Zebra 2.9 released

[krans]

Extras: different GUI, Diva filters, per voice compressors, resonators. Also, The Dark Zebra owners get Zebra 3 for free when released.

But Zebrify is the same in Zebra2 and ZebraHZ, right?

[e@rs]

Yes. There's no ZebrifyHZ.

[twolegstoneworks]

In the preset-browser: Can I rename the favorites 1-8 into something more useful?

Cant find any info on this in the manual.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

In the preset-browser: Can I rename the favorites 1-8 into something more useful?

Cant find any info on this in the manual.

They recently said it's on the to-do list for some point, but as of right now, you cannot.

[Hanz Meyzer]

They recently said it's on the to-do list for some point, but as of right now, you cannot.

Even not by hacking some xml config file? EDIT: NO

[Hanz Meyzer]

Hi,

Zebrify is so great, but I am always forgetting about it. Turns out that it also works fantastic as a saturator for drums and basses, so an excellent mixing tool.

I have a question regarding the fold module: It does not provide a mix amount, just like the ableton saturator. I guess this is done by purpose? Since if I then add a dry signal lane to the mix, it seems to cause some kind of phase issues. So does the fold module introduce some PDC and this PDC will not be compensated within the mixing grid?

Also, is there a way in Zebrify to control the input volume per lane? And if I use all 4 lanes, how can I get a signal to lane 4 with only having 2 mix devices available?

And then a last question: If I muted a lane, and the lane does not leak into other lanes, will the modules disabled / cpu circumvented, no matter if enabled or not?

[gentleclockdivider]

I think the wavefolder is oversampled by default , that's why you are getting phase issues wen dry/wet mixing (same applies to the xmf filter , and regular tyrell , ms20 filter ), introducing 4 samples of delay
You can easily test this by just inserting an xmf or wavefolder on a separate lane , take the input from the first (dry) lane and left /right hard panning
Someone correct me if wrong

[Hanz Meyzer]

Nice investigation, thanks.

[twolegstoneworks]

They recently said it's on the to-do list for some point, but as of right now, you cannot.

Even not by hacking some xml config file? EDIT: NO

Ok, thanks.. both of you

[Howard]

You could try using another wavefolder on the "dry" part as well, but set to the least effect possible.
Maybe like this:
.

Screenshot 2020-02-18 at 22.50.23 .png

[Hanz Meyzer]

Ah, nice workaround, thanks.

[cantaloupe]

Most Factory presets are "clipping" here (checked with Hornet VU Meter, default settings) Many goes waay beyond 0VU - I don't understand why? Why not turn the output down before making the presets on a commercial synth?

1) There are huge volume differences between presets
2) Many of them are clipping
3) Somewhat fewer presets are clipping with FX on, many more clipping with FX off (i usually disable FX)

Earlier in this thread, a u-he employee said that 2.9 had reduced output on most presets - but obviously not enough. Some needs massive reduction to not "clip". This is with a fresh install, so no legacy issues messing with the new presets.

I find that sounds that appear quite ugly and abrasive can be usable if i just reduce the output. I am struggling to understand why a competent company like u-he wouldn't go through their presets with a VU meter and stop this madness.

I have gone through a lot of presets and reducing volume manually (testing different octaves and velocities to find a good average), but it is a lot of work, i would expect this to be done by the synth, especially at this price.It is the same thing with many Bazille presets as well. Puzzling.

On a more positive note, i am loving the D-50 textures i can get out of Zebra. Fits perfectly together with the solidity of Bazille tone.

[EvilDragon]

Why not just drop the volume on the track in the DAW? This is something I routinely do no matter the virtual instrument I'm using.

That said, I cannot confirm clipping in the latest ZHZ release after picking like three dozen patches randomly.

[Urs]

Maybe because Hornet VU Meter has a default reference at -18dB. Hence, it seems to clip whenever the software before reaches -18dB...?

(-18dB was important for tape recording, but it isn't important anymore for digital recording with 32 bit floating point mixdown and normalisation afterwards)

[cantaloupe]

Why not just drop the volume on the track in the DAW? This is something I routinely do no matter the virtual instrument I'm using.

Why should that be necessary though? Why is the average preset seemingly always "slightly too loud or way too loud to the point where you have to deal with it"? Why not just have a reasonable volume?

I also run plugins after the instrument which is not affected by the DAW fader, so i need an okay volume into the next plugin in the chain. You kind of prove my point - why is the default too loud so you need to routinely turn it down?

Maybe because Hornet VU Meter has a default reference at -18dB. Hence, it seems to clip whenever the software before reaches -18dB...?

Isn't most "analog modelling" plugins calibrated for around -18dB=0?
When presets both light up the Reaper lamp, sounds way too loud perceptibly, and goes way beyond the -18dB on my VU meter (and the meters on my post-zebra plugins), it doesn't matter to me that floating point have infinite headroom. The plugins i use definitely doesnt have that. Or do you not recommend using a VU meter for general gain staging at all? (Not rhetorical btw, i'm always open to the fact that i might be in the wrong, misinformed or have flawed methods of mixing).

As far as i know, a lot of people use VU meters like Hornet and Klanghelm VUMT to help with gain staging ITB - it seems to me like a reasonable thing to do, despite floating point, since nonlinear processing needs to be properly gain staged as well.