Zebra3 Info

[nordickvr]

BTW: Urs, please please create a u-he sample mangling synth...

I wouldn't know when to do that...

I hear voices.

[jme-audio]

FM is a great addition to the existing palette but I don't think that this is the main feature of the synth.

THIS! Exactly THIS!

Zebra could beat the shit out of FM8 with just a little more here and there, but it doesn't.
Actually it is already possible now but more difficult in usability, because the tuning is easier in FM8 and you don't have to mix different types of envelopes there to reach your goal (they have an envelope for each Op, one for the Filter and one for the NoiseGen, so a total of 8 MSEG).

Now we know the tuning will be easier in Z3 too (ratio) and regular Osc will be fm-able too.
So Zebra is really catching up!! Infact Z3 will probably shine as the star of FM.
For this, just the envelope section needs an advancement too.

While esoteric modules like west coast are indeed interesting, approved traditional concepts are far more popular. We don't know if users will really switch to west coast. I see them more as a very useful add-on with different possibilities. Traditional tools like ENV and MSEG are what is used day by day and the status quo in softsynths. Hence the Envelope section really should be on par with FM8. We know Hans Zimmer is also a proponent for 8 MSEG.

My proposal for Z3 is:

- 8 MSEG
- 8 ENV
- 4 LFO
- 2 Esoteric LFO (please some that hurt!)
- 2 Esoteric Function Generators

And who wants to use just two envelopes can do this, but please without complaining that other synthesists are wrong when they use more.

[BBFG#]

Zebra could beat the shit out of FM8...

I'm actually finding Bazille does this for me adequately.

[jme-audio]

Zebra could beat the shit out of FM8...

I'm actually finding Bazille does this for me adequately.

Got to agree. Bazille is in many aspects greater.
Still 6 Op vs. 4 Op can make a big difference.
Hence and because of the lots of other features
Zebra can create a much broader spectrum of FM sounds.

Well, with some luck, one day there will be Zebrazille XL to end all synth wars.

[padillac]

- 8 MSEG
- 8 ENV
- 4 LFO
- 2 Esoteric LFO (please some that hurt!)
- 2 Esoteric Function Generators

- 9 MSEG!
- 10 ENV!
- 4.5 LFO!
- 2e2 soteric LFO!
- π Esoteric Function Generators!

[pdxindy]

I think the same basic dynamic applies here. You want more envelopes for FM? OK, that's a SOLUTION. What is the actual PROBLEM you're trying to solve with more envelopes for FM? And here is where it's worth having a little faith in the guy who puts his name behind is product; give him a clear sense of the problem you're experiencing, and he'll almost certainly come up with a better solution than you would have thought of, especially when you actually get your hands on it.

Thank you!

My feeling is that typically sets of envelopes look rather similar in many patches. Maybe a good solution would be multi-outs for not just for LFOs but also for envelopes, where the additional outs can be scaled or warped versions of the same settings (different slopes, different rates, different levels).

Something like that would be splendid... 1 Env in Bazille can be 3-4 different but related envelopes. Send the Env through the lag generator, send it through the quantizer, multiply it by itself, etc. A Zebra way to do that sort of thing would be great because I agree... I often have related envelopes and feel like there is duplicated work editing 3 separate envelopes that are only variations of each other.

I've pondered the idea of each envelope having a couple of drawable shapes (like mod mappers with only map smooth/quantize options).

[pdxindy]

While esoteric modules like west coast are indeed interesting, approved traditional concepts are far more popular.

My impression is that not many people actually program multiple operator FM (4+)...

and looking at the presets in dedicated FM synths, many of them do not make use of all or even most of the operators.

Seems like the approved traditional concept is subtractive synthesis

[pdxindy]

Zebra could beat the shit out of FM8...

I'm actually finding Bazille does this for me adequately.

Got to agree. Bazille is in many aspects greater.
Still 6 Op vs. 4 Op can make a big difference.
Hence and because of the lots of other features
Zebra can create a much broader spectrum of FM sounds.

1 Bazille Osc can make sounds that would take 2-3 regular FM operators to accomplish.

[jme-audio]

My impression is that not many people actually program multiple operator FM (4+)...

Do you have any numbers on this or is this just dreamed together?

and looking at the presets in dedicated FM synths, many of them do not make use of all or even most of the operators.

Don't know which synth you are referencing now but on the DX7 Factory bank there are exactly two patches that do not use all six operators.

Seems like the approved traditional concept is subtractive synthesis

Oh yes, so we can burn all string machines, physical modelling synths, wavetable, waveshaping, FM and PD anyway, and everything else. Why are you using Zebra then, it is no a strict VA?

