I have made a minimalistic NKS template for Zebra 3 - just maps the CTRL knobs, OSC FX, Filters, Morphers and a couple of envelopes - don't want to do a full on template until I know automation IDs are stable but I did want some hands-on control all the same
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w752anwd ... 3k4ka&dl=0
Also made an even more minimal one for Bitwig (CLAP)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p88pvncc ... zoet1&dl=0
Zebra 3 Public Beta 3 Revision 20977
-
- KVRAF
- 37385 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
The IDs will be shifted in the next beta... people suggested to add placeholders for future performance controls, so we added those pretty much in the beginning...
-
- KVRAF
- 37385 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net
I know that's why I went for a minimal one that won't be as big a chore to fix
One thing I would like is to be able to see what the macro knobs do, even when not in performer view (or for them to send their assigned name to the host, then I'll see that on the Kontrol keyboard screen)
One thing I would like is to be able to see what the macro knobs do, even when not in performer view (or for them to send their assigned name to the host, then I'll see that on the Kontrol keyboard screen)
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
-
- KVRist
- 469 posts since 6 Apr, 2008
For those who run their DAW at 96kHz, would it be possible to adapt the internal oversampling factors depending on the host samplerate? So, if the host runs at 88.2 kHz or more, internal oversampling would be 2x less than for hosts at 44.1 kHz.Urs wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 10:28 am Everything in Zebra 3 is oversampled at least 2x more than in Zebra 2. Additionally, things like Oscillator Resolution are way up in Zebra 3. So if you run the oscillator at "800Hz" setting, that faster than Osc Resolution fully up in Zebra 2.
Alternatively, allowing the user to configure oversampling manually would also be fine.
-
- KVRist
- 332 posts since 22 Feb, 2005
Just gotta say: i love the inharmonic spectral sounds in the additive renderer. That and the various osc fx. Great work all the fellas at U-he
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
No worries, pretty much all algorithms do this accordingly. What's oversampled 4x or 8x at 48kHz will be oversampled 2x or 4x at 96 kHz.karrikuh wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 2:17 pmFor those who run their DAW at 96kHz, would it be possible to adapt the internal oversampling factors depending on the host samplerate? So, if the host runs at 88.2 kHz or more, internal oversampling would be 2x less than for hosts at 44.1 kHz.Urs wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 10:28 am Everything in Zebra 3 is oversampled at least 2x more than in Zebra 2. Additionally, things like Oscillator Resolution are way up in Zebra 3. So if you run the oscillator at "800Hz" setting, that faster than Osc Resolution fully up in Zebra 2.
Alternatively, allowing the user to configure oversampling manually would also be fine.
The algorithms that cost more then are those which are not oversampled at all, which we don't "undersample" then.
-
- KVRist
- 114 posts since 9 Jun, 2024
My dayjob is software developer and I have experience researching & developing UI for commercial CAE software. After a few days noodling with Zebra 3, I don't personally feel its UI "art" outdated, but it does feel like a synth designed with only (or, at the minimum, heavily) developer-centered UX philosophy in mind and with the assumption that every user becomes power user immediately the first time they open Zebra. As a result, while Zebra 3 has a quite simple workflow, it looks way more confusing than it should.
I do not mean to insult anyone nor to talk down the effort spent by the developer team, but there are a number of things on the UI/UX side I think could use some improvements.
1. Built-in user guidance/helper mode.
This is maybe less important for Zebra 2 power users, but it is absolutely necessary for new users. No one opens up a synth and knows every quirk immediately. Currently the only user guide is the manual (and it suffers from its own problems). In standard software UX practice, there should be user guidance implemented on every UI element. Mouse hovering something for a few seconds and a conspicuous pop-up shows on the screen with brief explaination of what it does (not only the name/value on the data window). If too many pop-ups becomes annoying for power users, it can be implemented as an option so users can turn them off once they become familiar with the synth. I suggest checking how the interactive helper/tooltip mode is implemented in Fabfilter products.
2. Use common terms with clear meaning in UI text, and add necessary text description for corresponding UI elements.
There are too many unclear abbrevations, confusing words and UI elements without description in Zebra 3's UI. Only developers know what they mean in full and it requires users to dig deeply into the manual.
A few examples: How can a user know what these V1/V2 mean without digging into the manual?
What's this? Can a user without deep Zebra knowledge tell in their first run?
The OSC FX names are cool and all, but I don't think a new user could know what they do by their names...
