Zebra 3 Public Beta 3 Revision 20977

[ElVincente]

It's really nice to have mpe, but I wonder what I'm missing, I can only use 2 semitone pitchbend when setting everything to mpe.
Is there a known issue about that ?

This will work better in the final version. MPE pitch-sliding was only working in some hosts, but not in others, like Reaper. The final version fixes that.

Ok, nice to know

[midi_transmission]

Now the part which I feel the most lacking: the modulator. While in Zebra 3 there are a lot of things one can modulate, and there are 12 built in modulators - 4 envelopes/4 LFOs/4 MSEGs (wouldn't directly count the mappers here, though I like the mapper design and find them useful in their own ways), the only thing featuring truly limitless modulation is the MSEG.

[...] Given that we only have a total of 4 MSEGs to use, I find myself running into the hard limit pretty quickly the moment I start to try to do something more complex.

I 100% feel this comment. I understand Urs reasons (focus on dynamic interactions and not so much on layers of sound) and that there won't be any more MSEG. But the limit of four MSEQs is the only thing I really can’t get used to.

[loctune]

Now the part which I feel the most lacking: the modulator. While in Zebra 3 there are a lot of things one can modulate, and there are 12 built in modulators - 4 envelopes/4 LFOs/4 MSEGs (wouldn't directly count the mappers here, though I like the mapper design and find them useful in their own ways), the only thing featuring truly limitless modulation is the MSEG.

[...] Given that we only have a total of 4 MSEGs to use, I find myself running into the hard limit pretty quickly the moment I start to try to do something more complex.

I 100% feel this comment. I understand Urs reasons (focus on dynamic interactions and not so much on layers of sound) and that there won't be any more MSEG. But the limit of four MSEQs is the only thing I really can’t get used to.

Yeah, this feels like a huge limitation. Effectively, this means while so many things can be modulated, there are only 4 modulators in Zebra 3 which allows full user control…

Making the MSEG morphable adds more possibility to their usage but does not solve the true issue here - it can even make the problem worse since now you need another modulator to modulate MSEG. Would rather appreciate if there are at least 8 extra single frame user definable modulators.

[eclipse_soundlab]

Now the part which I feel the most lacking: the modulator. While in Zebra 3 there are a lot of things one can modulate, and there are 12 built in modulators - 4 envelopes/4 LFOs/4 MSEGs (wouldn't directly count the mappers here, though I like the mapper design and find them useful in their own ways), the only thing featuring truly limitless modulation is the MSEG.

[...] Given that we only have a total of 4 MSEGs to use, I find myself running into the hard limit pretty quickly the moment I start to try to do something more complex.

I 100% feel this comment. I understand Urs reasons (focus on dynamic interactions and not so much on layers of sound) and that there won't be any more MSEG. But the limit of four MSEQs is the only thing I really can’t get used to.

Yeah, this feels like a huge limitation. Effectively, this means while so many things can be modulated, there are only 4 modulators in Zebra 3 which allows full user control…

Making the MSEG morphable adds more possibility to their usage but does not solve the true issue here - it can even make the problem worse since now you need another modulator to modulate MSEG. Would rather appreciate if there are at least 8 extra single frame user definable modulators.

Yeah, even Zebralette 3 has a huge bottleneck with just one MSEG. I guess four is okay if you use 1–2 oscillators, but sometimes (in certain presets) two oscillators with additive mode and OSC FX, regular filters can use up all four MSEGs pretty quickly.

8 Would be fine.

In Serum, this was handled nicely - initially only four MSEGs were visible, and the rest appeared as you started using more beyond the basic ones.

[johnnyberrygoode]

Now the part which I feel the most lacking: the modulator. While in Zebra 3 there are a lot of things one can modulate, and there are 12 built in modulators - 4 envelopes/4 LFOs/4 MSEGs (wouldn't directly count the mappers here, though I like the mapper design and find them useful in their own ways), the only thing featuring truly limitless modulation is the MSEG.

[...] Given that we only have a total of 4 MSEGs to use, I find myself running into the hard limit pretty quickly the moment I start to try to do something more complex.

I 100% feel this comment. I understand Urs reasons (focus on dynamic interactions and not so much on layers of sound) and that there won't be any more MSEG. But the limit of four MSEQs is the only thing I really can’t get used to.

Yeah, this feels like a huge limitation. Effectively, this means while so many things can be modulated, there are only 4 modulators in Zebra 3 which allows full user control…

Making the MSEG morphable adds more possibility to their usage but does not solve the true issue here - it can even make the problem worse since now you need another modulator to modulate MSEG. Would rather appreciate if there are at least 8 extra single frame user definable modulators.

Yeah, even Zebralette 3 has a huge bottleneck with just one MSEG. I guess four is okay if you use 1–2 oscillators, but sometimes (in certain presets) two oscillators with additive mode and OSC FX, regular filters can use up all four MSEGs pretty quickly.

