Zebra 3 Public Beta (final beta)

[wagtunes]

limitation push creativity

I will push back against that myth until the day they pry the synths out of my cold dead hands.

Limitations stifle creativity. Period, end of story.

The only thing limitations do are force you to compromise.

Or, if you refuse to compromise, they force you to figure out a way to get done what you want to get done. I mean look what musicians did with early synths that didn't have near the functionality we have today. Greg Hawkes of The Cars wasn't creative? He played some of the most iconic synth riffs to this day.

[coroknight]

You know what else forces you to figure out a way to get done what you want to get done? Wanting to do things.

The existence of good musicians in the past isn't an argument for limitations being good. That's survivorship bias.

[wagtunes]

You know what else forces you to figure out a way to get done what you want to get done? Wanting to do things.

The existence of good musicians in the past isn't an argument for limitations being good. That's survivorship bias.

Go tell that to Greg Hawkes, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Patrick Moraz or any of the other giants who did more with their crappy synths than all of you have done with all your bells and whistles. It's not survivorship bias. It's called talent. You might want to look it up in the dictionary.

[JonSolo]

Exciting news!

[coroknight]

You know what else forces you to figure out a way to get done what you want to get done? Wanting to do things.

The existence of good musicians in the past isn't an argument for limitations being good. That's survivorship bias.

Go tell that to Greg Hawkes, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Patrick Moraz or any of the other giants who did more with their crappy synths than all of you have done with all your bells and whistles. It's not survivorship bias. It's called talent. You might want to look it up in the dictionary.

Go tell them what? Do you think I’m insulting them or something?

You’re the one who’s saying limitations breed creativity, which implies they wouldn’t have been as creative without those limitations.

Go tell them they should be grateful for having crappy tools because they wouldn’t have been as talented. That’s essentially what you’re saying.

[kraster]

What I find baffling about this conversation is that we're not talking about something that has one saw wave and a low pass filter with one envelope.

Zebra 3 is not what I'd consider a "limited" synth in any shape or form.

If anything it's on the overwhelming side due to the amount of depth there is on offer.

It's also not really true that most modern synths are somehow limitless. Outside of modular environments Halion, Falcon, Msoundfactory and Phase Plant 99% of synths don't have limitless modules.

Zebra sits more with synths like Current, Serum 2, Rapid and Pigments. ie. A more limited but extremely versatile feature set.

There is a tendency nowadays to view any new product as lacking compared to some kind of imaginary idealised megasynth instead of appreciating these things for what they can do.

Not everything has to do everything.

As for Zebra 3, it's an absolute beast of a synth. It's as deep as an ocean and sounds incredible.

[SamDi]

Zebra 3 is not what I'd consider a "limited" synth in any shape or form.

…

It's also not really true that most modern synths are somehow limitless. Outside of modular environments Halion, Falcon, Msoundfactory and Phase Plant 99% of synths don't have limitless modules.

Zebra sits more with synths like Current, Serum 2, Rapid and Pigments. ie. A more limited but extremely versatile feature set.

You say it yourself: „..outside of modular environments…“

Zebra is marketed as a semi-modular synth. And no, it does not sit more with synths like Serum 2, Current …
It does more sit with synths like MSoundFactory, Phase Plant …

And compared to how unlimited you can use modules there, the „Numbered limited modules approach“ is a bummer.

[NoriSato]

I also don't think that limiting the number of modulators limits creativity. For example, in a simple analog subtractive synthesis, if you modulated the vibrato, tremolo, and filter cutoff all with LFOs of different rates, it would just be chaos. However, I think the current number of modulators is clearly too few compared to the variety of modules and parameters in Zebra3. This is clear when you consider why Zebra/HZ later increased the number of MSEGs to eight.

Take FM synthesis, for example. Zebra3 introduced the excellent new FMO, allowing you to create sounds equivalent to eight operators. However, the DX series has one envelope per operator. To achieve the same shape in Zebra3 requires using all four Envs 1-4 and MSEGs 1-4. At this point, there are no more envelopes available.

Similarly, if you want to fully utilize the new oscillator morphing functions, you'll need one MSEG per oscillator. Using four oscillators simultaneously will result in the MSEGs running out. ADSR has a limited amount of variation, so it's not a problem to replace it with something of a similar shape, but a complex MSEG is a modulator that will likely be dedicated to almost a single destination.

It's not that I want an infinite number of modulators. I just wish they would consider the balance between the variety of functions and the number of modulators a little more. For me, four more MSEGs and four more LFOs would be enough. As it stands, it feels too restrictive for creating complex evolving PADs or tricky FX-type sounds.

[Urs]

And it's annoying that they are limited to 4.

If "King Crimson is not a band, it is a way of doing things", then maybe "Zebra is not a synthesiser, it is a way of doing synthesis".

The whole concept and workflow of Zebra is and has always been about the economics of connecting as few modules as needed for as much outcome as possible.

It is one middle ground between simple fixed architecture synths like Hive, Diva and Serum and full blown modular environments like VCV Rack or Reaktor.

It is not the only concept that tries to achieve this, there is e.g. Phase Plant, MPowerSynth and probably a few more that I don't recall. However, these concepts are not the same as Zebra, since they either sacrifice the depth that Zebra offers, or they sacrifice the workflow for whatever infinity they may have.

In my experience, if you can't make a sound with the modules in Zebra and its 4 filters, you're probably looking for a different concept. Maybe you're looking for a layer based approach such as Dune 3.