Please... just write KeyFollow instead of KeyF
That being said, a lot of these issues can be mitigated with a helper mode. But displaying the name on the data window isn't a good solution (variant 1/2 is still confusing).
3. Ergonomics design.
I know it's common on hardware synths to have a central data window for information, but this doesn't translate well into software. A lot of settings are tweaked by mouse, and people focus on the mouse position when they use mouse pointer to tweak a knob. The central data window on the UI is fine, but having it as the only place to display names/values makes people switch (and potentially lose) focus. That's why it's more standard practice to also show the name/value at the mouse position.
And this... God, this is so overwhelmingly long. I am working on a 32 inch monitor and it occupies 70% of my screen and I don't know how it would look like on smaller screens. This definitely should be put into submenu groups...
4. More consistent UI design language
Examples: The distortion module clearly looks like an outlier. Inconsistent design language. Pitch source on the left panel on most modules but right corner on filters. No left panel on the filter module. I'd expect something displayed here, preferably the trigger. I expect the pitch source on the top, being consistent with the other modules. This is one of the more annoying UI design issues. The direct modulation and normal option boxes are completely different things, yet they share a highly similar UI element design. I suggest arranging UI elements with a more consistent design language by groups, i.e. all options use the same design, all direct modulations uses another...
I am running out of attachments now. Another post follows...
I do not mean to insult anyone nor to talk down the effort spent by the developer team, but there are a number of things on the UI/UX side I think could use some improvements.
1. Built-in user guidance/helper mode.
This is maybe less important for Zebra 2 power users, but it is absolutely necessary for new users. No one opens up a synth and knows every quirk immediately. Currently the only user guide is the manual (and it suffers from its own problems). In standard software UX practice, there should be user guidance implemented on every UI element. Mouse hovering something for a few seconds and a conspicuous pop-up shows on the screen with brief explaination of what it does (not only the name/value on the data window). If too many pop-ups becomes annoying for power users, it can be implemented as an option so users can turn them off once they become familiar with the synth. I suggest checking how the interactive helper/tooltip mode is implemented in Fabfilter products.
2. Use common terms with clear meaning in UI text, and add necessary text description for corresponding UI elements.
There are too many unclear abbrevations, confusing words and UI elements without description in Zebra 3's UI. Only developers know what they mean in full and it requires users to dig deeply into the manual.
A few examples: How can a user know what these V1/V2 mean without digging into the manual?
What's this? Can a user without deep Zebra knowledge tell in their first run?
The OSC FX names are cool and all, but I don't think a new user could know what they do by their names...
Please... just write KeyFollow instead of KeyF
That being said, a lot of these issues can be mitigated with a helper mode. But displaying the name on the data window isn't a good solution (variant 1/2 is still confusing).
3. Ergonomics design.
I know it's common on hardware synths to have a central data window for information, but this doesn't translate well into software. A lot of settings are tweaked by mouse, and people focus on the mouse position when they use mouse pointer to tweak a knob. The central data window on the UI is fine, but having it as the only place to display names/values makes people switch (and potentially lose) focus. That's why it's more standard practice to also show the name/value at the mouse position.
And this... God, this is so overwhelmingly long. I am working on a 32 inch monitor and it occupies 70% of my screen and I don't know how it would look like on smaller screens. This definitely should be put into submenu groups...
4. More consistent UI design language
Examples: The distortion module clearly looks like an outlier. Inconsistent design language. Pitch source on the left panel on most modules but right corner on filters. No left panel on the filter module. I'd expect something displayed here, preferably the trigger. I expect the pitch source on the top, being consistent with the other modules. This is one of the more annoying UI design issues. The direct modulation and normal option boxes are completely different things, yet they share a highly similar UI element design. I suggest arranging UI elements with a more consistent design language by groups, i.e. all options use the same design, all direct modulations uses another...
I am running out of attachments now. Another post follows...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- KVRist
- 114 posts since 9 Jun, 2024
4. More consistent UI design language (cont)
Examples: The direct modulations are normally placed on the bottom of the corresponding UI elements. So what am I expected to modulate here? The Stereo mode? I'd suggest put them in the corresponding locations consistently (and use the same design) even if it means more vertical space taken.
5. The curve editor
The tools panel can use some rearrangement. Selecting/Editing/Settings should not be grouped into the same page. The tools need mouse hover tooltips to display their names.
