So what's next for U-He?

[vitocorleone123]

Is the Octave Cat off the table ?

The idea died when many people made clear that monophonic synthesizer plug-ins were not anything they'd buy into. The Cat project was shelved in favour of the Repro-5 project, i.e. a polyphonic version of Repro-1.

We'll resurrect it maybe after we clear our backlog of releases and updates.

It’s too bad people are crazy! Of course, as a small business, if there’s no market demand then that’s not a wise thing to chase.

I love and use Pro-1 easily as much as my SE-02. Those are generally the only dedicated monosynths I use on a regular basis.

(Of course Repro-5 and Hive are my favorite software polys, though I should give more love to Diva than I often do).

[pierb]

Not sure if this is planned for Zebra 3 but something I've been seeing in a lot of products it's some sort of wave manipulation. Not to be confused with the wavetable morphing found in wavetable synths.

Audio Damage's Continua has this:


Or the more extreme Waverazor:


Or the ASM PWM from the Hydrasynth which allows you to PWM multiple different bits from the wave cycle (Go to 5:40) :


I'd love to see this in Zebra 3 or even Hive 3.

[Urs]

You mean stuff like Zebra2's OscFX?

[pdxindy]

You mean stuff like Zebra2's OscFX?

[Dirtgrain]

The oscillator effects in Zebra 2 do a lot to waves, and there are so many possible permutations, modulations, settings. Still, I always wonder what if I could get a third oscillator effect? But maybe there is a limit with how far one would want to go.

Waverazor hasn't been that liked here for some reason. Somehow the ability to customize wave segments did not lead to sound that, from my recollection (see the One Synth Challenge that used Waverazor, maybe), impressed the majority here. I don't speak from experience with it, though.

I'm open to these ideas (not knowing if they make sense to someone who understands the inner workings/coding of synths like Zebra).

[pierb]

You mean stuff like Zebra2's OscFX?

I admit I've never paid too much attention to the osc fx in zebra, but I always thought those were actually working on the harmonics. As in, moving and enhancing the partials with math functions, not so much manipulating the actual shape of the wave.

How would you achieve what the ASM PWM in the hydrasynth is doing with the osc fx?

[Viktor [TUC]]

There's no practical difference. Urs will correct me if I'm wrong though.
Any waveform has a certain harmonic structure.
Bending/mangling a waveform means you thereby change its harmonic structure, i.e. the distribution of its overtones.
If you take a simple sine or triangle in Zebra2 and apply any OscFX and look at the resulting waveform in an oscilloscope, you'll see that that's the kind of manipulation you've inquired about. OscFX do ultimately change what the resulting waveform will look like.

I might misinterpret what I see in the Hydrasynth example (which they call PWM, not sure that term is correctly applied there), but it seems to add additional "pulses" in some parts of the triangle wave in that example. The result though is that by changing the waveform you're adding overtones in the harmonic spectrum.
It's basically Hydrasynth's way of letting you draw a custom waveform without a mouse, with just a few knobs.
Zebra2 has tons of ways to add overtones (i.e. mangling/bending the waveform), I'm not sure that the Hydrasynth example provides a particularly unique overtone structure that couldn't be achieved with other means, meaning, other combination of basic waveform drawing plus OscFX or just waveform morphing/blending in Zebra2.

Viktor

[pierb]

There's no practical difference

Yes, manipulation of harmonics is manipulation of waves and vice versa, but I think there is a big practical difference in applying a math function to the harmonics (eg: raising the volume of the odd harmonics) vs directly manipulating the shape of the wave.

Maybe it's possible to achieve what Continua does with Zebra by using 1 morphing oscillator and some osc fx, but I don't see how you could achieve what Waverazor or the Hydrasynth does.

This ASM PWM in the Hydrasynth is actually establishing 8 "warping ranges" which get "compressed" and "expanded" when turning a knob. Those ranges can of course be modulated independently and I think they can overlap too. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how one would do this with Zebra or any other synth.

I'm not totally sure what WaveRazor does. I think it's actually cutting the wave in multiple parts, and each part can then produce different "mini waves". Also it seems each part has some esoteric parameters which can be modulated too.

In Zebra you can define a wavetable and travel back and forth between multiple waves but it's always the same waveforms. The osc fxs allow you to alter those in realtime but these are little black boxes which, unless I'm mistaken, affect the whole waveform in a repeatable and predictable fashion. The ASM PWM in the Hydrasynth could theoretically play a different wave on each cycle, given all 8 warp ranges are modulated independently.

[Viktor [TUC]]

There's no practical difference

Yes, manipulation of harmonics is manipulation of waves and vice versa, but I think there is a big practical difference in applying a math function to the harmonics (eg: raising the volume of the odd harmonics) vs directly manipulating the shape of the wave.

What I meant was, the tools might be different but you get comparable results. Surely the audible result is what matters, you'd only use a different tool to get there.
What would be the difference that you mention there? Maybe I'm overlooking something here.

