Zebra 3 Public Beta 2 Revision 20552

Official support for: u-he.com
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jtsterays wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 5:29 pm Also here's an argument for 8 instead of 4 macro knobs: The reason sound designers like 4 more because they want to pack more into each knob, to make them really stand out/impressive when you turn them.
That is totally not my experience :wink:

In my experience, sound designers do not want to assign any macro control at all. It's extra work for diminishing returns, and often frustrating work. Because with each degree of freedom to bend parameters come settings that are too loud, too shrill, too quiet. Or maybe when one macro is up, two others have no more effect. Often a macro would control 1 parameter for a purpose, and 3 more to tame side effects when interacting with other macros.

Again, we had an employee add 4 XYs to our 20 or so soundsets for Hive 2 and Zebra 2, and it took him half of his time over 7 years. Because the sound designers would not do it and because it just is an amazingly tedious job to do.

We even once had a community effort, we asked people if they'd help us out ("Zebra 2 XY community project"). It did not work out, some people took 3 months to send back 20 presets out of which 5 were usable, and we had to rework them ourselves. People underestimate the effort it takes to do this. It is often more effort than creating the preset in the first place.

Q: Is there is any decently complex synth with a ~1000 preset factory library that has 8 macro knobs (which can control multiple parameters with different weights), and each preset has all of them set up?

Post

So even a very straight forward synth like Serum 1, which has a fraction of the feature density of Zebra, only maybe half the presets have all 4 macros assigned - so even when it's easy and manageable because of the fixed architecture, people just don't find enough ways to add things, or won't spend the time, or don't see the point, dunno. I'd reckon a quarter to a third of presets have no macros assigned at all.

So when on average only 2 macro knobs are ever attached to anything, what is the point of having 8?

Post

Another argument: Macros are only useful if they assign multiple modulation targets and sweet spot ranges. Assigning 2-4 macros to do this well is already not easy and quite some work.

Assigning single parameters like Cutoff to a Macro isn't very useful, then I could just automate the cutoff parameter directly.

But that's my own preference, as I like to learn how a synth works so I can tweak presets. Having everything (even trivial things) on a Macro is maybe more relevant to people who just want to have a 8 knob black-box synth preset (like those "Play" synth versions / views).
Find my (music) related software projects here: github.com/Fannon

Post

Because you need the context of the song to fully use all 8, which preset designers can't know. How will they know that I need this hard, percussive pluck to have a softer attack envelope in the next verse? Are they just gonna add a macro to Env attack time for their thousands of presets?

This is a big difference between them and users who design for their own songs, designers make presets for everyone to use, while the latter sometimes make presets tailored to the track. More often than not, a preset might only work for that 1 track because so much are automated, and the automations are the ones that made the patch work (not always though).

I dont think them as macro knobs, more like non destructive automation knobs. I sometime do assign multiple parameters to 1 knob, as intended. But most of the time it's 1 knob, 1 function (eg cutoff).

I dont think I'm alone on this, in fact quite the opposite.

Post

jtsterays wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:31 am I dont think them as macro knobs, more like non destructive automation knobs. I sometime do assign multiple parameters to 1 knob, as intended. But most of the time it's 1 knob, 1 function (eg cutoff).
So then you'd be fine if they were empty user slots.

Btw. we designed parameter modulation in CLAP exactly for that purpose - non-destructive automation.

#---

An another note, related to other posts:

Automation is always global and thus affects all voices the same in a synth. MIDI Control Changes are per Channel. MPE is a method to deploy MIDI Channels to make those macros polyphonic. Note Expressions are an attempt to make those macros polyphonic, but without MIDI. Note Expressions are proprietary to plug-in formats, while MIDI is a universally shared standard. That's IMHO why developers commonly support MIDI and MPE, but only a small fragment of the dev community supports Note Expressions.

So MIDI. For more than a decade, and preceding MPE, our stuff has had what we call "Multichannel MIDI", which is similar to what Roland used to call "Guitar Mode". The idea is, any MIDI Controller would only affect the voices that are playing notes on the same channel. So this was always "Note Expressions, but with MIDI and consistently available in every plug-in format", just using plain MIDI.

That is, for people who wanted to compose music with pitchbend or modulation on specific notes, this was always possible with our software, and I think quite a number of users appreciated that.

It was also the core of MPE, and MPE controller are typically capable of addressing exactly that feature set.

So for me, macros are a step backwards. Because they are never polyphonic and users who use macros won't be able to access the full potential of expression that is available in our synths. And they are only necessary because someone had the mental slip to think that MIDI was going to go away. So they built a DAW or a plug-in format around wishful thinking that plug-in developers would embrace convoluted concepts of Note Expressions. But neither has happened.

Post

Fannon wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:27 am Assigning single parameters like Cutoff to a Macro isn't very useful, then I could just automate the cutoff parameter directly.
I think it actually can be useful. For example if there's only a limited range of the cutoff knob that sounds good in your patch but you'd like to use the full range of your controller for more comfortable performance, and also automation becomes less fiddly.
Image

Post

Urs wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 8:22 am
jtsterays wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:31 am I dont think them as macro knobs, more like non destructive automation knobs. I sometime do assign multiple parameters to 1 knob, as intended. But most of the time it's 1 knob, 1 function (eg cutoff).
So then you'd be fine if they were empty user slots.