6. Right click menu
Right click everywhere on the empty space of an UI element almost always gives me this zoom: This isn't ideal behavior. I'd expect to see this only when right click on specific things, say the Zebra logo...
7. Badly (sorry for the strong word, but I do think it's the correct one here) designed UI elements Is there a reason to make the modulation depth knob this small? It almost looks like a bug to me.
8. No hidden parameter
All these parameters (phase shift, chorus noise, delay mod rate) should be exposed clearly in the UI... Make any useable parameter this deeply hidden is almost always a bad design idea.
9. User guide
I know the user guide is already 130 pages long. But It's still merely a quick walkthrough of all the knobs and buttons and their names. More detailed (and clearer) information on every setting's funtion and behavior should be included. Also examples.
10. Regarding the direct modulation
The idea of direct modulation is fine and all. But this information is spreaded all over the place in the UI and there lacks a place to view/control them altogether. I'd suggest making the direct modulations all show up in the modulation matrix (also with a mute function) as well, and add another toggle in the Modulation Matrix panel (say here): Which defaults to indirect modulations and can be switched between direct and indirect options, so that users have a place to see them all at once.
I am sure I can come up with more UI design suggestions, but these are already a lot...
Again I have no mean to attack anyone, and I apologize if any of my words above irritates anyone. These are just my honest personal thoughts and opinions, and I hope they could be of some use for the final product. Feel free to ignore them if you think any of them is inappropriate.
I may write another review style post later, about my personal experiences using Zebra 3 and some thoughts. Not gonna be all positive though...
Examples: The direct modulations are normally placed on the bottom of the corresponding UI elements. So what am I expected to modulate here? The Stereo mode? I'd suggest put them in the corresponding locations consistently (and use the same design) even if it means more vertical space taken.
5. The curve editor
The tools panel can use some rearrangement. Selecting/Editing/Settings should not be grouped into the same page. The tools need mouse hover tooltips to display their names.
6. Right click menu
Right click everywhere on the empty space of an UI element almost always gives me this zoom: This isn't ideal behavior. I'd expect to see this only when right click on specific things, say the Zebra logo...
7. Badly (sorry for the strong word, but I do think it's the correct one here) designed UI elements Is there a reason to make the modulation depth knob this small? It almost looks like a bug to me.
8. No hidden parameter
All these parameters (phase shift, chorus noise, delay mod rate) should be exposed clearly in the UI... Make any useable parameter this deeply hidden is almost always a bad design idea.
9. User guide
I know the user guide is already 130 pages long. But It's still merely a quick walkthrough of all the knobs and buttons and their names. More detailed (and clearer) information on every setting's funtion and behavior should be included. Also examples.
10. Regarding the direct modulation
The idea of direct modulation is fine and all. But this information is spreaded all over the place in the UI and there lacks a place to view/control them altogether. I'd suggest making the direct modulations all show up in the modulation matrix (also with a mute function) as well, and add another toggle in the Modulation Matrix panel (say here): Which defaults to indirect modulations and can be switched between direct and indirect options, so that users have a place to see them all at once.
I am sure I can come up with more UI design suggestions, but these are already a lot...
Again I have no mean to attack anyone, and I apologize if any of my words above irritates anyone. These are just my honest personal thoughts and opinions, and I hope they could be of some use for the final product. Feel free to ignore them if you think any of them is inappropriate.
I may write another review style post later, about my personal experiences using Zebra 3 and some thoughts. Not gonna be all positive though...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Oi! A lot to pack... not at all offensive, quite a few good points, some which I agree, some which I don't.
I can't go into everything in detail, but here are some initial thoughts:
You'll be glad to hear that design language, placement of similar parameters in different modules, unnecessary abbreviations, visual guidance etc. will all be addressed and pretty much as consistent as it gets in the final design. It's going to be a much calmer design, soothing even, and somewhat reminiscent of the early Zebras.
The design of the beta was following a different principle - that of a toolbox with individually designed modules, which are identified a first glimpse and thus deliberately "not equal". This is a valid design decision, and the lack of recognisability is my main issue with the final design (but which is customisable for variations). Because Zebra has so many different types of modules, it matters a lot that the module type is easily identified and does not disappear in a soup of similar looking panels.
The ultimate form of consistency is a spreadsheet. And it is also the ultimate killer of usability, since a spreadsheet presses everything into the same form, even if it is something completely different. Good design is based on each object telling a story about itself. UI design often is same-same-ism, which is not good design at all. Zebra's modules need to adhere to the design principle of a product family, which values "complementary" in the space between "contrasting" and "equal".
