Zebra 3 Public Beta Revision 20399

[Urs]

Could each OSC FX also have mix amount? You can see this in Ultra synth, it makes very subtle harmonics possible. Could be a hidden parameter, if there is no space left in GUI. (Sorry posted this one in bugs thread)

https://ultra.audio/start

The depth of some oscillator effects *is* a mix control. Wherever I thought it made sense, I have already added it. With some oscFX it does not make sense at all IMHO.

If you have specific examples where a mix control would add great value, I'd be happy to look at 2-3 presets where this is mimicked by using two oscillators.

[jtsterays]

Looks like I cant use the noise module to modulate spline Osc's pitch, right? (I'm aware of Modnoise, but the module has some weird modes)

You are correct. The spline-based oscillator is not suited for FM, and won't be unless CPUs become much, much faster.

(one bug ticket I have worked on recently is related to a preset with a 7 octave drop of the oscillator in very few samples, which it struggles with and simply can't do cleanly)

Bummer, seems like that's one of the big cons of this vector system. Don't want to use another synth just for this task, but I guess I have no choice.

[Urs]

It's not a con of the vector system per sé. It's a con of the efficient unison wavetable playback system, same as in Hive. In future we can evaluate adding a third renderer, which does not have unison capability but Sync and/or FM instead.

[magickalmutagen]

Goal is to make using knobs/sliders faster, by [optionally] using only the mouse keeping the other hand free for the key bed...

KNOB USAGE:
current:
click knob perimeter, drag vertical to adjust base level
click knob center, drag vertical to adjust modulation

proposed: (as an option in settings)
click knob anywhere, drag vertical to adjust base level
click knob anywhere, drag HORIZONTAL to adjust modulation
...implemented so one can click once, then adjust both by dragging in different directions.
...with 'direction toggle' along the 45 degree and 135 degree lines

Although optional, please no to these proposed ideas.

For the first proposition the reason being that this type of interaction isn't that ergonomic and inevitably leads to instances where the cursor accidentally crosses the threshold between horizontal and vertical leading to unwanted and unpredictable adjustments and therefore hard cuts in sound.

The current (or incoming) bullseye design of clicking to drag the centre of a knob to adjust modulation amount is better, although also not ideal in my opinion. I'd take a dedicated modifier required to be held over the bullseye design as the bullseye also has a somewhat unergonomic interaction: targetting the outer ring vs inner circle. But what I'd prefer over both would be, for example, the way that Serum has implemented it. It's good because the real and modulation value mouse targets are separated, and each are circular -- not embedded within each other leading to ring vs circle mouse target locations which usually feels fiddly. It's just nicer to be able to target a UI element with the cursor without needing too much precision on the user's part. Serum's modulation target knobs are indeed smaller (requires some precision), but as mentioned, at least both knobs are individual not embedded, and share the same circle shape which seems minor but I think is an appreciable ergonomic benefit.

Once I can try a newer Z3 build with the bullseye design I can comment better, but one thing that I think certainly makes such a design easier is if the target areas for the ring and inner circle are visually more defined (e.g. see FabFilter) and not abstract or ambiguously implied (which Z3 looks like to me).

KNOB ADJUSTMENT RATE: (as an option in settings)
Current:
coarse, click drag
fine, ctrl click drag
Proposed:
continuously variable; mouse drag RATE determines very-fine <--> course
...functions similar to key velocity; perhaps with a user definable mouse rate curve

For the second proposition, a mouse drag rate solution is also not great in my opinion. At first glance dynamism on interaction sounds nice, more human, but on the whole mouse UI interactions are better when they're predictable i.e. linear. Although not single-handed, the modifier keys solution is tried and true, and with the addition of being able to enter a specific value, this sufficiently covers all of the needed scenarios, without introducing UI interactions which must be learned specifically for Z3.

If you really want single-handed operation, I've always appreciated Bitwig Studio's solution of simply pressing and holding the right-mouse button at any time when dragging (so i.e. in addition to the already pressed and held left-mouse button) to adjust finely. The right-mouse button can be held and unheld at any time to change between fine and coarse adjustments, all the while keeping interaction linear and therefore predictable.

[ffx]

The depth of some oscillator effects *is* a mix control. Wherever I thought it made sense, I have already added it. With some oscFX it does not make sense at all IMHO.

If you have specific examples where a mix control would add great value, I'd be happy to look at 2-3 presets where this is mimicked by using two oscillators.

Hm, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I can confirm you that a lot of OSC FX in the currently available Zebra3 beta 20399 has no mix amount. And this is _not_ depth.