Speaking of which, Zebra is the opposite of a layer based approach. This has advantages and drawbacks. The advantage is, you can probably build more complex and/or refined patches quicker in Zebra than in a layered synth. The disadvantage is, if you need gazillions of the same kind of modules, you lose all the advantages. And then you need a different synth.

So, with all the comparisons about Diva, Serum, Dune, Phase Plant, Modular Synths and so on and so on, I think what most of the time is missed is that if you pick just one aspect, you might miss the bigger picture.

Besides, more than 4 filters per voice will bring CPUs into serious trouble

[Urs]

Very deep, this needs some serious exploration… it’s a synth lovers synth, and asks for being played. Can’t wait for MPE. Also, I like that it’s a synth with an opinion - not the usual 1000th emulation of some vintage gear… Congrats Urs and team!

And just a very simple one - I set CTRL A to D to CC14 to 17 in the settings, but the dials/controls in Zebra do not move when turning my encoders on the keyboard. I must miss something very basic here. Also dragged the CTRL via the green line to some elements, like the cutoff, but… nothing. Using a NI MK3 keyboard here.

We have some open tickets for this. It's one of the areas we're hoping for feedback for.

But we'll surely add visual feedback to ABCD, and we very likely also make them automatable.

[Urs]

Take FM synthesis, for example. Zebra3 introduced the excellent new FMO, allowing you to create sounds equivalent to eight operators. However, the DX series has one envelope per operator. To achieve the same shape in Zebra3 requires using all four Envs 1-4 and MSEGs 1-4. At this point, there are no more envelopes available.

Here's the thing: In a DX synth, you *have* to set up envelopes for each oscillator, even if the general shape is all the same. Look at patch sheets for the DX-7. By far the vast majority have set up several envelopes in almost identical shape or form. Thank dawg for copy & paste!

In Zebra you can reuse Envelopes, MSEGs, Gate, Release Gate, Trigger through the modifiers in the ModMatrix, the ModMath modules and the Mappers to derive dozens of similar-but-different shapes form the same set of modules. You can also combine different envelopes, invert them, mix them and so on.

It takes some experience and learning, but then it becomes faster and more efficient than any tedious "I got one of everything for each of everything".

And also, FMOs are stereo, hence technically there's 16 operators per voice, and common oscillators and filters can be modulators, too... I think I've seen some 30+ operator patches, but can't remember if they were any good.

[NoriSato]

Take FM synthesis, for example. Zebra3 introduced the excellent new FMO, allowing you to create sounds equivalent to eight operators. However, the DX series has one envelope per operator. To achieve the same shape in Zebra3 requires using all four Envs 1-4 and MSEGs 1-4. At this point, there are no more envelopes available.

Here's the thing: In a DX synth, you *have* to set up envelopes for each oscillator, even if the general shape is all the same. Look at patch sheets for the DX-7. By far the vast majority have set up several envelopes in almost identical shape or form. Thank dawg for copy & paste!

In Zebra you can reuse Envelopes, MSEGs, Gate, Release Gate, Trigger through the modifiers in the ModMatrix, the ModMath modules and the Mappers to derive dozens of similar-but-different shapes form the same set of modules. You can also combine different envelopes, invert them, mix them and so on.

It takes some experience and learning, but then it becomes faster and more efficient than any tedious "I got one of everything for each of everything".

And also, FMOs are stereo, hence technically there's 16 operators per voice, and common oscillators and filters can be modulators, too... I think I've seen some 30+ operator patches, but can't remember if they were any good.

I see you're not currently considering adding more Modulators. That's a shame.

I understand your point, but it's not like you're using eight just for FM. Even if you reuse them, you'll want 3-4 variations, such as short attack/long decay, short attack/short decay, and long attack. In fact, most DX7 ROM patches can only be organized into 3-4 patterns env at most, no matter how hard you try to standardize the env. If you use two oscillators in addition to FM, you get two MSEGs, and if you add the main envelope to that, you'll use up all seven. I would still like to control more modules like filter, modal, etc., but that only leaves one. What else can you call this but restrictive?

LFOs can now be used as triggers for ADSR and mappers, so they're no longer just for modulating parameters. To achieve a variable-speed LFO using a mapper, you need two LFOs. Here too, four LFOs is a bit insufficient.

If you create an upgraded version like you did with HZ, I would definitely like to purchase it, so I hope you will keep that in mind.

[Urs]

There are additional LFOs in the ModMath modules.

But no, we are at this point not considering to add more envelopes. If you browse the preview of the factory library, there is already a lot more variety than any DX synth could dream of: Sounds, a DX synth could never do. So I doubt that Zebra 3 has any shortcomings in that respect. It goes both ways - if many DX sounds can't be perfectly recreated in Zebra 3, who cares? - A whole plethora of Zebra 3 sounds can't be replicated in DX synths either. Or any synth.

Again, Zebra 3 is about efficiency. If you need "all of everything and a lot more of it", Zebra is the wrong concept for you. I won't try to persuade anyone.

I also highly doubt that doubling any number of any module would have any positive effect on the quality of sounds. To the contrary, it would probably make Zebra 3 a lot more unusable and unnecessarily complex.

[Urs]

I have been having this conversation for 20+ years btw... Zebra 1.5 came out in 2004 or so?

I may be stubborn, but I am convinced that Zebra's success is not *despite* its "module shortage" but *because* of it.

[tasmaniandevil]

Also dragged the CTRL via the green line to some elements, like the cutoff, but… nothing. Using a NI MK3 keyboard here.

Dragging the control onto a target creates a new mod matrix slot. Of course, you will also have to dial in some modulation depth. Go to the mod matrix tab to do that.