Improving u-he standard / synth plugin industry standard

[Hanz Meyzer]

Hi,

since your standard is already that high, I ask you for even more Here are some points that IMHO should be considered as common standard in the virtual synthezier/plugin industry:

1. Lack of additional synth fx plugin versions

WHAT Additional fx plugin. You did this already in Zebra: Every of your synth plugin should provide an additional fx plugin containing the exact fx section of your synth.
WHY The synth's fx often sound pretty good and usually are designed to nicely fit to the synth's sound character. But in various mixing situation in a song context, it simply makes no sense to use it anymore due placement limitations. Examples: Multilayering multiple synth instances, very common these days. Or special stereo and panning treatments. Or external compression. etc. etc.
WHO Zebra fx lacks of preset import AFAIK. All other of your synths need a fx plugin. You could charge a small extra amount from synth owners, and a bigger amount from new customers.

WHAT Copy/paste buffer realized in human readable (text) format, cross plugin compatible. So you could copy a preset in Zebra, and then paste it to Zebra FX, or a note pad. See Melda plugins as reference, or Renoise while opened with multiple instances. Ideally the fx version also uses the exact same presets and preset directories for the saved versions.
WHY Saving the preset in the file directory structure is cumbersome. You would to have to manage the same contents multiple times. Also this would simplify a lot of other workflows.
WHO Any synth

2. Lack of layering/mixing filters/tools

WHAT Commonly you layer multiple instances of a synth these days, to overcome limitations mostly, or doing fancy stereo/doubling techniques. Most of your (and all other) synths lack of layering filters. This could be provided by other filter plugins or the DAW, but maybe you know best what sounds best. Also you could provide here key following filters. Also layered instances could cross communicate to provide parameters like "collection detuning", so once a parameter was connected thru the layered instances, the parameter could spread in an intelligent way, etc.
WHY Ease of use. Better sound.
WHO Any synth

3. Multiple outputs

WHAT For each OSC / routing lane, there whould be at least one extra additional stereo output.
WHY In a modern DAW world, you can then route outputs to different fx or use it as sidechain etc.etc. or even mangling multiple outputs with different (cross-)processors.
WHO Any of your synth

Thanks for consideration

P.S. You also could consider to do one single fx plugin with ALL of your synths' fxs, and then make it preset compatible with all of them The result might even restructure your code base in a nice way with less effort to manage...

[Urs]

I know you mean well, but sheesh...

Historically we would have had 1. if we had been able to follow the path of mono synths. Unfortunately, mono synths are not anything ton be considered with "the standard we set" - people voted with their wallet -, and thus we postponed that then, and our implementation with it. The idea is still out there, but we do not have a priority for it. So yeah, would love to do it, but other things seem a lot more important.

We have several synths which can do layers in one way or another. Three in particular (Hive, Bazille and Zebra) can be used a layered synths easily. The difference between our synths and common layered synths is that in our synths the layers can interact. We avoid redundancy and tediousness by offering reusable modulation across a range of layers, and we offer routing audio from one layer to another. On the downside, you can't just copy & paste layers together.

(The argument of "better sound" through layering is highly debatable IMHO...)

Multiple Outputs are on our ToDo list for the next major upgrade of Zebra.

[Hanz Meyzer]

Hi, thanks for your quick answer. Sorry, if my text implied somehow that layering was not possible currently or any feature which actually is already possible. Of course layering is possible right now, only limited in numbers. I would love to layer two Hives, and then put the Hive fx on the dsp lane in the DAW. And pan the reverb and the dry signal then, or doing some fancy dual reverb panned hard left and right. Such things.

[Urs]

Hi, thanks for your quick answer. Sorry, if my text implied somehow that layering was not possible currently or any feature which actually is already possible. Of course layering is possible right now, only limited in numbers. I would love to layer two Hives, and then put the Hive fx on the dsp lane in the DAW. And pan the reverb and the dry signal then, or doing some fancy dual reverb panned hard left and right. Such things.

Hehehe, quick info: Since V2.1 you can pan reverb and delay in Hive

[Hanz Meyzer]

Nice! Thx for the hint. Now a panning for the normal output, too? Since now, you can't pan the "dry" signal full left and delay full right, for example, only 50%:50%.

[imrae]

I’m not at all a fan of full A/B layers in soft synths. It makes patches and presets more difficult to understand, with a worse workflow than opening two instances side-by-side.

Using simple voices as pseudo-layers within a single patch on the other hand is useful. This is quite straightforward in Zebra and Hive.

[pierb]

Of course, layers can be achieved somewhat with Zebra 2, but I'd love to see an improvement on this for Zebra 3.

For example, only a single arpeggiator can run on a patch. In Dune there are 2 arps that can run independently, and you can add layers on top of that that can run without arps.

Another limitation in Zebra 2 that I've encountered many times while trying to produce complex layered patches are the effects. For example, you can't have 3 layers, each with its own delay and reverb. There are only two delays, and only one reverb of each. Why limit users in the number of effects instances that can be used? Also, why only three buses (main + bus 1 + bus 2)?

It can be argued that all these limitations can be easily overcome by moving layers/effects to the DAW, which is true for end users. But this puts Zebra at a disadvantage compared to something like Omnisphere while considering third party libraries for media composers. Sound designers cannot offer complex layered sounds with Zebra which are very common in the cinematic world where Omnisphere is extremely popular both as a synth and a rompler.

Finally, something I'd like to see in Zebra is a better way to package/distribute preset libraries:

- Cover images for libraries
- Better description for patches and libraries
- Single file distribution instead of folders
- Perform snapshots (a series of scenes with XY settings for users to quickly modify a preset)

[AnX]

Layers are pretty much useless except for one area, percussion

You can use all the layers to model each part of a drum sound without the pain of loading 8 instances of a synth for such a small detail

Layering sounds is just more practical and useful by loading diff instances

(Yeah, you can't save it as a preset, nobody cares, you're making the sound YOU need, stop worrying about everyone else)

[EvilDragon]

(Yeah, you can't save it as a preset, nobody cares, you're making the sound YOU need, stop worrying about everyone else)

Or you can save it as a track template in the DAW, at the very least!

[pdxindy]

For example, only a single arpeggiator can run on a patch. In Dune there are 2 arps that can run independently, and you can add layers on top of that that can run without arps.

Another limitation in Zebra 2 that I've encountered many times while trying to produce complex layered patches are the effects. For example, you can't have 3 layers, each with its own delay and reverb. There are only two delays, and only one reverb of each. Why limit users in the number of effects instances that can be used? Also, why only three buses (main + bus 1 + bus 2)?

It can be argued that all these limitations can be easily overcome by moving layers/effects to the DAW, which is true for end users.

I prefer to do all that stuff in the DAW. It is far more flexible and I never get dead-ended (meaning I don't have to backtrack cause all single synths end up with cul-de-sacs).

I avoid buying layered synths cause I find they have a clumsier workflow and I wont be using the layered part anyway so it is redundant. I don't like designing sounds in Dune. Plus I generally like using my favorite vst FX more than the built-in ones in synths. And I often want to eq the wet signal.

I would rather Zebra 3 stay in the same neighborhood as Zebra 2

[rockmachine]

The answer to many of the above issues lay in Reason's amazingly useful Combinator. If you use Reason of course.

[pierb]

The answer to many of the above issues lay in Reason's amazingly useful Combinator. If you use Reason of course.

Or Ableton Live's racks, or Bitwig's groups.

But this doesn't solve the problem of making layered presets for others.