Dear Zebra

[madmod001]

Sampling in Zebra

I agree totally with Urs that I don’t really like the sound or performance of synth samples when used in a normal sampling context, but there are are places where it can be incredibly useful .. read on

I will quickly also point out that acoustic instruments are totally different, for a purist (non synthesis) sound something like Falcon or a decent library for Kontakt is great for that. This is not the feature request I am putting forward, nor do I particularly want it in zebra.

Over the years I have accumulated many recordings of expensive instruments recorded with expensive mics and pre’s

Take for example:

The resin sizzle of a Francois Xavier Tourte bow on a set of gut strings on a Duport Stradivarius Cello.

If you where a professional cellist you would know that sound and tone, and you would have to pay big $$ for it. But even if you didn’t have a musical bone in your body, just a simple bowed E note on that baby (with its bow, strings set up) will take your breath away. It has a particular resonance that just melts the soul. Like wise for other top end acoustic instruments, they all have something different.

now if the zebra oscillator had a simple sample player option (bottom tab down where you can select waveform) you could drop that melting cello tone in and FM it, oscillator FX, whatever, you got lots of sonic mileage with a little organic flavour that you can try quickly and it’s ever expandable. It’s also a different sound (more blended and cohesive) to layering in a daw and it’s a hella lot faster.

I could fill a tread with other uses but I’m sure you can probably get the gist of it, but do take a moment to think about the increase in sonic range

It is nothing new, but is an incredibly useful thing to have in a work horse synth in pre production. Suffice to say you can do this in a ton of other synths, but they all sound different to Zebra.

Even the raw sample playback engines can sound different from synth to synth. (There’s Another thread)

And at the end of the day Zebra is the one that resonates with me, the workflow, sonic range, sound etc etc. I have spent many hundreds of hours in it, created tons of patches and it just fits like an old pair of shoes. I it can cover a ton of sonic landscape and you still have places to go. But if you want to hear a particular type of organic tone eg that melting cello.. well ..

Sure you have other options but they are not a simple drag and drop like they would be with a single sample oscillator.

Note to edit
Unfortunately some people didn’t take the original post as it was intended, as it had some joking in it, anyway one member mention that the overall feature was best spoken about without the jokes. So I rewrote it.

[Shiek927]

Well, THAT sure was something haha!

But I understand the sentiment of wanting Zebra2 to be a bit more approachable. It genuinely isn't so bad with practice, but superb sound through limited options is what Diva and Hive is all about.

One thing that's always been good about Zebra2 is that you only ever see what is actually loaded up, so you'll only see one oscillator if there's only one on. I wonder what the evolution of this could be so that Zebra3 could potentially be even easier to use if simplicity is what you're after, versus loading up more modules and making a much more complex patch.

[madmod001]

No, I’m fine with Zebra, I don’t need her to make me a cup of tea or wipe my bottom for me, I prefer coffee anyway.

I don’t know if you have seen Urs comments before about sampling in synths?

Basically..He doesn’t like it..

So the whole point of the exercise was to make a last ditch effort to try to convince Urs to put a simple sample player in the Zebra OSC.

I’m sure Urs is a bit sick of hearing it, so I thought I would put a different spin to it and have some fun along the way..

[clangorous]

It seems like worlds colliding Jerry! It's not that I'm a purist about synths versus samplers. But I do like the purity of Zebra.

Still, assuming I understand correctly that layering is a challenge for creating the sounds you hear in your head, specifically because the filters and such won't blend easily, then Zebrify is made to order for just this purpose. It even goes farther and gives you envelope and pitch detection and all the filters and modulation. AND FMO and Comb modules. So with the awesome Zebrify available I don't understand the need to add sampling into Zebra.

[daily patcher]

I hope Zebra has some pepper spray tucked away in the FX section.

[spunkmuffin]

eew creepy crawly

[madmod001]

Still, assuming I understand correctly that layering is a challenge for creating the sounds you hear in your head, specifically because the filters and such won't blend easily, then Zebrify is made to order for just this purpose. It even goes farther and gives you envelope and pitch detection and all the filters and modulation. AND FMO and Comb modules. So with the awesome Zebrify available I don't understand the need to add sampling into Zebra.

Yes Zebrify is cool, I use it frequently, but I tend to use it more for making an Instrument sound synthetic, and that’s not the same texture or usage I’m speaking of.

[madmod001]

Deleted

[clangorous]

Still, assuming I understand correctly that layering is a challenge for creating the sounds you hear in your head, specifically because the filters and such won't blend easily, then Zebrify is made to order for just this purpose. It even goes farther and gives you envelope and pitch detection and all the filters and modulation. AND FMO and Comb modules. So with the awesome Zebrify available I don't understand the need to add sampling into Zebra.