This ASM PWM in the Hydrasynth is actually establishing 8 "warping ranges" which get "compressed" and "expanded" when turning a knob. Those ranges can of course be modulated independently and I think they can overlap too. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how one would do this with Zebra or any other synth.

Would the result of that not simply be a continuously changing/evolving waveform where harmonics appear and disappear in the spectrum?

In Zebra you can define a wavetable and travel back and forth between multiple waves but it's always the same waveforms.

You get all the "in between" states as well, and if each of the 16 waveform windows uses a completely different form compared to the one before and the one after, you also get many different and unique in-between states that you can target - and you're not bound to simply sweeping back and forth through them, you can randomize which position to play next, and the speed of it. That can already get you very close to the results of what that ASM video shows.

The osc fxs allow you to alter those in realtime but these are little black boxes which, unless I'm mistaken, affect the whole waveform in a repeatable and predictable fashion.

Once you use two OscFX and modulate them differently, plus randomly targetting different waveforms from the wavetable, the result is rather hard to predict.
Or I should say, just as easy or hard to predict as when targetting 8 ASM PWM targets with a modulation source that moves in a predictable or unpredictable fashion.

I do want to admit that I'm basing all this on that one example in that video clip. I certainly don't know what happens when you use ASM PWM on more complex waveforms.
It's not impossible that if I ever have a Hydrasynth in front of me and can play with its features, that I see new and unexpected possibilities.

Zebra2 already has tools that allow evolving and rarely repeating waveform changes.
Of course you're right in saying that that particular tool that Hydrasynth uses to achieve those evolving waveforms, Zebra2 doesn't have that identical tool.

Viktor

[Howard]

Of course you can "pulse width modulate" any waveform in Zebra: Switch on the PWM and modulate Phase. And of course watch it move using an oscilloscope
BTW The guy who made the video (Ricky) isn't alone in being slightly unsure what "modulation" means (see 7:46). That's what you get for labelling pulse width knobs and/or switches "PWM". Zebra2 is also guilty

[Urs]

I always thought those were actually working on the harmonics.

Some work on harmonics (10 in total), others work on shape (about same). "Odd for Even" obviously works on harmonics, "Symmetry" obviously works on shape directly. Some, like "DX", "Trajectory" even place a new waveform - usually a sine - into the oscillator and use the former waveform as a modulator on that.

Manipulating parts of a waveform with either horizontal or vertical windows (as in the examples you mention) has never been much of interest to me. Manipulating parts fo the *spectrum* with creative windows such as the "ChopLift" effect is far more spectacular IMHO.

Anyhow, I'm sure we'll come up with a nice and polished set of new oscillator effects in Zebra3. I've actually got quite a few in mind, some of which are left overs of prototyping things in .uhm. I think .uhm scripting in Hive is a great playground for sonic manipulations of waveforms which possibly could lead to realtime implementation in Zebra3.

Historically I think the first synth to allow for realtime manipulation of waveforms in a similar way was the JP-8000. As opposed to FM, PD, wave scanning etc.

[pierb]

What I meant was, the tools might be different but you get comparable results. Surely the audible result is what matters, you'd only use a different tool to get there.

I agree, although if you listen to a couple of demos of WaveRazor or the ASM PWM of the Hydrasynth I don't think these results are possible with Zebra.

Would the result of that not simply be a continuously changing/evolving waveform where harmonics appear and disappear in the spectrum?

Hmm isn't that the definition of anything that happens in audio?

You get all the "in between" states as well, and if each of the 16 waveform windows uses a completely different form compared to the one before and the one after, you also get many different and unique in-between states that you can target - and you're not bound to simply sweeping back and forth through them, you can randomize which position to play next, and the speed of it. That can already get you very close to the results of what that ASM video shows.

I oversimplified but still, you couldn't simply achieve the same results than with the ASM PWM of the Hydrasynth. Again, that feature is altering parts of the waveform dynamically in realtime. Even if you could define 1000 wavetable waveforms in Zebra you wouldn't be able to achieve that, much less by turning a couple of knobs.

Once you use two OscFX and modulate them differently, plus randomly targetting different waveforms from the wavetable, the result is rather hard to predict.

Probably, but again, the osc fx of zebra (at least the ones that are not targeting harmonic partials) are affecting the whole waveform. You can't define a range, much less 8 ranges.

[pierb]

Of course you can "pulse width modulate" any waveform in Zebra

Indeed, but you can you PWM a range in the waveform, or even 8 ranges? (which is what the Hydrasynth does)

Check this other video with maybe a better explanation than Ricky's video. The ASM PWM explanation starts at 10:29 (it seems KVR doesn't recognize time start times in youtube links...)

[pierb]

Manipulating parts of a waveform with either horizontal or vertical windows (as in the examples you mention) has never been much of interest to me. Manipulating parts fo the *spectrum* with creative windows such as the "ChopLift" effect is far more spectacular IMHO.

I guess it's all very subjective. I've never been able to get anything interesting out of the osc fx in Zebra.

Oh well, I hope you change your mind some day.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion!

[Dirtgrain]

I've never been able to get anything interesting out of the osc fx in Zebra.

How on earth could this be?