Zebra 3 Public Beta (final beta)

[Teksonik]

I'm sorry. I own all those synths and they do not do everything. I can name plenty of things they can't do simply because they are not fully modular and don't have every possible module under the sun.

So then you can name even more things that Zebra 3 can't do since it is even farther from "doing everything" than the synths in the same price range that I mentioned. Right?

As for my skill set, I can use any synth. Been doing this for 50 years.

I bought my first synth in 1980 so "only" 45 years. Besides the synths I've owned and played I used to work in a music store so have been around far more synths that you likely have over your half a century. That seems like a long time to be using synths and still be intimidated by simple feature requests.

I'm talking about the average user. Not everybody wants a Softrube Modular or even a Cherry Audio Modular.These are not easy synths for the average user to program

Who are you to define "average user"? Do you have any data to back up your assertions? At any rate you're really insulting the abilities of the "average user". Just because you sold a few patch sets doesn't make that significant market data. I sold a lot of sets many years ago and none of them were for modulars but again not significant market data.

And as far as Zebra 3 not adding anything new, I never said it shouldn't. All I'm saying is if it DIDN'T add anything new, it's fine the way it is. It doesn't have to have everything under the sun.

Oh sure it's fine as it is now and I've already said in this thread that it's a great synth and the upgrade price was no-brainer fair but we're just two people. How the larger market reacts to a synth with such a price point is the real issue. More features, more people can find what they want. Not rocket science.

Again I never said it has to do "everything under the sun", I simply made a request for multiple Arps and a suggestion for a way to organize modules in the view pane. That's not "everything under the sun" and Urs has already hinted that the Arp may return in a future version of Z3 so it's not a radical request. Did I ask for multi-sample support even though that's very important to me? No because I know that's not going to happen but hey I sure wouldn't turn it down if it did.

If people get triggered by a simple feature request then that's out of my control. I don't see anyone pushing back against the people who complained about the workflow which would almost certainly require a major rewrite to change. Odd the battles you choose to fight.

In the end even if a feature is added it doesn't mean you have to use it, you can limit yourself.... by choice. But if that feature does not exist anyone who wants it can't use it....by force.
So you're saying I shouldn't try to make Zebra 3 more powerful by making suggestions (not to be confused with demands) but others should be allowed to dumb it down to their level? Make that make sense. The suggestion to "use another synth" does nothing to make Zebra 3 a better synth and a better product and really isn't that why we are here during the BETA phase? In every alpha and beta team I've been on for countless plugins and DAWs my main goal was to help make the software better so the developer could be as successful as possible and get the highest return for his time and effort invested. Perhaps you're here for a different reason.

Again, Urs has to decide if it's worth the man hours to stuff Zebra 3 with even more features. It's not like he can just snap a finger and it happens

And I have said as much in earlier post. I really wish you'd read my posts before quoting them. It would save both of us a lot of time.

Again I don't know if that would take hours or months to accomplish.

Again, I am just grateful for what it does have.

As I have already said.....

Here's how I look at Zebra 3 so far...the upgrade price from Zebra 2 was very fair and Z3 is certainly a great synth so I'm quite happy with my purchase.

At any rate I just want to help make Zebra be the best it can be. If that triggers anyone then so be it.

[Teksonik]

limitation push creativity

I will push back against that myth until the day they pry the synths out of my cold dead hands.
Limitations stifle creativity. Period, end of story.
The only thing limitations do are force you to compromise.

Dr. Seuss once took a $50 bet to write a story using only 50 words. The result was the most successful book of his career, Green Eggs & Ham.

I'll point out to you that the book was aimed at preschoolers. If you want your synths to be aimed at the same demographic then there is nothing more I can say.

At any rate if he had used more than 50 words there is no reason to believe the book wouldn't have been even more successful.

The bottom line is that every time I see the ridiculous assertion that "limitations spark creativity" I'll be here to say "No they most certainly do not, they stifle creativity".

So we'll have to accept the battle will go on but using weak analogies like a children's book to support your position is never going to change my position. Round and Round we go.

[cryophonik]

Am I losing my mind, or did U-he change their mind about the free upgrade to Zebra 3 for Dark Zebra owners? When I requested my licenses, I got an email with a link to upgrade to Z3 for $35, but I bought Dark Zebra more than 10 years ago when they promised the free upgrade.

