Zebra 2 Brain Overload

[bbtr]

Problem is, you're using a pre-drawn shape (or a sequence of a few shapes), that is repeated at a rate somewhat dependent on the host BPM. So at low host tempos, these repetitions get slower and what one hears is not as dense as at normal rates, and very 'digital', 'plasticky' sounding. And the waveform always stays the same, just repeated slower. Whereas, other instruments synthesize the shape itself in ways that introduce constant modification of the form, and also not rate dependent, which preserves detail at low tempos.

What you offer to 'modulate' this shape is two formulas, which must be applied manually by the patch creator, who has to choose from a list of quite obscure processes, set a knob, and then this process gets repeated over and over in the same entirely predictable way as the wave itself. Whereas, those other instruments do it behind the UI, and not by applying 2 formulas with set values, but - I don't know how many but surely MANY more processes that shape the wave, which you then tune and use. Their approach introduces far more detail, unpredictability - hey, I'm sure you know what I mean!

Sorry Urs, my language is not scientific, but I think what I'm trying to convey is valid. Over the years, I have read quite a few complaints about the sound of Zebra, people finding issues with filters - better filters were introduced, but people still finding it 'not there', oh what could be wrong, and I think it's this. So my suggestion, in the form of question, was to introduce real oscillators, what with your Diva and Re-pro experience and know how. All this is meant as constructive criticism.

Cheers!

[zvenx]

@bbtr, curious. Can we hear one of your pieces at 10-15 bpm?
Thanks
Rsp

[EvilDragon]

Problem is, you're using a pre-drawn shape (or a sequence of a few shapes), that is repeated at a rate somewhat dependent on the host BPM.

Well you're wrong there. Plugins process at host sample rate, this doesn't depend on BPM at all. Meaning, the oscillator will sound the same at 1 BPM and 1000 BPM.

[Urs]

Problem is, you're using a pre-drawn shape (or a sequence of a few shapes), that is repeated at a rate somewhat dependent on the host BPM. So at low host tempos, these repetitions get slower and what one hears is not as dense as at normal rates, and very 'digital', 'plasticky' sounding.

Uhm, no, the waveform playback does not in any way correlate to the host tempo. Like ED says. There is no dependency on host BPM - unless of course you choose a host-synched LFO to modulate things, in case of which you can choose a higher modulation rate.

Funny enough, wavetable oscillators can have a lot louder overtones than analogue ones, so that wehn you pitch them low enough, you can still hear the overtones whereas analogue ones revert to click-click-click noises. Maybe this is what you are referring to? A simple physical phenomenon...?

[Urs]

How about you post an example at 120BPM vs. 15BPM so we know what you're referring to?

[fmr]

Problem is, you're using a pre-drawn shape (or a sequence of a few shapes), that is repeated at a rate somewhat dependent on the host BPM. So at low host tempos, these repetitions get slower and what one hears is not as dense as at normal rates, and very 'digital', 'plasticky' sounding.

Uhm, no, the waveform playback does not in any way correlate to the host tempo. Like ED says. There is no dependency on host BPM - unless of course you choose a host-synched LFO to modulate things, in case of which you can choose a higher modulation rate.

I am not sure what he means either. As I said, I tried Zebra at 15 BPM and didn't notice anything strange. Then he told me to try several patches because some of them "fall apart" (but not ALL and not the default one, which I used). This means the pretense "fault" is not intrinsically on the oscillator. I presume he is probably referring to some sounds where there is a wavetable scanning using some synced LFO, envelope, whatever. which may produce some granularity at such slow BPMs.

[lastmessiah]

Regarding Linux, if you know what you’re doing it is actually quite good for music production. You can install a low latency “real-time” kernel for most distros, and software like Bitwig Studio and Tracktion Waveform is very capable. Sure, there is a lack of third party plugs available. But again, if you know what you’re doing then you won’t need many plug-ins anyway.

[fmr]

Regarding Linux, if you know what you’re doing it is actually quite good for music production. You can install a low latency “real-time” kernel for most distros, and software like Bitwig Studio and Tracktion Waveform is very capable. Sure, there is a lack of third party plugs available. But again, if you know what you’re doing then you won’t need many plug-ins anyway.

If you know what you're doing, why do you need Linux?

You can use whatever fits you, but Linux isn't exactly the easiest to deal with, no matter how you try to turn it (IMO). Anyway, you seem to turn things upside down. We don't choose the tools based on the OS, we choose the tools, and then install the OS necessary to work with them. If I think Logic is my number one choice, then I have no other choice then run OS X, do I?

The same way, if I decide I really need to work with Pro Tools, I have no option then choose either OS X or Windows. All this Linux talk is just a waste of time. The tools are what matters the most, not the OS. All I want from the OS is that it keeps itself away of my work.

Sure, if you think Bitwig Studio or REAPER is your tool of choice, and you are sure you will not need anything else, then you can go with Linux. But the question still remains: WHICH LINUX?

I constantly see people here complaining that this or that isn't working in their Linux system, and getting questioned: What distro are you using????? Come again? WHAT DISTRO? Isn't all of it Linux?