The inbetween is a balance act. If the current design is an approximation from the side of individualism, the next iteration will approach from consistency. I think it's gonna be pretty good, we'll see.
#-----
As for built-in help systems etc, I'm not such a big fan, but we do have a few really good ideas to be tried down the road. Our plan is to do this in conjunction with A11y features, which is not something done in a fortnight or two. The effort needs to be compatible to the operating systems' accessibility features for visually impaired people.
#-----
Convoluted contextual menus are a grief, as is the central value display.
While I love contextual menus in general, I hate that OS makers have not addressed proper use of horizontal space apart from the curse of submenus. I would love to eventually implement a better system, maybe something similar to how Maya used to do it, it's been 25 years since I last used it, I have fond memories.
The central value display is a concern, it'll probably be one of the next big usability projects, maybe paired with the A11y project for the help system and all that. Not a quick shot, not any immediate solution, but an outlook for improvements.
#-----
The user guide is work in progress. Its function goes beyond that of a dictionary, but at its core it needs to explain what each parameter does. For bigger stories, such as "how do these things interact", we have a video department, and a sound design department. We'll tell those stories with content - over time.
It goes without saying thought that Zebra is not meant to be a synth for beginners. The experienced synthesist who might have had some forays into Serum, Pigments or Zebra 2 even, should become familiar with Zebra 3 quickly, but probably not in an instant. Zebra 3 is deep. That is not just a challenge, but also an opportunity. I try to never underestimate the capability of the human mind. True reward never lies in the quick bore of immediate approachability. Flow happens in exploration, wonder and perception of success. I hope that our work is worth that, probably not for everyone, but for as many happy users as possible.
- U
I can't go into everything in detail, but here are some initial thoughts:
You'll be glad to hear that design language, placement of similar parameters in different modules, unnecessary abbreviations, visual guidance etc. will all be addressed and pretty much as consistent as it gets in the final design. It's going to be a much calmer design, soothing even, and somewhat reminiscent of the early Zebras.
The design of the beta was following a different principle - that of a toolbox with individually designed modules, which are identified a first glimpse and thus deliberately "not equal". This is a valid design decision, and the lack of recognisability is my main issue with the final design (but which is customisable for variations). Because Zebra has so many different types of modules, it matters a lot that the module type is easily identified and does not disappear in a soup of similar looking panels.
The ultimate form of consistency is a spreadsheet. And it is also the ultimate killer of usability, since a spreadsheet presses everything into the same form, even if it is something completely different. Good design is based on each object telling a story about itself. UI design often is same-same-ism, which is not good design at all. Zebra's modules need to adhere to the design principle of a product family, which values "complementary" in the space between "contrasting" and "equal".
The inbetween is a balance act. If the current design is an approximation from the side of individualism, the next iteration will approach from consistency. I think it's gonna be pretty good, we'll see.
#-----
As for built-in help systems etc, I'm not such a big fan, but we do have a few really good ideas to be tried down the road. Our plan is to do this in conjunction with A11y features, which is not something done in a fortnight or two. The effort needs to be compatible to the operating systems' accessibility features for visually impaired people.
#-----
Convoluted contextual menus are a grief, as is the central value display.
While I love contextual menus in general, I hate that OS makers have not addressed proper use of horizontal space apart from the curse of submenus. I would love to eventually implement a better system, maybe something similar to how Maya used to do it, it's been 25 years since I last used it, I have fond memories.
The central value display is a concern, it'll probably be one of the next big usability projects, maybe paired with the A11y project for the help system and all that. Not a quick shot, not any immediate solution, but an outlook for improvements.
#-----
The user guide is work in progress. Its function goes beyond that of a dictionary, but at its core it needs to explain what each parameter does. For bigger stories, such as "how do these things interact", we have a video department, and a sound design department. We'll tell those stories with content - over time.
It goes without saying thought that Zebra is not meant to be a synth for beginners. The experienced synthesist who might have had some forays into Serum, Pigments or Zebra 2 even, should become familiar with Zebra 3 quickly, but probably not in an instant. Zebra 3 is deep. That is not just a challenge, but also an opportunity. I try to never underestimate the capability of the human mind. True reward never lies in the quick bore of immediate approachability. Flow happens in exploration, wonder and perception of success. I hope that our work is worth that, probably not for everyone, but for as many happy users as possible.