You might have purchased TDZ with a different email address. Contact our support and they'll be sorting it out. It's pretty much what 6 people have been doing all day every day for a week or so.

Yup, support got me sorted out. Thanks!

[chagzuki]

Will the unison section be expanded in the future? I'd love if Z3 has the Swarm mode in Dune 3, it's very unique sounding.

I'm not seeing any controls for changing unison style. Am I missing something obvious?

[biberact]

I like the way how Vital or Serum 2 handle the number of MSEG/LFO's. Let's say you have 4 MSEG's at the beginning and once you use the 4th MSEG, a fifth MSEG appears out of nowhere. Maybe that could be implemented in Z3 too? I guess everyone would be happy with that solution.

[jtsterays]

Will the unison section be expanded in the future? I'd love if Z3 has the Swarm mode in Dune 3, it's very unique sounding.

I'm not seeing any controls for changing unison style. Am I missing something obvious?

No, I just phrased that wrong. We have no controls atm.

[Urs]

The like the way how Vital or Serum 2 handle the number of MSEG/LFO's. Let's say you have 4 MSEG's at the beginning and once you use the 4th MSEG, a fifth MSEG appears out of nowhere. Maybe that could be implemented in Z3 too? I guess everyone would be happy with that solution.

So here is the deal. Start making sounds in Zebra 3. If you come up with something utterly gorgeous and mind blowing that would absolutely benefit from a 5th MSEG, we can have a talk.

[chagzuki]

No, I just phrased that wrong. We have no controls atm.

It's an obligatory feature on a super-synth these days. I wonder how it can fit into the GUI?

[biberact]

The like the way how Vital or Serum 2 handle the number of MSEG/LFO's. Let's say you have 4 MSEG's at the beginning and once you use the 4th MSEG, a fifth MSEG appears out of nowhere. Maybe that could be implemented in Z3 too? I guess everyone would be happy with that solution.

So here is the deal. Start making sounds in Zebra 3. If you come up with something utterly gorgeous and mind blowing that would absolutely benefit from a 5th MSEG, we can have a talk.

Sounds fair

[billinder33]

I just wanted to give some feedback on Zebra 3 after trying the beta last night:

Our current approach is to make Zebra 3 for people who already know and love Zebra 2, before we try to captivate a larger audience. So maybe we should've done more to pick up others from where they are, but we weren't sure either how Z3 would be perceived. Expectations are high.

Anyhow, Zebra was always controversial, in the same way as you and others describe. Over the years we have seen a pattern emerge though, where some people either "click" with it or not. I think that a large part of next year will go into providing materials that help people click.

The reason it is like it is has something to do with my general design philosophy. Some designs need to be self explanatory, easy to grasp and immediate. Ticket vending machines for instance. Other designs can't afford the luxury of "easy to use", because they need to be operated quickly, from muscle memory, where constant guiding would get in the way. Cars are like that, in a way. There's no "let me show you how to set gear" all the time. You figure it out once, then forget about it.

So I think that Zebra is one of those concepts that are very fast to work with once an initial hurdle is taken. After some time, what seems convoluted, becomes intuitive. I often speak about "tasks" in sound design. Like, "now I make a waveform" or "now, let's mix these elements!" or "ok, let's make this thing a but faster and deeper". That's where things become more clear maybe.

The point of Zebra as a concept is that I think that

- sound design tasks often involve multiple modules
- ideally all modules involved in a task are accessible at once
- humans are extremely capable at learning abstract concepts
- the general overview must never be further away than one click

I have no immediate way to go into more depth, but yeah, we might have to lay all those thoughts out in time.

I think you're in a the same position as Spectrasonics. You understandably don't want to alienate the existing user base but at the same time need to acquire new users. So you're trying to balance $30 upgraders vs $250 new users. The difference is that Omnisphere presents itself as a 'tweakable rompler', whereas Zebra is definitely more of a 'sound design tool'. And right now Serum, PhasePlant, and perhaps Pigments and Avenger to a lesser degree have set the standard for usability in sound design synths. That new user is going to expect modern sound design paradigms that the upgraders may not appreciate.

I'm not a UI expert, so can't confidently say how I would approach your design if I were starting from scratch. I get that the original design intent was to get everything on one screen, but with a large fixed routing matrix and no collapsible grouping, vertical orientation for oscs/LFOs/FMOs/etc. but horizontal orientation for FX, it's just a mess.