1 Bazille Osc can make sounds that would take 2-3 regular FM operators to accomplish.

So what? This is also true for Zebra and FM8 as well.

I get the feeling that some users would be better suited with Diva or ACE instead of just trolling how bad the idea is to make Z3 better than Z2.

[EvilDragon]

Well, somebody's butthurt.

[david.beholder]

I get the feeling that some users would be better suited with Diva or ACE instead of just trolling how bad the idea is to make Z3 better than Z2.

Dude could you please control yourself? pdxindy is as entitled to opinion as you.

[jme-audio]

No problem with opinions, but they should not be expressed by making wrong or unfounded claims.

[pdxindy]

My impression is that not many people actually program multiple operator FM (4+)...

Do you have any numbers on this or is this just dreamed together?

Please read my words... I called it an impression (as in no claim to be definitive), in this case based on lots of comments by people in these forums over they years saying that they find FM hard and that they mostly use presets.

Maybe I'm wrong, still there is no need to go on the attack and be rude. It's just a friendly conversation.

[pdxindy]

I get the feeling that some users would be better suited with Diva or ACE instead of just trolling how bad the idea is to make Z3 better than Z2.

Perhaps it is because different people have differing ideas of what a better Z3 would look like.

One of the reasons I like Zebra is because it has a variety of synthesis methods. Each of them is less full featured than a synth dedicated to that particular synthesis method. However, combined, they are very powerful and especially so because of the semi-modular nature of Zebra. I find Zebra to be an excellent combination of synth power and agile ease of use. The thought of Zebra having more and more complexity added is not appealing to me because IMO it risks the sweet spot that it currently occupies.

Anyway... It's not like our opinions as discussed here are going to significantly change Zebra 3. Urs has his own vision and is going to do what he wants to do.

[jme-audio]

My impression is that not many people actually program multiple operator FM (4+)...

Do you have any numbers on this or is this just dreamed together?

Please read my words... I called it an impression (as in no claim to be definitive), in this case based on lots of comments by people in these forums over they years saying that they find FM hard and that they mostly use presets.

Maybe I'm wrong, still there is no need to go on the attack and be rude. It's just a friendly conversation.

First, I am sorry that you feel my statements were rude. It was by no means meant as an insult.
I like to discuss things and I am open for different views. But when criticizing arguments are made, I expect that there is an amount of substance in it - at least when a lot of arguments are made. And I just did not see this.

I have interpreted your statement as 4OP+ is not as popular as 4OP. Clearly your statement relates to the amount of operators. And I think both are very popular as they usually both have f.e. good ratings on vintagesynth.com and the 6OP DX7 is the most famous FM synth.

The reputation of FM programming isn't as good as that of VA synths. Altough getting similar types of results as with analog synths, like creating a Saw or a Square wave with a kind of envelope controlled filter-like sound, can be achieved with quite the same effort. And when it comes to imitation of natural tones, experience is needed for any type of synthesis. But with FM its easy to get unpredictable results. FM synths with lesser operators are less difficult in this regard, that is true but they also have less sonic capabilities. So there are arguments for and against it. I wouldn't say 6OP loses.

Perhaps it is because different people have differing ideas of what a better Z3 would look like.

One of the reasons I like Zebra is because it has a variety of synthesis methods. Each of them is less full featured than a synth dedicated to that particular synthesis method. However, combined, they are very powerful and especially so because of the semi-modular nature of Zebra.

Its great to be different and Zebra is the ideal synth for serving different needs.
I fully agree, its variety together with its sound quality is why like Zebra too.
But I disagree that Zebra isn't as full featured in each aspect. It is a full featured wavetable synth and a full featured VA, and (with some usuability weaknesses) also a full featured FM synth. However, I don't know many dedicated physical modelling synths so I can not comment much on that.

Zebra to be an excellent combination of synth power and agile ease of use. The thought of Zebra having more and more complexity added is not appealing to me because IMO it risks the sweet spot that it currently occupies.

I think this fear is unnecessary. The popup for selecting modulators would be a little longer. But that would be the case anyway (f.e. also when there would be a multi output envelope). Your GUI will look the same. Nobody needs to use all modulators in a patch, its only the freedom of choice. So no need for a dual monitor Zebra^^

Anyway... It's not like our opinions as discussed here are going to significantly change Zebra 3. Urs has his own vision and is going to do what he wants to do.

He is doing business and is listening to customers. Chances are high that good ideas/suggestions are implemented if they lead to an advancement.