Zebra 3.0 - out now

[DNTK]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

[pdxindy]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

I do that sort of stuff in the DAW with modulation and automation. In Bitwig I can add a Macro and modulate as many parameters in Zebra 3 as I want. The synth parameters can still be adjusted. Then I can automate the Macro... or modulate it with an MSEG. In Bitwig, one can drag-n-drop an MSEG curve onto an automation lane, and a time selection of automation can be dragged into an MSEG... so it flows easily in both directions.

But not every DAW can do that sort of stuff so fluidly, or at all, so Zebra should also have a built-in solution.

[EvilDragon]

Wasting an LFO to scan a modmapper to get a custom waveform going is worse than LFOs having custom waveforms in them.

The whole point of the Mappers is to lend a custom curve to other modulators. It is literally the one reason they were built for.

Yes, sure. In my case I most often use them to shape the response of modwheel, aftertouch and MPE Timbre. If I then want to have 3 LFOs with custom waveforms, I can only use one modmapper to give a custom shape to one LFO. And then I have to move to MSEG (hoping I didn't use all of them to shape the individual oscillators in some way)...

So definitely still a very valid feature request that LFOs have some form of custom waveform mode.

[DNTK]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

I do that sort of stuff in the DAW with modulation and automation. In Bitwig I can add a Macro and modulate as many parameters in Zebra 3 as I want. The synth parameters can still be adjusted. Then I can automate the Macro... or modulate it with an MSEG. In Bitwig, one can drag-n-drop an MSEG curve onto an automation lane, and a time selection of automation can be dragged into an MSEG... so it flows easily in both directions.

But not every DAW can do that sort of stuff so fluidly, or at all, so Zebra should also have a built-in solution.

You're right, it's certainly not possible with all DAWs.

I had forgotten about that.

In my case, it's possible with Cubase and Bitwig, so it's not a problem for me, but I understand that it would be convenient if it were possible with Zebra 3.

[EvilDragon]

IMHO, the issue here is there are too many workarounds in Zebra 3, yet it lacks the ability to do a number of things in the most basic and standard ways. It's currently a synth with unnecessary level of complexity and thus the workflow can easily become quite messy.

There's no issue here.

Zebra 3 is not the synth for you. It's obvious from the many posts you've made heavily criticizing various aspects of the synth. That's fine. You're point of view is valid for you. No synth pleases everyone. The u-he design philosophy just isn't what you want.

No, don't be like that. Don't be an apologist for Urs, some criticisms are valid and you shouldn't be shutting them down. "But look, it works for me!" is not really a good answer to valid criticism.

[exmatproton]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

Yeah, but, when doing collabs with other people, how would one share those modulations? I mean, most people i collab with don't have the same DAW

[DNTK]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

Yeah, but, when doing collabs with other people, how would one share those modulations? I mean, most people i collab with don't have the same DAW

If collaborating with someone who doesn't own the same DAW, I'd probably choose to export to an audio file.
Assuming there's nothing else in common besides Zebra 3, that seems like the most practical option.
I think I'd do this with other plugins as well, not just Zebra 3.
But this isn't to say I'm rejecting the new features of Zebra 3.
It's just that, currently, that's the method I would choose.

[exmatproton]

If I created a preset that performs complex movements to match a particular song, would I actually use that preset for other songs?
I would probably use automation in my DAW.
I enjoy exploring whether it's possible to do this entirely with Zebra3, as it's a hobby and an experiment.

Yeah, but, when doing collabs with other people, how would one share those modulations? I mean, most people i collab with don't have the same DAW

If collaborating with someone who doesn't own the same DAW, I'd probably choose to export to an audio file.
Assuming there's nothing else in common besides Zebra 3, that seems like the most practical option.
I think I'd do this with other plugins as well, not just Zebra 3.
But this isn't to say I'm rejecting the new features of Zebra 3.
It's just that, currently, that's the method I would choose.

Yeah..it is the only thing one can do..haha. I was only saying; would be neat to have those modulation options natively available in the plugin(s). Btw, this is hardly a dealbreaker for me. Although i would love to see more mod options, it is quite packed..

[Urs]

I'm thinking about starting a new thread in our company forum just for this because it would be great to have examples in order to figure out the best way forward, and a discussion that is on topic.

[SamDi]

IMHO, the issue here is there are too many workarounds in Zebra 3, yet it lacks the ability to do a number of things in the most basic and standard ways. It's currently a synth with unnecessary level of complexity and thus the workflow can easily become quite messy.