I would definitely not have a large, persistent routing section carving out the middle vertical third of the screen. I do love that clicking on a module in the routing section moves it into focus (I made this suggestion to the Synthmaster dev, but unfortunately I don't think it ever got implemented). Routing modules across the 4 busses/lanes would be better accomplished via drag&drop connectors.

I might have gone with a horizontal orientation for the module router at the top of the screen with the routing flow moving left-to-right. You might be able to get both module and FX lanes into the top third of the screen, but I would likely make them tab-enabled so you are either looking at one or the other. Clicking on a module in either the Module or FX routing layout could bring the module/FX unit into an edit window in the middle third of the screen, then the bottom third could be dedicated to MSEGs, LFOs, etc. If you did keep the current FX modules layout, then they should collapse similar to PhasePlant or Bitwig plugins so a user can see the entire chain and avoid scrolling.

Alternatively, moving to a dedicated tab for FX similar to Serum/Omnisphere would free up a lot of real estate for accessing the modules (oscs, envelopes, LFOs, etc), which currently feel really cramped. You could add a third tab for a legit mod matrix.... So 3 tabs driving the main screen content, similar to Serum - 1) Modules router and module configs, 2) FX router and FX device configs, and 3) the Mod Matrix. With LFOs and MSEGs remaining persistent at the bottom third of the screen.

I know I'm just spitballing here, but this would be way more elegant and user friendly without sacrificing function. Not sure how your code base is organized, but might be able build this layout separately, giving users an option in Settings for which interface to work with - Legacy or Modern.

Some other miscellaneous things:

One huge critique I have is the fixed position of the Envelopes. The entire patch has to be configured around these fixed envelop positions, and you have to take this into consideration at the start of the design process. Why not just include them as modules, place them in the oscs, or in the same LFO Scheme, and have one master envelope fixed at the pre-FX output stage?

Why can you drag/drop modulation assignments but also have a dropdown list on the modules? What's the difference?

Can a user import preset waveforms into the Wavetable oscs? If so it's not obvious how.

Also, last night I was automating EQ frequencies and basically blew out the CPU. I don't recall, is this one of the known issues in your list?

Finally it's 2025, sliders should be banned from Envelope UIs in modern sound design synths!!!

[wagtunes]

I'm sorry. I own all those synths and they do not do everything. I can name plenty of things they can't do simply because they are not fully modular and don't have every possible module under the sun.

So then you can name even more things that Zebra 3 can't do since it is even farther from "doing everything" than the synths in the same price range that I mentioned. Right?

As for my skill set, I can use any synth. Been doing this for 50 years.

I bought my first synth in 1980 so "only" 45 years. Besides the synths I've owned and played I used to work in a music store so have been around far more synths that you likely have over your half a century. That seems like a long time to be using synths and still be intimidated by simple feature requests.

I'm talking about the average user. Not everybody wants a Softrube Modular or even a Cherry Audio Modular.These are not easy synths for the average user to program

Who are you to define "average user"? Do you have any data to back up your assertions? At any rate you're really insulting the abilities of the "average user". Just because you sold a few patch sets doesn't make that significant market data. I sold a lot of sets many years ago and none of them were for modulars but again not significant market data.

And as far as Zebra 3 not adding anything new, I never said it shouldn't. All I'm saying is if it DIDN'T add anything new, it's fine the way it is. It doesn't have to have everything under the sun.

Oh sure it's fine as it is now and I've already said in this thread that it's a great synth and the upgrade price was no-brainer fair but we're just two people. How the larger market reacts to a synth with such a price point is the real issue. More features, more people can find what they want. Not rocket science.

Again I never said it has to do "everything under the sun", I simply made a request for multiple Arps and a suggestion for a way to organize modules in the view pane. That's not "everything under the sun" and Urs has already hinted that the Arp may return in a future version of Z3 so it's not a radical request. Did I ask for multi-sample support even though that's very important to me? No because I know that's not going to happen but hey I sure wouldn't turn it down if it did.

If people get triggered by a simple feature request then that's out of my control. I don't see anyone pushing back against the people who complained about the workflow which would almost certainly require a major rewrite to change. Odd the battles you choose to fight.