Btw. we designed parameter modulation in CLAP exactly for that purpose - non-destructive automation.

#---

An another note, related to other posts:

Automation is always global and thus affects all voices the same in a synth. MIDI Control Changes are per Channel. MPE is a method to deploy MIDI Channels to make those macros polyphonic. Note Expressions are an attempt to make those macros polyphonic, but without MIDI. Note Expressions are proprietary to plug-in formats, while MIDI is a universally shared standard. That's IMHO why developers commonly support MIDI and MPE, but only a small fragment of the dev community supports Note Expressions.

So MIDI. For more than a decade, and preceding MPE, our stuff has had what we call "Multichannel MIDI", which is similar to what Roland used to call "Guitar Mode". The idea is, any MIDI Controller would only affect the voices that are playing notes on the same channel. So this was always "Note Expressions, but with MIDI and consistently available in every plug-in format", just using plain MIDI.

That is, for people who wanted to compose music with pitchbend or modulation on specific notes, this was always possible with our software, and I think quite a number of users appreciated that.

It was also the core of MPE, and MPE controller are typically capable of addressing exactly that feature set.

So for me, macros are a step backwards. Because they are never polyphonic and users who use macros won't be able to access the full potential of expression that is available in our synths. And they are only necessary because someone had the mental slip to think that MIDI was going to go away. So they built a DAW or a plug-in format around wishful thinking that plug-in developers would embrace convoluted concepts of Note Expressions. But neither has happened.
The problem is slow adoption speed, AFAIK only bitwig CLAP has non destructive automations atm, FL definitely doesnt, heck we dont even have MPE (they're waiting for MIDI 2.0)

But you made a really good point, assume Z3 has 8 macros, in the future all the CLAP perks will be implemented in most DAWS, FL will also have MIDI 2.0 too. By then I won't be using the extra macros (or macros at all), so adding them now is basically a bandaid fix that only hurt Z3 in the long run. Yea, dismiss my request.

Post

JoeLowery215 wrote: Mon Jan 26, 2026 11:40 pm
jasperdunn wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 11:34 pm I can see we have Symmetry, are we going to get a Bend oscillator effect too?
That's easy! Just use the guides and Rephase: Screenshot 2026-01-26 at 6.39.40 PM.png
Wow, I had no idea! It's so friggin powerful :O
Amazing, yeah I would love a video on each of these effects and how / where they work well.

Post

pitch and mod wheels, breath and expression, velocity, aftertouch , all MIDI assignable, and four macros!

I’m not a frekin octopus!

Post

Btw. is there a NAMM 2026 video of you guys?

Post

ffx wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 12:24 pm Btw. is there a NAMM 2026 video of you guys?
No Sonicstate this time. We weren't there and neither were they. We had a section with a presenter in the Music Marketing area.

Post

Thanks for this great synth. Any plans to implement a 'flow' mode for oscillators phase like in Hive? I'd find that useful. Also, some extra control over the Unison of the Oscillators would be welcome. For instance linear/exponential/random detuning of the unison voices.
Loving the new FMOs and Exciter/Modal modules.

Post

I have a bit of struggle with the way modulation amount is applied. Switching to this kind of modulation view. I find that I click a lot and feel often stuck in this mode because I try to find a place in the ui to click and not do anything. And I also often mix up changing the value vs. changing the modulation.

I noticed that the background behind modules is not a click target to end this mode. I think including this area could help a lot.

The mode is also staying when clicking on the modulation (e.g. MSEG1) again. Toggling this mode quickly via mouse is difficult due to this. Wish: Toggle the mode and not just activate it.

Having a key to toggle/end this mode could also help.

The funny thing is that I don't have a problem with this in Hive. Maybe it's also a ui design thing of the knob in addition? I find it better to see where I drag in Hive compared to Zebra3.

Update: In the Filter module the knobs work better for me because I clearly see the dark outer ring. When the contrast is lower and the like for the Volume it's more difficult. Maybe I need to adapt my monitor gamma? :hihi:

I think a bit more padding for the ring (especially for the smaller knobs) and a bit more contrast for the cases with a lover contrast could help.
Last edited by midi_transmission on Tue Jan 27, 2026 9:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Post

Urs wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 10:01 am
jrgillam wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:40 am Hi Urs, have you considered adding a clock/lfo built into the mappers? It's cool that you can feed them external sources but I think it would greatly improve their usability to be able to tempo/free sync them without an external input. If one's LFOs are used up or doing something else it's kind of fiddly to get the mappers to scan as desired.
Clocks are part of our anticipated arpeggiator and sequencer update, maybe V3.1 or V3.2
This would be super helpful. Maybe also a loop area like MSEQs have and retrigger options. This way MAPPERs could also be used similar to MSEQs for modulation. This could help with the 4 MSEQs limit.

Post

Fannon wrote: Tue Jan 27, 2026 6:27 am Assigning single parameters like Cutoff to a Macro isn't very useful, then I could just automate the cutoff parameter directly.
This is a somewhat limited approach.

What if then you decide that you want to have cutoff higher or lower for the entire track? (Because of art direction reasons or because you changed the filter model, tweaked drive and want to compensate the change in the brightness)
Changing the automation is awkward.

So, Cutoff should be treated as a lower-level sound-design-time primitive, and macro as a higher-level track-design-time abstraction.

Locked

Return to “u-he”