There's no issue here.

Zebra 3 is not the synth for you. It's obvious from the many posts you've made heavily criticizing various aspects of the synth. That's fine. You're point of view is valid for you. No synth pleases everyone. The u-he design philosophy just isn't what you want.

U-he carefully curates their feature set. They do that in all their synths. Some people like that approach. Some people don't. There's no right answer. While they will for sure develop the synth further in the coming years, you can be sure they are not going to toss every possible feature in. That's not what Zebra 3 is about. Just as they haven't added samples, granular, etc.

Zebra 3 has something of a modular approach. What you call workarounds, are that modular approach in action. Modules are meant to be combined. The Math module uses other modules. And with the Math Module and an LFO, you can obtain a wide range of results not possible with the LFO alone. That's a feature, not a workaround.

To be honest, I find this kind of posts annoying. It's good, that Zebra fullfills your kind of working style for 100% and you are completely happy with it. But sometimes your posts sound like plain fanboy-ism, instead of really trying to understand, what could be the intention of some critics. Even if some use-cases don't apply to you, that doesn't mean, they are not legit.

Just because there might be workarounds for this and that, does not mean, that they are nice, convenient or fast. To mess around with mod mappers does not replace proper drawable curves in the LFO. This is the case for many other standard features other synths have and Zebra not (yet).

We all see the value in Zebra 3, because if not, we wouldn't make the effort to discuss improvements und future features here. You are often a very helpful guy, by posting how to do things in a way, others or me might not be aware of. But beyond that, regularly posting how perfectly satisfied and happy you are with Zebra und talking down improvement requests from others, isn't helpful at all.

[Andreya_Autumn]

*But* here's the annoying part: while working on an arrangement we are constantly moving the playhead around and listening to evaluate changes etc, right? With this MSEG setup I had to always start playback from a barline! The MSEG starts up from phase 0 on first note-on, so if I press play from any other beat than the one, the MSEG syncs up wrong with the timeline, and the groove totally falls apart. This was very very annoying to deal with, and eventually I ended up freezing/rendering that track so I didn't have to deal with it.

That's a good point.

Yeah.

Yeah I think this is the kicker. I have wrestled this same timeline sync issue with VCV Rack Pro on and off for a while. It's a bit subtle but once you experience it it's such a nuisance.

The Ramp LFO -> Mapper trick can indeed achieve timeline sync. And for trance-gate type things, that actually does work just great with the Mapper in quantize mode.

But even in smooth mode the mapper can't do groovy shapes like these:

Groovy shapes.png

Which is why people keep harping on about this one, it's one of those "But it's so close" situations. You *can* set it up, but working on your track becomes annoying. Freezing the Zebra track is a pretty workable solution, but it'd be nice not needing to do that.

Perhaps this could work:
- Third loop mode called "timeline sync" or something.
- In which on voice start the MSEG computes its start point from the song position.
- Unavailable when the MSEG is amp source (for the same reason Infinite is)
- Fixes the loop points to the start/end, disable a/r rates (when would those happen anyway?)
- Disables trigger (makes no difference) and release mode (see above)
- Forces all the curves to have the same length.

I am guessing that last point would be the most annoying code-wise...
But yeah, such a solution removes the voice lifetime issue. And also the conceptual question of what the heck timeline sync even should do when morphing shapes of different length (which I think is probably unsolvable). I bet people would be happy with that.

[Andreya_Autumn]

I'm thinking about starting a new thread in our company forum just for this because it would be great to have examples in order to figure out the best way forward, and a discussion that is on topic.

Oh maybe what I just posted should've gone there. Missed this before I clicked post. But yeah feel free!

[Andreya_Autumn]

P.S. correction. With enough points, the Mapper probably *can* do that shape, or something close to it. It's just way way less pleasant to edit/play with those curves to get the bounce/groove/feel right.

[_al_]

Perhaps this could work:
- Third loop mode called "timeline sync" or something.

I'm actually surprised Z3 doesn't do this already!
My Melda plugins sync to host position, no matter how intricate the curve shape.
Have barely even touched Z3 yet, as Serum 2 is all I need for now, but for a synth that was 20+ years in the making, I really would expect something like this.

[EvilDragon]

I don't think it's necessary for all curves to be the same length in this new mode. We don't force that in Surge... It's simply, MSEG timeline units match your DAW's timeline (depending on baseline MSEG rate of course).