Zebra 3 Control ABCD - MIDI vs. Macros

[jooster]

What I'm about to say is more of a side-rant have nothing to do with Controls A-D, nor is any of this aimed at Zebra 3, so take it with a grain of salt, but ...

……. "WILL YOU JUST LET ME DESIGN SOM F#@!&$G SOUNDS?!"

Ha, funny! I like to design my own sounds, just don’t have a ton of time for it. Additionally, i usually get so swept away with some particular sound or aspect of it that it makes me feel sound design is a time machine teleporting me forward…. So i end up with a few handful of sounds at some point and then perhaps purchasing a lib or two. The trouble (for me) with many libraries is that only a few patches are distinct and interesting. Of course tastes differ but i also see a considerable repeat between patches in libraries, perhaps to be able to see this lib has (some big number) of patches? I don’t care for macros, but rather hook up my own modulations. And maybe there is a happy medium for some of us; make a half baked library with partial cooked patches and instructions/ideas how to finish? (Sort of like these bake your own partially done breads). That would save both of us time. I’d be interested to buy a library with a number of patches having good initial sound diversity and instructions/ideas from the designer to make them your own. My 2ct, and excuses for going off track…

[pdxindy]

When I open a synth with macros and browse the factory library and most presets have only like the first few macros assigned (even of only 4...), I feel like they failed at making a good preset library.

I stopped trying to follow all the complexities of Midi vs Macros with Controls A-D

How I decided to deal with it, is to never touch the A-D knobs on the Zebra 3 Perform Page. It's too dangerous to use them because I will inevitably forget that I did, save and close a Bitwig project, and then when I re-open the project, the sound has changed and I would have no way to remember how to get back to the saved state.

The bake function is complicated. I don't know what has been tweaked and how much, or how to go back and of course I have to remember to use it, or my project saves wrong. Much safer to ignore the knobs altogether.

I'd welcome a preference option to disable them... not the underlying function, but just the GUI knobs. Then I cannot make a mistake.

[Howard]

How I decided to deal with it, is to never touch the A-D knobs on the Zebra 3 Perform Page.

We hope to change your mind with the next update.

[pdxindy]

How I decided to deal with it, is to never touch the A-D knobs on the Zebra 3 Perform Page.

We hope to change your mind with the next update.

My mind is open to being changed

[Held]

Second point is, that 8 macros would be nicer, than 4. Even if your sound designers don't use them, there are sometimes cases, where 4 macros can be to less for own presets.

When I open a synth with macros and browse the factory library and most presets have only like the first few macros assigned (even of only 4...), I feel like they failed at making a good preset library. It comes across half assed. That's why we went through the pains of filling the gaps. 7 years.

I don't quite get it? You don't necessarily care about a synth/presets having macros, you're just bothered by unassigned macro controls?

So a preset library with zero macro controls would be fine on a synth that doesn't have macros, but would be half-assed on a synth that has macros? Why isn't the synth half-assed for not providing (more than 4) macros?

What about unused oscillators or filters? Is a preset also half-assed if it doesn't use all available LFOs etc?

Anyway, I hope you found a good solution for the existing ABCD controls as Howard hinted.

[Urs]

I don't quite get it? You don't necessarily care about a synth/presets having macros, you're just bothered by unassigned macro controls?

That is a bizarre conclusion considering that this whole thread - and probably hundreds of posts elsewhere - is about finding a good solution for macros.

[Held]

I don't quite get it? You don't necessarily care about a synth/presets having macros, you're just bothered by unassigned macro controls?

That is a bizarre conclusion considering that this whole thread - and probably hundreds of posts elsewhere - is about finding a good solution for macros.

Based on the lengthy discussions you mentioned, you seem to have two main beliefs in relation to macros

1) If a synth has macros, all presets should use all macros
2) Assigning functionality to macros is a lot of work

This seemed to be the main motivation to limit Zebra 3 to 4 assignable controls (and no macros in the initial release).

I was trying to understand your reasoning behind 1) better.

[Urs]

What's hard to understand? If only half the macros are assigned on average, that is like breaking a promise, no? They don't exactly say "Hey, our synth has 8 macros, but if you wanna use them, half of the time you have to assign them yourself, good luck with that...". Unless of course they call them "user macros" which already implies exactly that

Anyhow, it always bothered me that Zebra 2 did not have all its XY assigned in our libraries. Hence, over the years we started several attempts to get this done, community projects, hired sound designers... in the end we hired a guy to do it, and its took several years. Now it's fine. Zebra 2 XYs are a great feature now, but the most expensive one we have ever implemented.

So if we opt for Zebra 3 to have a concept that fuses performance controls with macro concepts, it's certainly also an economic decision. But we also hear what Sound Author says, and thinking in terms of "performance controls first" simply gave us a better set of factory presets.

[Held]

What's hard to understand? If only half the macros are assigned on average, that is like breaking a promise, no? They don't exactly say "Hey, our synth has 8 macros, but if you wanna use them, half of the time you have to assign them yourself, good luck with that...".

What makes macros so special? The same logic can applied to other parts of the synths. Most presets only use a fraction of the available OSCs, filters, modulators etc.

[ThoughtExperiment]

What's hard to understand? If only half the macros are assigned on average, that is like breaking a promise, no? They don't exactly say "Hey, our synth has 8 macros, but if you wanna use them, half of the time you have to assign them yourself, good luck with that...".

What makes macros so special? The same logic can applied to other parts of the synths. Most presets only use a fraction of the available OSCs, filters, modulators etc.

5 pages (so far) devoted solely to the subject of macros would appear to indicate that they are special, despite what you think

[Urs]

What's hard to understand? If only half the macros are assigned on average, that is like breaking a promise, no? They don't exactly say "Hey, our synth has 8 macros, but if you wanna use them, half of the time you have to assign them yourself, good luck with that...".

What makes macros so special? The same logic can applied to other parts of the synths. Most presets only use a fraction of the available OSCs, filters, modulators etc.

It is the same logic only in a very narrow sense. In terms of "user experience" (which is a quite important thing, I would say), it is better to have as many macros assigned as possible while at the same time as few modules used as necessary.

[Held]

What's hard to understand? If only half the macros are assigned on average, that is like breaking a promise, no? They don't exactly say "Hey, our synth has 8 macros, but if you wanna use them, half of the time you have to assign them yourself, good luck with that...".

What makes macros so special? The same logic can applied to other parts of the synths. Most presets only use a fraction of the available OSCs, filters, modulators etc.

It is the same logic only in a very narrow sense. In terms of "user experience" (which is a quite important thing, I would say), it is better to have as many macros assigned as possible while at the same time as few modules used as necessary.

But that still doesn't explain why having additional, unassigned macros would be bad for my "user experience". It's only bad for users who are bothered by unassigned macros. But why would that bother a user? No one is asking for less pre-assigned macros.

[Urs]

Really? In what world or mindset is "only half the macros are assigned" not a worse user experience than "all macros are assigned"?

Sorry, if you can't follow me. We have to live with differing views then.

[Urs]

(and we do offer a quick way to free up A..D, so if users prefer them unassigned, it's a click away)

[Held]

Really? In what world or mindset is "only half the macros are assigned" not a worse user experience than "all macros are assigned"?

Sorry, if you can't follow me. We have to live with differing views then.

I only care about the absolute number of macros I get. I'd rather get 8 macros with 4 assigned than 4 macros with 4 assigned. The number of assigned macros is the same, right? So how would 4 overall be better?

I guess you see unassigned macros as a problem and I see them as potential. You can still require your preset designers to assign 4 even if there are 8 overall, no?

But yeah, people see the world differently and it's your synth, so you do you