Zebra 3 Public Beta 2 Revision 20552

[Dalle]

Macros are limited and a pain to set up. You know what would be cool? Snapshot variations for presets with morphing!

[midi_transmission]

I really like the context menu!

For the hover effect for modulation, it's a fantastic concept. However, right now it feels overly bold with the full rectangle in a very visible color.

Maybe a toggle for the hover as a button? For exploring existing presets it's awesome, but when I create own patched where I know what I've done it's kicking me a bit out of the flow.

[exmatproton]

Macros are limited and a pain to set up. You know what would be cool? Snapshot variations for presets with morphing!

This can only work if a snapshot (created) will get deleted when 1 or more changes were applied to the modular structure. If they would be able to solve that, they could even use the spline system for advanced morphing between one or more snapshots. That would be quite amazing

[Urs]

I really like the context menu!

For the hover effect for modulation, it's a fantastic concept. However, right now it feels overly bold with the full rectangle in a very visible color.

Maybe a toggle for the hover as a button? For exploring existing presets it's awesome, but when I create own patched where I know what I've done it's kicking me a bit out of the flow.

Let's start with, you can switch it off if you want to (right-click + Target Finder)...

We'll be using it ourselves a lot, check out how people go and come up with refinements over time.

[JoeLowery215]

I’m trying to wrap my head around needing 8 macros. I guess I’m spoiled because you have them in Ableton and can assign them to whatever you want

I’m just trying to think of a situation where I would need 8 of them

Whatever you’re controlling, you can either automate in your DAW or your controller can already modulate whatever parameter

Macros to me are when you need to control more than 1 thing at a time, so 8 macros, I’d have to be controlling at least SIXTEEN different things

Sounds ridiculous and I’d love someone to actually list out what these 8 macros would be used for

[exmatproton]

I’m trying to wrap my head around needing 8 macros. I guess I’m spoiled because you have them in Ableton and can assign them to whatever you want

I’m just trying to think of a situation where I would need 8 of them

Whatever you’re controlling, you can either automate in your DAW or your controller can already modulate whatever parameter

Macros to me are when you need to control more than 1 thing at a time, so 8 macros, I’d have to be controlling at least SIXTEEN different things

Sounds ridiculous and I’d love someone to actually list out what these 8 macros would be used for

Try to think of them as offsets. So with a macro, you get 2 controls for 1 parameter (this is not the case in some synths, but with U-He's synths it works like an offset control). Which can be very handy. Especially with external modulation combined

[JoeLowery215]

I've noticed that Osc FX Sync behaves differently from what I'm used to with other synths (hard sync). For example in the RetroSynth plugin built into Logic, the sync sounds smooth and balanced, whereas using sync on the same sounding saw wave in Zebra 3 loses bass and brings in audible artefacts as the waveform changes throughout the sync, it doesn't sound bad, just different, and I'm wondering what makes Zebra's oscillator effects different in this regard to other synths?

Will Zebra support the more traditional hard sync feature?

You can do soft sync in Z3 which is really cool:
FX 1 uses Sync, then you use a window function (I used a triangle guide).... Urs can you explain more what's goin on here?

Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 8.29.02 PM.png

[JoeLowery215]

I’m trying to wrap my head around needing 8 macros. I guess I’m spoiled because you have them in Ableton and can assign them to whatever you want

I’m just trying to think of a situation where I would need 8 of them

Whatever you’re controlling, you can either automate in your DAW or your controller can already modulate whatever parameter

Macros to me are when you need to control more than 1 thing at a time, so 8 macros, I’d have to be controlling at least SIXTEEN different things

Sounds ridiculous and I’d love someone to actually list out what these 8 macros would be used for

Try to think of them as offsets. So with a macro, you get 2 controls for 1 parameter (this is not the case in some synths, but with U-He's synths it works like an offset control). Which can be very handy. Especially with external modulation combined

Thanks I'm just trying to think when I would need that

[holoniverse]

What are system requirements for Zebra3? I downloaded and installed the beta but having drop outs and crackles on a lot of patches.

Using linux. My cpu is a bit more than 2 years old (on the road right now, don't remember exact version).

[Chalisque]

There's a lot of scope for what can (in theory at least) be done with macros. How a macro maps onto something: perhaps I want a macro whose full range [0,1] maps to the range [1000Hz,3000Hz] for Filter 1's cutoff, with a mapping curve of some sort. When all you have is host automation that covers the full range (e.g. 40Hz to 20kHz) when you only want a small section of that range, gets annoying, and is one of the other uses of macros besides controlling multiple things.