Yes Zebrify is cool, I use it frequently, but I tend to use it more for making an Instrument sound synthetic, and that’s not the same texture or usage I’m speaking of.

OK then I've definitely missed or misunderstood what kind of feature this sampling would provide.

[sekka]

Sampling is a very significant part of synthesis/design and it is pretty damn pitty such a powerful horse can't do it. Because of that I have to use another powerful synth, but I would really like to use less tools and Zebra would be my only choice then.

And "Sampling vs Synthesis" is such a ridiculous issue now when everyone uses samples everywhere and still being alive.

[Urs]

A thought experiment:

If I made a sample playback device with some nice features. But the only samples I add are those of a sine waveform, a sawtooth waveform and a square waveform. So it would be a pretty plain synthesizer, but you could add your own samples. Make your own multisamples. How many would I sell of these?

Now, what if I added a terabyte of absolutely amazing multisamples everything super mapped and mangled all of it you can ever think of?

Exactly.

[Shiek927]

A thought experiment:

If I made a sample playback device with some nice features. But the only samples I add are those of a sine waveform, a sawtooth waveform and a square waveform. So it would be a pretty plain synthesizer, but you could add your own samples. Make your own multisamples. How many would I sell of these?

Now, what if I added a terabyte of absolutely amazing multisamples everything super mapped and mangled all of it you can ever think of?

Exactly.

There's pros and cons to either. If I had a very specific vision in mind, like I wanted to load up my own vocals and run them through Zebra3 as a sample, I wouldn't be able to do that without a sampler. On the other side, there's benefits to limitations and working with constraints and not having every conceivable feature which is what Hive is all about.

Loading up your own samples is powerful, but I wouldn't call it absolutely necessary. One reason why I think the hubbub against Massive X is a bit exaggerated at the moment.

[HTT]

I have other synthesizers that have sample-use capabilities. I have ROMplers. I have samplers. I don’t use them nearly as much as Zebra. Zebra has an “organic” quality as it is now. I find that Zebra responds more like a “real” instrument than synths using samples. So do a good number of plain synthesizers. Samples have their well-deserved place, but I fail to see how adding sampling to Zebra would make it better.

[pdxindy]

My thoughts on adding sample playback to Zebra.

It should for sure not be done in the regular Osc. It would not sound so good with OscFX and so on.

Massive X and Serum both have a "noise" Osc which can play simple samples as say a bowed attack sound to add realism. Serum allows the user to add their own samples and Massive X doesn't but it is otherwise a similar concept.

While I could imagine a very simple module in Zebra for that, using samples brings its own headache. Samples do not transpose well across the keyboard. They don't modulate well and you cannot change the basic timbre based on say velocity or key range. Thus you end up with Kontakt libraries with many layers of multi-samples and complex scripting in order to get realism.

I would rather Zebra stay with pure synthesis. I would rather see development time put towards creating more realistic attacks and noises for simulating acoustic/real instruments. There is fruitful ground for such development (not sure whether it would pay the bills) without depending on samples or incurring the drawbacks of them.

[Shiek927]

My thoughts on adding sample playback to Zebra.

It should for sure not be done in the regular Osc. It would not sound so good with OscFX and so on.

Massive X and Serum both have a "noise" Osc which can play simple samples as say a bowed attack sound to add realism. Serum allows the user to add their own samples and Massive X doesn't but it is otherwise a similar concept.

While I could imagine a very simple module in Zebra for that, using samples brings its own headache. Samples do not transpose well across the keyboard. They don't modulate well and you cannot change the basic timbre based on say velocity or key range. Thus you end up with Kontakt libraries with many layers of multi-samples and complex scripting in order to get realism.

I would rather Zebra stay with pure synthesis. I would rather see development time put towards creating more realistic attacks and noises for simulating acoustic/real instruments. There is fruitful ground for such development (not sure whether it would pay the bills) without depending on samples or incurring the drawbacks of them.

I have to agree! I've dabbled in sampling more this year and unfortunately my efforts haven't really resulted in anything much better than I imagined: realistic, solid sampling requires many, many layers of multi-samples to get the sound you're looking for without the chipmunk effect. It's the sort of thing that can very quickly balloon and you end up with Omnisphere. Not that I dislike Omnisphere at all, but it's sheer size requires not just a very large storage capacity, but an SSD is practically mandatory to avoid very long load-times: whether patches or the just loading an instance of the synth itself.

There's some benefits to sampling without a doubt and it can open up new avenues that weren't otherwise there, but I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting it at all as well. Where-ever you stand, it's definitely not a requirement even though people might want it to be.