U-HE Zebra 3 Alpha Prototype Developments

[Alexander137]

Something similar to spectral splines is implemented in Vital and I really enjoy playing with it. Here, it seems that Urs has gone even deeper and there are many more modes of using it (spectral decay looks like a thing that I want to try as soon as possible).
Cool!

[Ah_Dziz]

I feel like it's been covered, but will z3 be able to load z2 patches ?

Just watched that video... I'm very excited to fiddle with the new version of any of this stuff.

I was told, "No" further up in the thread.

Even if there ends up being some sort of patch converter, for sure they will not sound the same.

That would be fine. I just want to be able to modify some of the crap I've made over the years and use mpe without having to rebuild everything.

[StrangeSatellite]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

[Caine123]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

thats where presets come in i guess .
otherwise i think for bread and butter sounds people are covered with Serum etc. and some flexibility. but if some popular project/artist uses zebra 3 then all want zebra ;D

[enCiphered]

Indeed, its vast array of controls and capabilities might seem overwhelming at first glance. However, I believe that this depth of customization is not just for sound design enthusiasts. It's a powerful tool for every musician who seeks to craft truly unique and expressive sounds.

[Double Tap]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

I think it depends to what extent your music requires novel or evolving sounds. You're right that if you just need a solid sound which isn't new - whether that's a piano or a double bass or an 80s synth vox - then you won't find anything particularly compelling in something like Zebra.

Synthesis is kind of like orchestration. You can treat either as an entirely separate process to composition, or sometimes they kind of blend into composition, but both are essentially about creating an overall sound that help form a piece of music.

[Urs]

It is a synth made for that moment/thing/situation where that level of control is required.

It is however possible to completely ignore the depth and stick to the simple editors on the main UI.

[Fannon]

It is a synth made for that moment/thing/situation where that level of control is required.

It is however possible to completely ignore the depth and stick to the simple editors on the main UI.

I think that's the key. If on the surface you can keep it nice and simple - and have great presets with Macro Knobs or Y/Y Pads, then the synth is still very accessible. But with all the in-depth sound design possibilities Urs is showing, I hope that some sound designers can make presets with it that will push the boundaries of what you could get out of other synths.

[NAD]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

What you're saying is essentially true about synthesizers in general. To the uninitiated, even a simple subtractive mono-synth looks like some sci-fi spaceship control panel. Those musicians who are looking for solid sounds and who do not wish to tinker, well, they can pick up a guitar. But just make sure it's acoustic. Better yet, get a piano.

[a9k1tp]

Always hated having GigaBytes of wavetables and preset packs, which is similar to romplers. Thanks for not going in that direction u-he.

[PieBerger]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

There is plenty of space in the market for so-called tinkerer's and musicians to coexist and for music production tools to exist that are optimised towards either or and sometimes both demographics. Not every synth has to appeal to everyone, all of the time for all purposes; specialism are allowed and are healthy imo. For those of us who enjoy the joy of exploring sound as an end in itself, synths like Zebra3 are (will be, technically) present an exciting new cosmos to navigate and discover previously unexplored sonic territory, whereas for those needing synths sounds, simply as a means to an end, will likely favour products like Arturia's V Collection, for example for tried and tested solutions.

Neither is inherently good or bad or better or worse than the other, just different. It's also worth remembering that synth pioneers like Theremin, Moog and Buchla etc. were the tinkerer's of their time, developing products, that previously did not exist nor have any clear intended musical purpose and in fact were rejected by many so-called musicians in the early days. That's one of the wonders of technology, it comes first and then we as a species determine how meaningful or not it becomes, at later date. Case in point, we won't really know how useful Z3's detailed editing will become for your average musician, until enough average musician's have tried in their numbers to find a use for such features.

[pdxindy]

Unpopular opinion here, but do musicians really want this kind of over-the-top flexibility? It seems like a synth for people who like to tinker with sounds or maybe sound designers, but as a musician looking for solid sounds to create songs with, this looks like a good way to get lost in the details and never produce anything. I can’t imagine needing anywhere close to this level of control over the waveform. I admire Urs and some of his other synths are central to my songwriting, but this really seems like a synth made for programmers.

That's not an unpopular opinion. Lots of people only use presets and at most modify them slightly. Maybe the majority of people do that.

Lots of people who only use presets (synthesis and/or samples) will spend quite a bit of time auditioning those presets/samples. Someone might listen to dozens of basses or dozens of tom samples to find one that suits them in that project.

So lots of people want a precise level of control... some on having lots of presets/samples to choose from, others having sophisticated synthesis tools.

Here's my perspective as someone who likes to do sound design. This level of control over the waveform as seen in Zebralette 3 is highly valuable. I have spent so much time over the years, tweaking simple sounds to get them just right in a given use. Adjusting the Amp Env, Filter Env, Filter type and cutoff/resonance settings to get that sound to fall off just as I want.

I'm not talking about complex evolving pads... but rather simple sounds like a bass, drum, hihat, or a pluck. Subtle changes to timbre and how the sound falls off, can make a big difference to human ears and that's why there are so many presets and samples.

Enter Zebralette 3... The ability to quickly adjust the fundamental waveform and then using the OscFX called Spectral Decay, one can easily shape how it falls off over time. A guide curve controls the falloff across the audio spectrum. It may look complicated, but it is direct and precise and, imo, faster.

Zebralette 3 is one of the fastest tools to get from point A to B for simple basic sounds.

[2NDMOUSE]

Can't wait. Knowing Zebra 3 will be a free upgrade because I got the darkzebra bundle, was definitely one of my smarter moves. If that's what ONE osc can do....the combinations of 3 is gonna be mind-blowing

[HOTF]

the fact that zebralette 3 is going to be free and still has all the editing tools for the oscillators is insane to me

[HOTF]