In the end even if a feature is added it doesn't mean you have to use it, you can limit yourself.... by choice. But if that feature does not exist anyone who wants it can't use it....by force.
So you're saying I shouldn't try to make Zebra 3 more powerful by making suggestions (not to be confused with demands) but others should be allowed to dumb it down to their level? Make that make sense. The suggestion to "use another synth" does nothing to make Zebra 3 a better synth and a better product and really isn't that why we are here during the BETA phase? In every alpha and beta team I've been on for countless plugins and DAWs my main goal was to help make the software better so the developer could be as successful as possible and get the highest return for his time and effort invested. Perhaps you're here for a different reason.

Again, Urs has to decide if it's worth the man hours to stuff Zebra 3 with even more features. It's not like he can just snap a finger and it happens

And I have said as much in earlier post. I really wish you'd read my posts before quoting them. It would save both of us a lot of time.

Again I don't know if that would take hours or months to accomplish.

Again, I am just grateful for what it does have.

As I have already said.....

Here's how I look at Zebra 3 so far...the upgrade price from Zebra 2 was very fair and Z3 is certainly a great synth so I'm quite happy with my purchase.

At any rate I just want to help make Zebra be the best it can be. If that triggers anyone then so be it.

Well then it seems we agree on more than we disagree on. I guess my biggest fear is that if you put too much into a synth, some people may get turned off because it's too confusing to use and that's a lost sale. No, I don't have market data to support the following statement but I am fairly confident that more copies of The Legend have been sold than Softtube Modular. Just the fact that there are so few modular synths on the market compared to Moog clones would tend to make one believe that. Because if there was that much of a demand for modular synths, wouldn't there be more of them? I mean look how many OB-X's we have. And I'm sure more are coming.

Zebra is already complex enough as it is. Imagine if Urs took the whole thing apart and made it fully modular. Do you think sales would go up or down? I'm talking new users. Not upgrades. I wouldn't want to bet that Zebra 3 would sell more if it was fully modular. Would you?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to whatever Urs does with it.

But yes, a dedicated ARP would be so nice.

[jtsterays]

No, I just phrased that wrong. We have no controls atm.

It's an obligatory feature on a super-synth these days. I wonder how it can fit into the GUI?

I'm thinking a small icon next to the Unison name, that opens a small popup window. Or a hidden tab like the FMO and Modal for consistency. I agree, a must have feature nowadays.

[dayjob]

don't feed the troll. quite easy to add someone to the ignore list on KVR w/the "Add Foe" feature that appears after clicking on someone's username.

[BBFG#]

No complaints here.
I'm very much enjoying the plugin.
u-He is without a doubt the best company in every aspect that I deal with.

[zerocrossing]

It is odd to have two very different modulation paradigms. To a new user, it seems like a lot of things are just not mod targets, when they are, but only in the mod matrix. I'd also appreciate a "focus" screen, where all modulation can be seen as a list, like Omnisphere does it.

I see it the same way, but Urs already stated for this. What I don't understand is: what would you take Zebra 3 away, if you'd decide to drop all the "direct modulation" fields out and just leave a central concise modulation system, be it a matrix or like in Phase Plant? I would say nothing.

So, in Zebra 2 the ModMatrix was an add on "for when you need it" because almost everything had direct modulation slots. So the general concept is neither new nor odd. We have however improved the ModMatrix concept over the time, and now it plays a bigger role.

In Zebra 3 many modules became more complex and deep than in Zebra 2, so adding lot of direct modulation slots was very cluttering. We tried.

So we reduced the direct modulation slots for wherever it matters the most. And that is typically wherever sample accurate modulation makes an audible difference, e.g. in the FMO modulation gains, and of course on filter cutoff.

Our approach to the ModMatrix is ultra flexible, but to make it feasible, it runs on a more sparse granularity than direct modulation slots. The control rate of direct modulation slots is 1/4 sample rate or 10kHz, while the granularity of the ModMatrix is about a sixteenth of that, about 800Hz when the sample rate is 44.1/48 kHz.

So in Hive we tested various ways to increase that granularity, but the audible differences (if any) would not justify the increased CPU hit. At an update rate of 8-16 samples (which is better than many, many synths), the CPU doubles. Not worth it.

I kind of figured it was something like that, and typically found on hardware synthesizers. The Arturia PolyBrute is a good example. The mod matrix is fast enough for most applications, but oscillator and Filter FM get dedicated hard-wired knobs for this.

What’s impressive is, you’re getting really clean filter FM out of 10 kHz sample rate. What voodoo you must be doing! It ‘taint natural, I tells ya!