- U
-
- KVRAF
- 37385 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net
Understandable - although sending CTRL names to the host would be useful in any DAW
-
- KVRist
- 181 posts since 25 Oct, 2003
Purchased Z3 today, has that organic signature uhe sound I love. I'm excited about the release of official version 
Question, is there a way to set musical scales to the Mappers?
I'm using Z3 Clap in Bitwig 6. Any possibility to sync bw new Master Tuning to Z3 Mappers ?
Question, is there a way to set musical scales to the Mappers?
I'm using Z3 Clap in Bitwig 6. Any possibility to sync bw new Master Tuning to Z3 Mappers ?
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
So you can snap in the mappers, and set the number of values to snap to. So this will work wherever you apply the to Tune (Filter Cutoff even), so long as the modulation depth fits the range of the tune parameter. In direct modulation slots, this is always the same number: +/-12 in Mapper corresponds to +12.00 on any tune parameter. Via the ModMatrix, which uses %, a range +/- 12 out of +/-48 (as in Osc Tune) is achieved with a modulation depth of 25.00 %.Lusamars wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 9:24 pm Purchased Z3 today, has that organic signature uhe sound I love. I'm excited about the release of official version
Question, is there a way to set musical scales to the Mappers?
I'm using Z3 Clap in Bitwig 6. Any possibility to sync bw new Master Tuning to Z3 Mappers ?
But the ultimate feat is to use the Pitch modules. You can enable the quantiser by clicking any scale, even all 12 semitones (or major, harmonic minor, mixolydian...). You an apply the quantiser "post modulation", so any modulation is chromatic. Setting the quantiser to a pentatonic scale is instant bliss with any modulation, even those hard to perfectly hit notes, e.g. random sources.
-
- KVRist
- 181 posts since 25 Oct, 2003
Pitch modules you say mr.. hmm gotta keep my exploration to find out how to apply those. Thank you UrsUrs wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 9:34 pmSo you can snap in the mappers, and set the number of values to snap to. So this will work wherever you apply the to Tune (Filter Cutoff even), so long as the modulation depth fits the range of the tune parameter. In direct modulation slots, this is always the same number: +/-12 in Mapper corresponds to +12.00 on any tune parameter. Via the ModMatrix, which uses %, a range +/- 12 out of +/-48 (as in Osc Tune) is achieved with a modulation depth of 25.00 %.Lusamars wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 9:24 pm Purchased Z3 today, has that organic signature uhe sound I love. I'm excited about the release of official version
Question, is there a way to set musical scales to the Mappers?
I'm using Z3 Clap in Bitwig 6. Any possibility to sync bw new Master Tuning to Z3 Mappers ?
But the ultimate feat is to use the Pitch modules. You can enable the quantiser by clicking any scale, even all 12 semitones (or major, harmonic minor, mixolydian...). You an apply the quantiser "post modulation", so any modulation is chromatic. Setting the quantiser to a pentatonic scale is instant bliss with any modulation, even those hard to perfectly hit notes, e.g. random sources.
-
- KVRAF
- 3386 posts since 25 Apr, 2011
In the first BETA there was a bit of a 'sloppy' quantisation. Like some sort of glide. In the second BETA this was removed/fixed. However, i kinda liked that effect. Any chance to have that as an option?Urs wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 9:34 pmSo you can snap in the mappers, and set the number of values to snap to. So this will work wherever you apply the to Tune (Filter Cutoff even), so long as the modulation depth fits the range of the tune parameter. In direct modulation slots, this is always the same number: +/-12 in Mapper corresponds to +12.00 on any tune parameter. Via the ModMatrix, which uses %, a range +/- 12 out of +/-48 (as in Osc Tune) is achieved with a modulation depth of 25.00 %.Lusamars wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2026 9:24 pm Purchased Z3 today, has that organic signature uhe sound I love. I'm excited about the release of official version
Question, is there a way to set musical scales to the Mappers?
I'm using Z3 Clap in Bitwig 6. Any possibility to sync bw new Master Tuning to Z3 Mappers ?
But the ultimate feat is to use the Pitch modules. You can enable the quantiser by clicking any scale, even all 12 semitones (or major, harmonic minor, mixolydian...). You an apply the quantiser "post modulation", so any modulation is chromatic. Setting the quantiser to a pentatonic scale is instant bliss with any modulation, even those hard to perfectly hit notes, e.g. random sources.