8 Would be fine.

In Serum, this was handled nicely - initially only four MSEGs were visible, and the rest appeared as you started using more beyond the basic ones.

Guys, this is too dangerous! If the zebra has more than 4 msegs, and each subsequent mseg modulates the curve morph of the previous one, and the last one modulates the first one, then you can create antimatter. Or worse, a brown note.

[pdxindy]

Yeah, this feels like a huge limitation. Effectively, this means while so many things can be modulated, there are only 4 modulators in Zebra 3 which allows full user control…

Making the MSEG morphable adds more possibility to their usage but does not solve the true issue here - it can even make the problem worse since now you need another modulator to modulate MSEG. Would rather appreciate if there are at least 8 extra single frame user definable modulators.

I don't believe there is a true issue here, or any problem to make worse. I think it is mainly the common demand from some users for more based on imagined features, not sonic necessity.

More features doesn't automatically lead to more variety of actual sounds. IME, the sound palette of Zebra 3, as is, is vast and essentially unlimited.

1 MSEG plus the Math modulators and the Matrix Modifiers means that a single MSEG can give half a dozen or more different modulation shapes on different targets.

There's already a ridiculous amount of modulation available. 20 modulators, plus MW, AT, Vel, Key, etc. Then of course there is host automation. IMO, there's no need for more.

[Fannon]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

[loctune]

Yeah, this feels like a huge limitation. Effectively, this means while so many things can be modulated, there are only 4 modulators in Zebra 3 which allows full user control…

Making the MSEG morphable adds more possibility to their usage but does not solve the true issue here - it can even make the problem worse since now you need another modulator to modulate MSEG. Would rather appreciate if there are at least 8 extra single frame user definable modulators.

I don't believe there is a true issue here, or any problem to make worse. I think it is mainly the common demand from some users for more based on imagined features, not sonic necessity.

More features doesn't automatically lead to more variety of actual sounds. IME, the sound palette of Zebra 3, as is, is vast and essentially unlimited.

1 MSEG plus the Math modulators and the Matrix Modifiers means that a single MSEG can give half a dozen or more different modulation shapes on different targets.

There's already a ridiculous amount of modulation available. 20 modulators, plus MW, AT, Vel, Key, etc. Then of course there is host automation. IMO, there's no need for more.

The question is, does it hurt to add more MSEG in a software synth? Worst case scenario they can be left unused, but they add flexibility and make users life easier. Yes, there are ways to compromise, but I think it’s much more user friendly design to have the ability to have things done in straightforward ways rather than forcing users to learn all the quirks and compromises.

And again, the issue here is while there are a lot of modulation sources, only the 4 MSEGs are fully user definable. Maths modules allow modifications based on existing MSEG shape but they do not add more shapes…

I mean no offense, but I don’t think the “imagined” part in your claim makes any sense. Again, I see a good example from the history: Zebra 2 only features 4 MSEGs but increased to 8 in ZebraHZ. Since Zebra 2 also features a huge amount of modulation sources, why would ZebraHZ users want/need more rather than compromise and stay in the good old Zebra 2 way? Would you also call this a decision based on imagination rather than sonic necessity?

[Seafire Mk2]

. Again, I see a good example from the history: Zebra 2 only features 4 MSEGs but increased to 8 in ZebraHZ. Since Zebra 2 also features a huge amount of modulation sources, why would ZebraHZ users want/need more rather than compromise and stay in the good old Zebra 2 way? Would you also call this a decision based on imagination rather than sonic necessity?

Wasn't ZebraHZ built specifically for HZ? So those additions were what he asked for. Similar to the way LegendHZ was conceived.

[loctune]

Ok, maybe we should ask Mr. Zimmer to see if he wants more MSEGs again in ZebraHZ3

[pdxindy]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

I think the discussion is more interesting within the context of sonic results. Post a preset where you are trying to get a certain sonic result and you cannot cause you need a 5th MSEG. Otherwise it's this abstract thing where a few people say they need it but never demonstrate how and where.

I do more in depth sound design than many users and I hardly ever use the 4 MSEG's that are already there. I have yet to run out of modulation in real use. I think the onus is on those asking for it to show why it's needed. My impression is it isn't needed, just a few people want no limitations even if those limitations are abstract and not an impediment to actual sound design.

[exmatproton]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

I think the discussion is more interesting within the context of sonic results. Post a preset where you are trying to get a certain sonic result and you cannot cause you need a 5th MSEG. Otherwise it's this abstract thing where a few people say they need it but never demonstrate how and where.

I do more in depth sound design than many users and I hardly ever use the 4 MSEG's that are already there. I have yet to run out of modulation in real use. I think the onus is on those asking for it to show why it's needed. My impression is it isn't needed, just a few people want no limitations even if those limitations are abstract and not an impediment to actual sound design.

although i agree mostly...true random generators/S_H LFO's are almost always limited too much, imho. In Zebra3 this is the case as well. Luckily with CLAP this can be resolved on a polyphonic level, but it is not ideal (only Bitwig offers true polyphonic modulation on third party CLAP plugins, afaik). But, you know....it is what it is..Z3 offers loads of other stuff that is quite unique and worth exploring too..

