Zebra 3.0 - out now

[knob_monster]

Subsample phase wrap sharing is indeed the only way to avoid sync jitter in a modular graph. Without rendering both phases in the same block, zero-crossing extraction is always a sample late, causing digital aliasing. A dual-VCO module is the only clean architectural solution for that hardware-style sync sound.

[rACatkvr]

Apropos of nothing, I was just playing around with Zebra 3 and I was really struck by just the raw sound of the oscillators.

Just two oscillators set to saw slightly detunes, panned slightly and using two separate pitch settings for each oscillator with uncalibrate at different levels on each.

Sounds absolutely amazing.

Synthesizers are for making sounds?! News to me

Enough of your radical ideas.

You don’t want to derail this by talking about the actual (wonderful) sounds of Z3? /sarcasm mode off

I find Z3 to be great and, unlike those who are already asking for more this or more that or more this AND that, think that it’s deep enough to drown in for at least 4-5 years before hitting limits.

[liquidsound]

it’s deep enough to drown in for at least 4-5 years before hitting limits.

Not including Sleep, eat, work etc.

[cvale]

I do think it's worth saying: there are different expectations between a niche synth that does a few things well but stays in its lane, and a workhorse synth that tries to cover as much ground as possible. In that regard, I think when someone bemoans that Zebra 3 doesn't have X or Y feature, in a sense it's a rather large compliment. Because Zebra 3 is definitely a workhorse (work zebra?) and a really good one, and a great sounding one. If it were subpar, no one would care that it lacked features X or Y. Zebra 3 is soooooo painfully close to being the only synth you'd ever need that the narrow range of things it can't do are more conspicuous than they would be on a synth that can't do a hundred of the things that Zebra 3 can do.
What I'm saying is that there are a couple sides to this: on the one hand it's unfair to expect that it's going to be perfect for everyone, because that's impossible. On the other hand, wishing that it had X and Y features is a product of the implicit acknowledgement of how good it already is and that yes, it's natural to wish that something which is 99% perfect would just be 100% perfect. There isn't really a definitive solution to that. The best that can be hoped for is that the developers do what they can to meet the expectations they are capable of meeting, and from the other side, people are willing to compromise the expectations that just can't be reasonably met.

[exmatproton]

I do think it's worth saying: there are different expectations between a niche synth that does a few things well but stays in its lane, and a workhorse synth that tries to cover as much ground as possible. In that regard, I think when someone bemoans that Zebra 3 doesn't have X or Y feature, in a sense it's a rather large compliment. Because Zebra 3 is definitely a workhorse (work zebra?) and a really good one, and a great sounding one. If it were subpar, no one would care that it lacked features X or Y. Zebra 3 is soooooo painfully close to being the only synth you'd ever need that the narrow range of things it can't do are more conspicuous than they would be on a synth that can't do a hundred of the things that Zebra 3 can do.
What I'm saying is that there are a couple sides to this: on the one hand it's unfair to expect that it's going to be perfect for everyone, because that's impossible. On the other hand, wishing that it had X and Y features is a product of the implicit acknowledgement of how good it already is and that yes, it's natural to wish that something which is 99% perfect would just be 100% perfect. There isn't really a definitive solution to that. The best that can be hoped for is that the developers do what they can to meet the expectations they are capable of meeting, and from the other side, people are willing to compromise the expectations that just can't be reasonably met.

Exactly this