[KBSoundSmith]

Regarding Linux and its application in professional use for other industries...the music business isn't really a professional industry. Most of the products (eg plug-ins) are sold to consumers/hobbyists or professional want-to-bes, who at home already have a mac or windows computer. I just don't see the value of developing for Linux in this context.

[chk071]

Regarding Linux and its application in professional use for other industries...the music business isn't really a professional industry. Most of the products (eg plug-ins) are sold to consumers/hobbyists or professional want-to-bes, who at home already have a mac or windows computer.

Although i disagree on this, and consider DAW's and many plugins pretty "professional" software, i also have to wonder out of which hat that "professional software" argument has been pulled. I don't know any "professional" industry mainly, or largely using Linux. That's a myth, at best.

Also, the area where Linux is mainly used, running servers, is pretty different to the home, or business computer area. You need highly customizable software there, and don't necessarily need to run GUI's as well, so, of course Linux will be prominent there. What i also always have to laugh about is arguing that Linux is big on the smartphone market, because of Android. Well... that's rather a perfect example of a major corporation picking up Open Source projects, to screw their closed source apps on top of it. Actually, it's a big argument AGAINST Linux, because it's a perfect example for a software made by a big company, with big ressources, and a big budget. Just nonsense, but, that's what i mostly hear, from that corner. Anyway, Android isn't Linux anyway. And, Google is already working on the successor, which doesn't use a Linux kernel.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

[KBSoundSmith]

Regarding Linux and its application in professional use for other industries...the music business isn't really a professional industry. Most of the products (eg plug-ins) are sold to consumers/hobbyists or professional want-to-bes, who at home already have a mac or windows computer.

Although i disagree on this, and consider DAW's and many plugins pretty "professional" software, i also have to wonder out of which hat that "professional software" argument has been pulled. I don't know any "professional" industry mainly, or largely using Linux. That's a myth, at best.

Sorry, my meaning must have been unclear. I wasn't saying that the software available isn't professional or -- there's a significant amount of high quality software on the market! I'm saying that the end users by and large are not professionals, but hobbyists and aspiring professionals. And most end users already have a home computer which is either mac or windows. Aside from the occasional non-conformist who interprets Linux as a way of differentiating themselves from the rest of society (or the occasional computer professional who has a professional reason to use Linux), I know extremely few people who use Linux for home computing (specifically laptops and desktops).

[chk071]

Sorry, my meaning must have been unclear. I wasn't saying that the software available isn't professional or -- there's a significant amount of high quality software on the market! I'm saying that the end users by and large are not professionals, but hobbyists and aspiring professionals.

Ok, fair enough. And i agree with that.

[low_low]

What i also always have to laugh about is arguing that Linux is big on the smartphone market, because of Android. Well... that's rather a perfect example of a major corporation picking up Open Source projects, to screw their closed source apps on top of it. Actually, it's a big argument AGAINST Linux, because it's a perfect example for a software made by a big company, with big ressources, and a big budget.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It seems like you're conflating "Linux" with "Free", or something. The supposition is that if a Steinberg were to make a Cubase for Linux that they would be charging for it, not that it would be open source, and obviously that would be "software made by a big company, with big ressources[sic], and a big budget.", so I don't see how that is a refutation of the idea.

In general I think the fact that the Linux kernel is free and that so many people who talk about Linux application and really mean FREE applications is part of the problem. In business, very few people are using Linux distributions that are free, and they are paying for software .. and usually paying a LOT for commercial software, to do things they can't do on Windows boxes. Linux in that context is definitely NOT free. And there's absolutely no reason that home users can't be charged for software licenses likewise.

As far as I'm concerned it's the Linux people who go around demanding access to everything for free (and there are a lot of them) who are standing in the way of Linux being used as a desktop operating system. Perfect example, go search for something like "Linux music software", and all you're going to get is things like a list for 2018 of the top 10 open source Linux music applications. You'd be hard pressed to find commercial software, and that's the problem ... it's not a GUI issue, Linux GUI code is fine, it's mostly a branding problem, a perception problem. It also doesn't help that 10+ years ago Linux was a PITA to work with.

It's ironic to me that an operating system that big business pays out of the ass to use is the same operating system that has such a cheapskate home user base that mostly only uses Linux because they can't afford anything else. It's like watching some kid play marbles ... except instead of being able to afford "real marbles" like all the other kids they're playing with DIAMONDS and RUBIES that they found in their mother's jewelry box.

[low_low]

It's ironic to me that an operating system that big business pays out of the ass to use is the same operating system that has such a cheapskate home user base that mostly only uses Linux because they can't afford anything else. It's like watching some kid play marbles ... except instead of being able to afford "real marbles" like all the other kids they're playing with DIAMONDS and RUBIES that they found in their mother's jewelry box.

For people who don't fully comprehend the above ... Oracle Linux (as an example) has a 5 tier pricing structure, and tier 2 "Oracle Linux Basic Limited" runs 499.00$us/box per year, and if you move up to a 3 year for Tier 5 "Oracle Linux Premier" you're talking 6897.00$us/box, and that's before you drop 20,000$us on an Enterprise License for Oracle Database to run on top of it.

Oh, and you can also run Audacity

[Autobot]

I see a lot of Zebra² brain overloads