[loctune]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

I think the discussion is more interesting within the context of sonic results. Post a preset where you are trying to get a certain sonic result and you cannot cause you need a 5th MSEG. Otherwise it's this abstract thing where a few people say they need it but never demonstrate how and where.

I do more in depth sound design than many users and I hardly ever use the 4 MSEG's that are already there. I have yet to run out of modulation in real use. I think the onus is on those asking for it to show why it's needed. My impression is it isn't needed, just a few people want no limitations even if those limitations are abstract and not an impediment to actual sound design.

Again no offense, but this is just unfair attitude and cannot lead to any useful discussion. Whatever people post you can always ask them to compromise and use something else so that they don't necessarily need to use a 5th MSEG. But it's never a good thing to compromise...

I am trying to create a flute in Zebra 3. 2 MSEG used as envelope (1 for main sound, 1 for noise), 1 used to control the LFO for progressive vibrato (TBH, there's already compromise made here, I'd want to use 2 separate MSEGs for progressive vibrato control so that I can separate rate and intensity...), 1 used to control timbral change. I can't add anything else further to enhance the result now since I am running out of MSEG. Yes, I can simply compromise, that I give up using nonlinear envelopes to simulate real woodwind behavior, so that I can use normal envelopes and keep the 2 MSEGs for the future, but is it a good thing to do?

[johnnyberrygoode]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

I think the discussion is more interesting within the context of sonic results. Post a preset where you are trying to get a certain sonic result and you cannot cause you need a 5th MSEG. Otherwise it's this abstract thing where a few people say they need it but never demonstrate how and where.

I do more in depth sound design than many users and I hardly ever use the 4 MSEG's that are already there. I have yet to run out of modulation in real use. I think the onus is on those asking for it to show why it's needed. My impression is it isn't needed, just a few people want no limitations even if those limitations are abstract and not an impediment to actual sound design.

Again no offense, but this is just unfair attitude and cannot lead to any useful discussion. Whatever people post you can always ask them to compromise and use something else so that they don't necessarily need to use a 5th MSEG. But it's never a good thing to compromise...

I am trying to create a flute in Zebra 3. 2 MSEG used as envelope (1 for main sound, 1 for noise), 1 used to control the LFO for progressive vibrato (TBH, there's already compromise made here, I'd want to use 2 separate MSEGs for progressive vibrato control so that I can separate rate and intensity...), 1 used to control timbral change. I can't add anything else further to enhance the result now since I am running out of MSEG. Yes, I can simply compromise, that I give up using nonlinear envelopes to simulate real woodwind behavior, so that I can use normal envelopes and keep the 2 MSEGs for the future, but is it a good thing to do?

I think you can try to control the volume + timbre changes through MW. And the speed and intensity of the vibrato through Ctrl A-D directly in the host and specifically in the places where it is needed. And it's not even a compromise, but rather a convenience of using certain features.

[loctune]

Well, of course there' a LOT of possibilities for modulation. Maybe it's good to be forced to be more creative with what you have.

But I can also see the argument for more MSEG. They're just so nice and convenient / visual and the most flexible option. It might be just simpler to consistently use the MSEGs, even if there would be other option.

I think the discussion is more interesting within the context of sonic results. Post a preset where you are trying to get a certain sonic result and you cannot cause you need a 5th MSEG. Otherwise it's this abstract thing where a few people say they need it but never demonstrate how and where.

I do more in depth sound design than many users and I hardly ever use the 4 MSEG's that are already there. I have yet to run out of modulation in real use. I think the onus is on those asking for it to show why it's needed. My impression is it isn't needed, just a few people want no limitations even if those limitations are abstract and not an impediment to actual sound design.

Again no offense, but this is just unfair attitude and cannot lead to any useful discussion. Whatever people post you can always ask them to compromise and use something else so that they don't necessarily need to use a 5th MSEG. But it's never a good thing to compromise...

I am trying to create a flute in Zebra 3. 2 MSEG used as envelope (1 for main sound, 1 for noise), 1 used to control the LFO for progressive vibrato (TBH, there's already compromise made here, I'd want to use 2 separate MSEGs for progressive vibrato control so that I can separate rate and intensity...), 1 used to control timbral change. I can't add anything else further to enhance the result now since I am running out of MSEG. Yes, I can simply compromise, that I give up using nonlinear envelopes to simulate real woodwind behavior, so that I can use normal envelopes and keep the 2 MSEGs for the future, but is it a good thing to do?

I think you can try to control the volume + timbre changes through MW. And the speed and intensity of the vibrato through Ctrl A-D directly in the host and specifically in the places where it is needed. And it's not even a compromise, but rather a convenience of using certain features.

That sounds like a great idea! Although I'd still argue that more MSEG does help, at least in my case.