Zebra 3.0 released

[Urs]

[SteveElbows]

This is automation. We smooth automation so that parameters don't zipper.

We also smooth MIDI Learned parameters so they don't zipper.

Instead of MIDI Learning the parameter directly, set Control A to MIDI CC#3, then modulate Cutoff with Control A.

On a vaguely related note, I note that earlier in this thread or previous threads, some people requested changing to slew rates for things like MPE pitch bend. I would like to request that you dont act on such requests in future in a way that alters the 'feel' of playing Zebra 3 with MPE controllers. Because if I design a load of sounds and end up really happy with how I can perform with them, I dont want that feel to suddenly change in an update. But if future changes are made which still offer users a way to stick with the initial feel (eg via a config option to stick with old amount of slew) then I will have no problem, it will be the best of both worlds.

I realise that synth developers need to be able to tweak aspects of smoothing/slewing etc in their own instruments without having to expose the details to users in a user-configurable way. But its also the case that this whole area is a bit of a 'black box' hidden world when it comes to both plugins and DAWs (and hardware synths) and one we hear very little about online and cant find much info about unless communicative manufacturers such as yourself are happy to talk about it publicly. And with certain kinds of expressive controllers this stuff matters, and some of the traditional assumptions and sweet spots wont always apply. So I suppose this is just a general request to be very careful about any changes made in this area during the life of the products. I know there are competing interests/scenarios and developers will often have to settle on some kind of 'happy medium', but I remain wary about how little control end users have over the 'one size fits all' choices DAW and synth makers end up making on this front.

[Urs]

No worries, we won't change any slew rates unless we add an option that keeps them as is in the current version.

[Eluwei]

...

[SteveElbows]

No worries, we won't change any slew rates unless we add an option that keeps them as is in the current version.

Thanks very much! And sorry that my post about this was rather long.

[Sound Author]

Please delete this comment. There were things I didn't know. Must redraft.

[Ben.juodvalkis]

I'm trying to understand the physical modeling capabilities of Zebra3, with things like the comb filter, or other resonators etc. can anyone point to some presets that might help me understand how this part of the synth works?

[Urs]

I'm trying to understand the physical modeling capabilities of Zebra3, with things like the comb filter, or other resonators etc. can anyone point to some presets that might help me understand how this part of the synth works?

So the main building blocks of physical modelling are some kind of excitation signal that is fed into some kind of resonator. In Zebra 3, the most commonly used excitation signals are generated with the Exciter modules and the Noise modules. But one can of course use anything else or any combination of modules.

The resonators are typically either comb filters ("Comb") for classic delay-based models ("waveguides"), which are predominantly suited for harmonic instruments, and the new "Modal Resonator" modules. Latter are arrays of dozens or hundreds of tuned resonant bandpass filters, which are efficiently herded by a simple set of macro controls and spectral finger prints of real world objects. These spectra can be very detailed and inharmonic, but they are typically a lot more sparse than Comb filters.

Both resonator types have their own Feature-Tags, "Comb" and "Modal" in the preset browser, so you can easily find any preset that use either or both.

[Fleer]

Which presets would you say stand out as Zebra 3 physical modeling, in comparison to AAS Chromaphone or Reason Objekt ?

[Urs]

Which presets would you say stand out as Zebra 3 physical modeling, in comparison to AAS Chromaphone or Reason Objekt ?

I do not have Reason Objekt, but I have and love Chromaphone 3. So for mallets, marimbas and bell type things I'd say you can set up Zebra 3 similarly to Chromaphone 3. What Chromaphone doesn't have is ways to bend the partials in dramatic ways, and it does not have a fricative exciter, which Zebra can do (Object has this). So there's a lot of overlap between those for some classic stuff, but we designed Zebra to offer some more dense and flexible spectra.

So from my own patches, I'd point out Fingered Bass and the Pop Pianos as something I haven't heard from Chromaphone or Sculpture, which I also have within Logic.

[Ben.juodvalkis]

I've been enjoying just messing around with '05 Simply Modal' to get may head around the exciter and modal modules

[aMUSEd]

Which presets would you say stand out as Zebra 3 physical modeling, in comparison to AAS Chromaphone or Reason Objekt ?

I do not have Reason Objekt, but I have and love Chromaphone 3. So for mallets, marimbas and bell type things I'd say you can set up Zebra 3 similarly to Chromaphone 3. What Chromaphone doesn't have is ways to bend the partials in dramatic ways, and it does not have a fricative exciter, which Zebra can do (Object has this). So there's a lot of overlap between those for some classic stuff, but we designed Zebra to offer some more dense and flexible spectra.

So from my own patches, I'd point out Fingered Bass and the Pop Pianos as something I haven't heard from Chromaphone or Sculpture, which I also have within Logic.

Acoustic and picked bass is possible in Chromaphone 3 - I made some myself just for the challenge - but as you say in Zebra it's the density and definition that really stands out - as well as the far greater range of malleability and expression a patch can have

[pdxindy]

Acoustic and picked bass is possible in Chromaphone 3 - I made some myself just for the challenge - but as you say in Zebra it's the density and definition that really stands out - as well as the far greater range of malleability and expression a patch can have

They're so different. Zebra 3 is far more flexible. Chromaphone has a specific character. It's a lovely one, but still a character. Besides a specific tone, Chromaphone doesn't have precise control of the envelope shape and falloff and can be fussy tweaking the sound across a keyboard range.

Zebra 3 has a wider tonal variety. One can make gorgeous modeled sounds with just a single Additive Osc. Then there's the Comb and Modal modules which give a different tonal character. And there are a bunch of other tools like filters and eq's, etc., which work per voice. Then you can have precise control of the amp env, including using an MSEG for that. The Mappers allow one to craft each key across multiple octaves.

I like how directly I can shape a sound to fit the individual project in Zebra 3. As much as I've liked Chromaphone over the years, with Zebra 3 out now, and with its sound quality and available tools, I doubt I'll be making much use of Chromaphone from here on.

[aMUSEd]

Yes, that's kind of what I said but with more words

[M32]

Is it possible or will it be possible to make skins or themes? functionally the current UI works well -though i had some emotional connection with the green beta look - But a 'light' mode or theme is still on my wish list.