Zebra 3 Public Beta 3 Revision 20977

[johnnyberrygoode]

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?

By the way, about increasing the number of msegs from four to eight. Urs has already written earlier that this was done because the msegs in zebra2 were not as powerful as in zebra3, so in zebrahz they were increased to eight.

[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?

By the way, about increasing the number of msegs from four to eight. Urs has already written earlier that this was done because the msegs in zebra2 were not as powerful as in zebra3, so in zebrahz they were increased to eight.

I don’t disagree that the morphable MSEG in Zebra 3 is much more powerful. Yet in many cases I find that they still have to be used in the old single frame way - the same as Zebra 2 and ZebraHZ. Thus the request for more.

[ThoughtExperiment]

This argument/discussion just refuses to go away, but I don't see the practical application for even more modulation possibilities than we've already got. You could make a patch that sounds like the creation of the universe, that strikes the listener speechless with awe and admiration. Then you add some more instruments to your arrangement and try to mix it...and you find that all your carefully crafted modulations are either (a) buried in the mix or (b) keep poking out and disrupting your carefully crafted mix.

Which is a long-winded way of explaining why I don't see a practical reason for yet more MSEGs, or anything else. I'm just excited to see the final release, and looking forward to the point where there's nothing left to modulate

[Urs]

I just hope the argument continues long enough here, such that nobody has the energy to bring it back up when we actually release Zebra 3.

[johnnyberrygoode]

I just hope the argument continues long enough here, such that nobody has the energy to bring it back up when we actually release Zebra 3.

I really hope that we will see the new beta this week

[Urs]

I just hope the argument continues long enough here, such that nobody has the energy to bring it back up when we actually release Zebra 3.

I really hope that we will see the new beta this week

Good chance for that.

(expect 200+ pages of requests to bring back the beta UI )

[johnnyberrygoode]

I just hope the argument continues long enough here, such that nobody has the energy to bring it back up when we actually release Zebra 3.

I really hope that we will see the new beta this week

Good chance for that.

(expect 200+ pages of requests to bring back the beta UI )

I think most people just want a more stable version to start migrating from zebra2 to zebra3.

[benmason]

The release couldn't come sooner, I've had so many crashes in the VST3 by removing a modulation and then losing progress. Still I managed to write a track with about 30 instances of Zebra (cinematic techno/ neuro bass) and I can't wait for a stable release I'm literally checking KVR and the Uhe website about 3 to 4 times a day lol

[IanFu]

... I'm literally checking KVR and the Uhe website about 3 to 4 times a day lol

Tell me about it. I've already been approached by the police 3 times today and asked why I'm loitering. I'm starting to run out of excuses!

[Erdemkeys]

When the osc is set to unison, is there a way to control the volume of the unisons apart from the fundamental? i can't find this anywhere, also not in the manual. Can't wait for the final release!

[Erdemkeys]

the 'init' option is still not working well on bitwig with the CLAP version, some parameters don't reset. i had read before that this issue was on bitwig's side, is there a way you can communicate this with the bitwig crew?

[leclebau]

Not sure it was already asked but it would be great to have an indication of the position within the oscilllator's timeline into the easy editor like in the main editor.

[Urs]

When the osc is set to unison, is there a way to control the volume of the unisons apart from the fundamental? i can't find this anywhere, also not in the manual. Can't wait for the final release!

Not yet. but we'll be looking into this in the future... it's filed as a feature request.

[Urs]

the 'init' option is still not working well on bitwig with the CLAP version, some parameters don't reset. i had read before that this issue was on bitwig's side, is there a way you can communicate this with the bitwig crew?

This seems to be a problem with Bitwig's Undo-System.

[tasmaniandevil]

... is there a way you can communicate this with the bitwig crew?

We already reported it to Bitwig a few times. It would be great if some users could report this to Bitwig as well, increasing the chance it gets elevated in their priority list.