Your opinion about Zebra 2

[vurt]

I remember thinking that zebra 1 sounded pretty good for a soft synth, this was eons ago

pfft, i remember zebra, when the only way you could use it, was to have urs, come round with a usb stick!

Are you sure it wasn't a CD-ROM?

But yeah, that long ago, huh? 2003?

may have been a cd?
indeed, been a long time!
had been hoping to get over last year for the synth convention, but well, you know...

[ghettosynth]

...

[ghettosynth]

...

[pdxindy]

This...

I just had the case yesterday. Had a sound in my mind that I wanted to create, so, I booted up Massive X, which I like a lot, to see if it can do it. I just couldn't make it work for that sound. So I booted up the Super 8 demo, simply because I hadn't used it for a while, and, bam. Out of the box, I was able to go where I want to be.

...is perfectly valid. Sorry, this is what everyone does about everything that they're not expert on. They use the tool that gets the job done for them. Expecting the average user to be able to articulate precisely why they would prefer Super 8 over Massive X in every situation is absurd. It sounds like HZ has optimized his workflow around the idea of learning a synth inside and out, good for him. That's not necessarily efficient for everyone. You seem to be dismissing the value that dedicating your life to music/sound contributes to your understanding of same.

If he knew Massive X well enough, he would have known to use Super 8 right from the start!

[Urs]

Well, my point is, making a synth complex enough to get pretty much any job done is not a disadvantage over having a dozen separate synths which let one quickly do this or that. In my opinion the opposite is true, while "many simple things" sound like one gets things done quickly, one still has to deal with all the different ways that these do the same thing. Therefore spending the time to learn one complex tool removes the redundancies. Therefore, the complexity of the one tool can be lower overall than the complexity of the combined simple tools. The example given (Massive -> Super is a good negative example for my point.

Also, words matter. I never said both incidences are of the same nature. I just find the example of wasted time very fitting, because no matter if one was accidental, the other was surely not intentional either. I therefore tied them together to express my above point from the other perspective, which is the potential frustration of the false promise that "many things you don't need to learn well" outdo "things you need to spend time with". I can't remember ever advertising Zebra as a simple tool, or implying such, but there's of course a reason for that. And that - in my books - is *not* a disadvantage, no matter how often it is framed as such.

Lastly, the story of why we did ZebraHZ and whether or not Hans is or isn't like any other customer is a rather complex matter. Let's just say that, as a synth designer, I'm confident enough to disagree with Hans on many aspects, and I have a different vision of Zebra than what he needed when he needed it. However, there wouldn't be a Diva either without him, so there's that, and all of it is connected.

[chk071]

This...

Just wrote a longer post, and then close the tab accidentally... ARGH...

... and that...

I just couldn't make it work for that sound. So I booted up...

... are somehow entangled. Had you spent the time to learn one synth inside out, you'd have known beforehand what it can or can't do. But by not doing so you wasted time, just like accidentally closing a tab.

Accidentally closing a tab is an unintended waste of time, but, it's a stretch to compare this to the balance of needing to learn a synth inside out prior to knowing what it can or cannot do.

(and yes, the "story" is real and HZ has learned one synth inside out - one synth that does all he needs after I added certain features - and thereby vastly improved his workflow)

I doubt very much that HZ is representative of your customers. In any case, you did not adjust Zebra to meet each of our needs. Nobody (here) expects that, but you're projecting HZs individual experience onto others. Learning any synth inside and out has an opportunity cost and that is EXACTLY what some of your customers in this thread are talking about. They are saying that, for them, the opportunity cost of Zebra isn't worth the value derived. Of course you don't have to do anything at all about that, but that doesn't invalidate their POV.

This...

I just had the case yesterday. Had a sound in my mind that I wanted to create, so, I booted up Massive X, which I like a lot, to see if it can do it. I just couldn't make it work for that sound. So I booted up the Super 8 demo, simply because I hadn't used it for a while, and, bam. Out of the box, I was able to go where I want to be.

...is perfectly valid. Sorry, this is what everyone does about everything that they're not expert on. They use the tool that gets the job done for them. Expecting the average user to be able to articulate precisely why they would prefer Super 8 over Massive X in every situation is absurd. It sounds like HZ has optimized his workflow around the idea of learning a synth inside and out, good for him. That's not necessarily efficient for everyone. You seem to be dismissing the value that dedicating your life to music/sound contributes to your understanding of same.

Further, his (chk071's) point is valid here. I've watched countless tutorials and interviews from top artist, producers, and mixers who are not experts on everything that they use and they articulate exactly the same point. That they have preferences for some piece of kit because it gets the job done for them. This is often attributed to some perception and not necessarily anything technical. I suspect that HZ is actually the outlier here and that most professionals do, in fact, need to get the job done quickly and don't learn everything that they use "inside and out."

Not that I necessarily disagree with you (or you disagree with my points), but, I find it rather interesting that you minimize synth preference to a lack of experience. I don't think that's really true. At least I was always under the impression that about every musician out there has certain instrument preferences.

