Zebra 3 and Zebra Legacy

[misterandy]

But from your screeshots it looks like there will be control A, B, C and D with their own knobs, just like macros. Think that combined with modwheel that will be plenty.

Expanding our assignable MIDI CCs from 2 to 4 is indeed based on the idea that they overlap purpose with macro controls. But even with just 4 CCs, some sound designers are overwhelmed, and we need to put extra effort into this.

Hm, but why feel an obligation to assign a function to all of the available macros/controllers for every patch? They’re optional just like the four MSEGs - don’t use them if you don’t need them. Right? You could alternatively show which macros have an assignment by automatically show a small light or something, maybe. To reduce OCD

[stippenstoh]

Back then when I got Zebra2 I was thrilled about the XYs but then found myself never using them. Personally I would not miss XYs and even prefer a UI without them.

[TENETfanboy]

For what it’s worth, I’ve personally never touched an XY pad on my life

[Cyoon]

I did use them, but likely now I would use Bitwig XY pads or some standard setting with Touche. When I like a sound I start exploring performance options anyway.

[jtsterays]

Yea much prefer macros. That said though, the new XY pad in Massive X that can be animated with complex paths are really cool sounding, so idk.

[Cyoon]

If Zebra becomes surround capable, then an XY panner would be great though.

[sacer]

For such a complex synth, 8 macros would be nice.

[Fannon]

I would be happy with 4 macros, but I'm a little afraid that this now conflates with CTRL A-D, which are usually not macro knobs but triggered by MIDI, e.g. also used for MPE timbre control.

I wouldn't need XY pads either, but I think it's nice if a good preset comes with at least 4 well-thought out macros, which ideally are modulation targets, too.

[bartok2112]

I really love the XY controls in Zebra.

[Shiek927]

I suppose a vote could be another way of gauging the community? It sounds like the popular opinion right now is that the X/Y pads aren't worth the trouble.

Another way could simply be to creatively come up with a solution that allows for as much 'animation', but being easier to wrap your mind around and less trouble to implement. There's a lot of ways to go about it.

[aMUSEd]

I suppose a vote could be another way of gauging the community? It sounds like the popular opinion right now is that the X/Y pads aren't worth the trouble.

I think that is premature - just because a handful of people have said they aren't bothered doesn't represent anything like 'the popular opinion'. Personally I find them very useful - although maybe 4 is too many for many sound designers? I do like more sophisticated XY grids though like in RP Blue where you can also draw and record paths.

[mharnishfeger]

The physics-based "kaoss" control on the Korg Modwave is a really cool implementation of the XY pad that opens up interesting possibilities that go beyond a simple XY control. Much like being able to record paths, having a "physical" interaction with a modulator in a soft synth is very inspiring.

[Fannon]

I also see the potential in having at least one XY Pad which you could then apply additional motion / physics control. But I just wonder how much better this is than just using LFOs / MSEGs on macros. Advantage is that it's more visual (if you see it as 2D space) and if you add physics to it (like kaoss pads).

Anyway, even if you go for this, imho one XY pad would be enough and it could just use the first two or second two macros by default. Or more flexible: Just let them modulate anything, including macros. Then you can introduce an XY pad later.

But I think it would be important to have at least 4 macros (as modulation targets) to begin with. In DAWs like Bitwig / Ableton you can create your own XY Pads like this anyway.

[Urs]

Well, let's have this talk when you guys spent a month with Zebra 3.

I know very well that people will ask for more of everything, but I think the pieces we chose pose a challenge and an opportunity at the same time. If one can't make a particular sound in Z3 as it is, I'm quite sure that more stuff is not gonna change that. I'll argue that more stuff is even gonna make it more difficult.

Zebra 2 is already overwhelmingly complex when a lot of stuff is going on. We address that in Zebra 3 by offering ways to solo, mute, group and hide modules, which allows to focus and analyse things. If you like layered synths, in Zebra 3 you can work as if it was a layered synth. But you can still use the stuff from any one layer in any other.

A lot of work has gone into precision and predictability. Another whole lot has gone into character.

We'll see if people manage to utilise Ctrl A-D which work a lot like macros but are also MIDI/Expression Controllers. We can easily expand those to a set of 8, we can easily add one or more XY controls. But I think that the overlap between Ctrl A-D and macros may be just the thing that makes them more useful than a separated concept of controllers, expressions and macros.

We believe that many, many people never actually try Ctrl A/B in Hive or Repro or Diva, even though they are set up for almost every preset and greatly expand the mileage of the presets we offer.

If people need to save Ctrl A-D in presets, we can do that. Currently they don't, but I'm sure they will automate in DAWs as parameters if the DAW (or workflow) does not favour MIDI.

[jtsterays]

In FL Studio it's quite tedious and annoying to automate the Ctrls, macros are way, way faster, even faster if the plugin supports FL's VST3 right click menu. This is more of the DAW problem and quite selfish, but I hope you take that into consideration.