any kind changed, this also would lead to a dilema of too many things needing tweaking to sort of fully trust the patch.

There's a point where I think I'd rather just leave it as-is without new features, or reprogram the patch, and nothing in-between. I can imagine being a lot less confused about things if making this choice was laid out pretty explicitly and very early on in the decision making process.

Would it make any sense to sort of fork development of a Zebra 3? Like, between an encapsulated, backward-looking wrapped version of Zebra 2, and then sort of a real-deal Zebra 3 that's selectively backwards-compatibile to offer a bridge of continuity for reprogramming a patch? Separate plugs even? This would mean more time, effort put into developing Zebra 3, but that's a fixed, clear, focused thing versus maintaining two disparate versions of Zebra - just by ear that doesn't sound nice from my perspective as a user, either.

(To qualify this post - I've been indoctrinated in certain ways about backwards compatibility, partly as a user and partly academically, but not anything like as a developer. Definitely just blathering a bit )

[Cyoon]

Something like this would be cool for uhbik or as modul in zebra.
I like the general approach of mid/side mangeling..maybe its even already possible in zebra, would be surprised if not actualy

http://www.g-sonique.com/midsidecreativ ... ilter.html

any ideas how to achieve such an architecture in zebra?

i think i will try to make a preset like this..then i share it and you might be able to improve it

cheers

[Aiynzahev]

I know I've already emailed you but just incase:

FX amount in Diva as a modulated destination with envelope as the source.