Then e.g. doing maths with macros and modulators (suppose I have three macros A,B,C and 5 targets V,W,X,Y,Z, combined in some nontrivial way, e.g. V=0.2(A*B+LFO3)+0.3C). The kind of thing you can do in a fully modular setup by combining control voltages in nontrivial ways.

The thing I completely understand from the Uhe perspective is that macros, once implemented, like an arpeggiator or step sequencer, they effectively have made a contract with sound designers that they will be bound to for years. These things can be added later when it becomes evident what the right choices are. But choosing early, without hindsight, can lead to poor choices getting baked in (so that changing things will break presets and preset packs). Should there be 4 or 8 macros, or even 16 or 32, should they be unipolar, bipolar, switchable between the two. And so on.

[Urs]

I've noticed that Osc FX Sync behaves differently from what I'm used to with other synths (hard sync). For example in the RetroSynth plugin built into Logic, the sync sounds smooth and balanced, whereas using sync on the same sounding saw wave in Zebra 3 loses bass and brings in audible artefacts as the waveform changes throughout the sync, it doesn't sound bad, just different, and I'm wondering what makes Zebra's oscillator effects different in this regard to other synths?

Will Zebra support the more traditional hard sync feature?

You can do soft sync in Z3 which is really cool:
FX 1 uses Sync, then you use a window function (I used a triangle guide).... Urs can you explain more what's goin on here?

Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 8.29.02 PM.png

this is "Windowed Sync", which is how "Resonant Waves" in Casio's PD work. And Fractal Sync in Bazille.

[Urs]

The thing I completely understand from the Uhe perspective is that macros, once implemented, like an arpeggiator or step sequencer, they effectively have made a contract with sound designers that they will be bound to for years. These things can be added later when it becomes evident what the right choices are. But choosing early, without hindsight, can lead to poor choices getting baked in (so that changing things will break presets and preset packs). Should there be 4 or 8 macros, or even 16 or 32, should they be unipolar, bipolar, switchable between the two. And so on.

That is how we see it.

There are many options. Like, for some macros we could actually have real macro functions. You want "Brilliance"? -> Invisibly adds an EQ to the output. You want "Pan"? -> Invisibly adds Pan to the output. And so on.

One could even have 4 of those Macros preset, but people could override them with user assignments.

I was thinking about that for NKS (uhm... no idea what's going on), where performance knobs 1-4 would be mapped to Ctrl A..D while knobs 5-8 would always automatically be Brilliance, Pan, Space and Volume, which would be automatically set up with invisible connections that are fully transparent in their default state.

Another concept is what I think Arturia did: Sound Designers highlight a bunch of parameters that may be interesting to tweak. Should be quick, not sure how flexible this is.

In any case...

[reppinghades]

Have you guys considered adding "Set as default patch"? If you can try Surge or Vital, you'll get it (completely different from setting opening preset). Super handy feature.

[Urs]

Have you guys considered adding "Set as default patch"? If you can try Surge or Vital, you'll get it (completely different from setting opening preset). Super handy feature.

I'd call that a custom init patch. Has been requested a few times, we'll probably look into it, but that is not likely to happen very soon.

[JoeLowery215]

I've noticed that Osc FX Sync behaves differently from what I'm used to with other synths (hard sync). For example in the RetroSynth plugin built into Logic, the sync sounds smooth and balanced, whereas using sync on the same sounding saw wave in Zebra 3 loses bass and brings in audible artefacts as the waveform changes throughout the sync, it doesn't sound bad, just different, and I'm wondering what makes Zebra's oscillator effects different in this regard to other synths?

Will Zebra support the more traditional hard sync feature?

You can do soft sync in Z3 which is really cool:
FX 1 uses Sync, then you use a window function (I used a triangle guide).... Urs can you explain more what's goin on here?

Screenshot 2026-01-27 at 8.29.02 PM.png

this is "Windowed Sync", which is how "Resonant Waves" in Casio's PD work. And Fractal Sync in Bazille.

Thanks for the info. I’ve tried poking around but can’t really find info on what that actually means? The patch I made (sync into windowed FX) sounds just like Serum…

I guess my questions are…is this “soft sync” and how is that related to the reso waveforms from Casio?

I always thought the Casio waves sounded just like, well..filters with high resonance

Thanks