For example (self osc) sync. It' currently totally altering the waveform. But sync gets interesting if you actually can mix the amount of it into the dry signal. Only then you get nice overtone harmonical structure. As seen in synths like Avenger, Korg Radias and others.

That's why I suggested you to have a look at Ultra. The installation of the trial version is quickly done. Then have a look at sync and then the mix amount. You will get a drastically larger range of resulting sounds and colors.

I think all drastically waveform bending OSC fxs currently lack of a real mix control. Which is not the amount. By mix control, simply mixing in the dry / unprocessed signal is meant.

It would be quite sad to have to doulbe th osc structure only to mix in sync. And I think mixing in the dry signal should be very low on cpu consumption, too.

[Urs]

Sure, I get it for Sync. I don't think it makes sense for most others though.

Anyhow, we're at a stage where we won't add terribly much. Maybe down the road in subsequent updates.

[orbitfold]

At the end of the day it's still a business, you gotta cater to the bigger crowd if you want to success (it's not like Z3 doesnt sell, but you know what I mean in this context). Urs and his team will never be able to find a perfect solution that satisfies both ends of the spectrum (Zebra 2 users <----> Serum/PS users) because it simply does not exist.

I don't know anyone who doesn't like the Pigments GUI (barring the new Macro buttons), or the new Absynth 6 GUI. So I do think there's a chance for a real solution. Vital also has a solid GUI that is hard to knock.

Are you serious? Pigments GUI is a sluggish half-baked mess. I own a copy and I uninstalled it mostly because of the GUI (but also because almost everything else sounds better than Pigments).

[jtsterays]

It's not a con of the vector system per sé. It's a con of the efficient unison wavetable playback system, same as in Hive. In future we can evaluate adding a third renderer, which does not have unison capability but Sync and/or FM instead.

That would be extremely great, but why can't it have unison though? The ones I'm testing here are capable without sweating the CPU. Removing unison would be too much of a sacrifice imo.

[Urs]

It's not a con of the vector system per sé. It's a con of the efficient unison wavetable playback system, same as in Hive. In future we can evaluate adding a third renderer, which does not have unison capability but Sync and/or FM instead.

That would be extremely great, but why can't it have unison though? The ones I'm testing here are capable without sweating the CPU. Removing unison would be too much of a sacrifice imo.

FM on unison sounds like, well, too many artefacts IMHO. If then it should have one modulator for each carrier, and that is something Zebra's architecture is not laid out for. That's why FM in Zebra is mostly dual/stereo orientated.

[jtsterays]

It's not a con of the vector system per sé. It's a con of the efficient unison wavetable playback system, same as in Hive. In future we can evaluate adding a third renderer, which does not have unison capability but Sync and/or FM instead.

That would be extremely great, but why can't it have unison though? The ones I'm testing here are capable without sweating the CPU. Removing unison would be too much of a sacrifice imo.

FM on unison sounds like, well, too many artefacts IMHO. If then it should have one modulator for each carrier, and that is something Zebra's architecture is not laid out for. That's why FM in Zebra is mostly dual/stereo orientated.

2 voices + minimum detune is really transparent though, it's one of best way to get stereo without too much coloration like chorus for example. Harmonics panning is also another good one which Z3 doesnt have (yet?)

[Urs]

Sure, 2 voices it would probably have.

Harmonics panning, if viable would happen in the additive renderer...

[jtsterays]

Sure, 2 voices it would probably have.

Harmonics panning, if viable would happen in the additive renderer...

I had a long thought about harmonics panning the other week. It would be very transparent on the higher frequencies because there are so many partials, but for the first few harmonics, a hard panned fundamental would be too disorienting. If we can set a zone where the panning actually takes place, leaving the first few ones center, instead give them 2 voices + minimum detune unison. In theory it should be the cleanest way to get stereo, right?

(This is not really a feature request btw, just a random thought)

[PieBerger]

Harmonics panning, if viable would happen in the additive renderer...

This would be lovely to have, it's one of the fun tricks you can employ in XAOC Devices Odessa for example, to create interesting stereo width from a single voice.

[exmatproton]

Sure, I get it for Sync. I don't think it makes sense for most others though.

Anyhow, we're at a stage where we won't add terribly much. Maybe down the road in subsequent updates.

for Twinkles it would make sense 100%, since now the effect is always (in my opinion) too loud

[Urs]

Sure, I get it for Sync. I don't think it makes sense for most others though.

Anyhow, we're at a stage where we won't add terribly much. Maybe down the road in subsequent updates.

for Twinkles it would make sense 100%, since now the effect is always (in my opinion) too loud

Twinkles needs a volume and a range control... the original spectrum is always present here