Let me give you another example: I've been using Dune CM a lot, before I began to buy synths. As much as I found it a synth which is well suited for learning, and has a great overall architecture, I couldn't get a single decent supersaw/pluck sound from it, no matter how hard I tried. The unison always sounded somewhat unpleasant (somewhat fizzy, with no brilliant top end at all), not wide enough with stereo spread (not nearly as wide as Sylenth1, for example), and the filters and envelopes also didn't lend themselves at all to plucky, or snappy sound. I tried to EQ it, to bet more top end, and make the sound a bit more beefy, which actually didn't quite help. In the end, I just gave up on it, because, there was just no way to get it to sound the way I wanted it to sound.

What I mostly experienced here is that the people who will tell you that you didn't try hard enough, are mostly the people who don't care about such sounds as the ones in my example at all, and make psychedelic rock or something, while arguing the whole time that the synth doesn't matter, but it's the skill of the synth programmer. Talking about inexperience. Maybe you should just remain silent, if you don't even program such sounds.

Anyway, to continue on my example above: There are synths which excel in such sounds, like Sylenth1 or Spire. They can't do wavetable though, so, I use Largo or Massive X for that. Largo has a shitty supersaw, so, I wouldn't use it for supersaw sounds. Massive X has some nice analog modelled filters, which Sylenth1 or Spire don't have. And so, and so forth. Soft synths are one trick ponies, for the most part. Zebra can do a lot, I'm sure about that. Can it do everything in super high quality? I'm doubtful. I haven't come across such a synth yet, software or hardware. That's basically all that I wanted to say.

[toonertik]

This...

I just had the case yesterday. Had a sound in my mind that I wanted to create, so, I booted up Massive X, which I like a lot, to see if it can do it. I just couldn't make it work for that sound. So I booted up the Super 8 demo, simply because I hadn't used it for a while, and, bam. Out of the box, I was able to go where I want to be.

...is perfectly valid. Sorry, this is what everyone does about everything that they're not expert on. They use the tool that gets the job done for them. Expecting the average user to be able to articulate precisely why they would prefer Super 8 over Massive X in every situation is absurd. It sounds like HZ has optimized his workflow around the idea of learning a synth inside and out, good for him. That's not necessarily efficient for everyone. You seem to be dismissing the value that dedicating your life to music/sound contributes to your understanding of same.

If he knew Massive X well enough, he would have known to use Super 8 right from the start!

LMFAO>>>

[ghettosynth]

...

[ghettosynth]

Well, my point is, making a synth complex enough to get pretty much any job done is not a disadvantage over having a dozen separate synths which let one quickly do this or that.

It most certainly can be. It depends on how one thinks about instruments and sounds. Should one program the snare you need or find the sample? Well that depends. If it will take you an hour to program but five minutes to find the sample that works then, clearly, the more complex approach will put you at a disadvantage.

That is the point. The opportunity cost of learning a synth with a complex synth is non-negligible.

[gentleclockdivider]

Well, my point is, making a synth complex enough to get pretty much any job done is not a disadvantage over having a dozen separate synths which let one quickly do this or that.

Exactemundo , and for me zebra is not even complex enough but it's part of my holly trinity of synths with which I do almost everything .
Zebra , tranzistow and reaktor , talmod for fast results .

The age of 'simplifying things 'is over , let it be complex

[Dirtgrain]

I've been using Dune CM a lot, before I began to buy synths. As much as I found it a synth which is well suited for learning, and has a great overall architecture, I couldn't get a single decent supersaw/pluck sound from it, no matter how hard I tried. The unison always sounded somewhat unpleasant (somewhat fizzy, with no brilliant top end at all), not wide enough with stereo spread (not nearly as wide as Sylenth1, for example), and the filters and envelopes also didn't lend themselves at all to plucky, or snappy sound.

Dune is a synth known for its great super saws, unison, and filters, no?

[Dirtgrain]

So, for me, learning tools like Zebra, especially when they're a convoluted product as they are now, is a bad investment of time.

Convoluted? It has never felt that way to me. It's the synth I learned on, and it's pretty well set up (I would like a faster way to select wave tables--especially the basic ones, but it's not that bad). I love the structure of it, and it has some unique effects.

I also think that people make decisions about which synth to purchase based on how much fun they think that it will be. I never found Zebra to be fun, similarly, I never found the K2K to be fun. I put up with it because of the limited alternatives at the time, but I was happy to move on.

That's weird to me, as making music is fun to me, and I get inspired by sounds I create in synths. But I'm not meaning to argue against your experience. Just, I have plenty of fun using Zebra 2 and making music.

[ghettosynth]

...

[chk071]

I've been using Dune CM a lot, before I began to buy synths. As much as I found it a synth which is well suited for learning, and has a great overall architecture, I couldn't get a single decent supersaw/pluck sound from it, no matter how hard I tried. The unison always sounded somewhat unpleasant (somewhat fizzy, with no brilliant top end at all), not wide enough with stereo spread (not nearly as wide as Sylenth1, for example), and the filters and envelopes also didn't lend themselves at all to plucky, or snappy sound.

Dune is a synth known for its great super saws, unison, and filters, no?

All that I'll be saying about that (I know I will attract the usual suspects anyway...) is that Dune 2/3 is quantum leaps ahead of Dune 1 in terms of that, and, it's still not my favorite synths for that.

Sylenth1 & Spire are THE synths for me for such sounds. Anything else is rather second class for those. YMMV.

Out of personal interest: Do you do music which relies a lot on such sounds?

[ghettosynth]

...