Improvements!

[bmrzycki]

So, I have many patches that I would like to share, and I don't do it because it would be like giving an open source code for a program.

Okay, so you want to share your patches w/o sharing your patches. It sounds like you want Z2 to become a sort of synthedit. Why? Are you worried about someone taking one of your presets and changing a tiny part and then re-releasing as "their" sound? Or are you worried about someone else using that special something that's in your preset design in their music? If it's the latter, releasing these read-only patches won't solve that.

I guess I don't get it. If you want to keep your sounds to yourself then don't share them. If you want others to learn from, change, or just use your sounds then you release them. I'd rather have no sounds than ones that I wish I could change a part of but am locked out of. It's why I play with synthesizers and not samplers.

Or maybe I just totally missed the point.

[Mighty Pea]

Read-only patches eh? I'm very much against it. Also, how is it like releasing source-code to something? I see how you can think that, but if you're against people seeing how you made a preset or changing it to suit them, just don't release them. I'd like you to release them though, don't get me wrong.

[psycox]

So, I have many patches that I would like to share, and I don't do it because it would be like giving an open source code for a program.

Okay, so you want to share your patches w/o sharing your patches. It sounds like you want Z2 to become a sort of synthedit. Why? Are you worried about someone taking one of your presets and changing a tiny part and then re-releasing as "their" sound? Or are you worried about someone else using that special something that's in your preset design in their music? If it's the latter, releasing these read-only patches won't solve that.

I guess I don't get it. If you want to keep your sounds to yourself then don't share them. If you want others to learn from, change, or just use your sounds then you release them. I'd rather have no sounds than ones that I wish I could change a part of but am locked out of. It's why I play with synthesizers and not samplers.

Or maybe I just totally missed the point.

+1

i use zebra to get less limits to fit my sounds in my musical context. the possibility to tweak a patch is what i like. in other case i would take a GB sized sample lib. limited predefined knobs for changing the sound are walls in front of my head.

[tengotiempo]

...and I would also like to have a boat with a satellite WEB connection, and a 32-cores Mac with a screen of sixty inches, and a better host than Logic or Pro-tools who would immediately understand the music I want to make, and all this for 200€!!! and with a dinosaurus crossgrade, please...ooooh, come on!


Excuse me for this irony, but I found this last post really too much.

First, let us be clear, tengotiempo: what you want, in fact, is a Zebra wich would be "blind" and with wich one you could share your patches without having to reveal the waves, the structure and the processes that are behind it: this is a thing that I can understand, and on that point, I can agree with you, but you should have to be clear with your problem before making suggestions that otherwise seem completely boring.

I would like a blind Zebra: I have an unbelievable collection of patches and I create new ones everyday: I have experimented a lot of synths but Zebra is the only one that survived throug my experiences, the only with wich one I can really create any sound I want. So, I have many patches that I would like to share, and I don't do it because it would be like giving an open source code for a program. But I think there are easier ways to create a blind Zebra, I think, for example about a specific patch format that would allow to be tweaked only via the Perform page and the XY settings.

I'm not a programmer, and of course I don't know how many energy it would ask to do this, but I think it would be less than your solution.

But I also would like to have the opinion of Urs about this, as about my precedent post.

Urs?... too busy? Overloaded? or is all this simply completely uninteresting, or impossible?

i was not complaining or anything similar ... lol... i really like it and the truth is i use zebra in the way i discribed above..its just not looking like that... i like to be limited and have access to the parameters i selected for my needs...
the approach to that have been the x-y pads which are cool and have some other nice effects on soundcreation... at the end its like that...the macro-view from what i was speaking i do have on my masterkeyboard if assigned the controllers i need, just not in software... it was mor or less a "fancy-idea" - for the future, but not a real need... maybe would be cool to give zebra new look.. but i guess a bit exhausting to get there and who knows what it really helps at the end ..

at the end it would be a bit in a shape like reaktor... i really was just speaking of the view...
a bit like the es2 does in logic

i think you didnt understand what i meant... but my poor english might be guilty

edited this

..another thing what might have a similar result ,if there would be one or to knobs and a button to trigger a zebra-script on the the zebra gui... for example u could activate the randomizer function or any other script from your current patch-view..and script anything u like ... just an idea so..dont know if theres a way to do that yet

[tetsuneko]

These suggestions give the feeling like some people would like zebra2 to be like reaktor? I feel like the synth is already quite flexible/complex, spreading the development work to endlessly expand has a risk of 'overwhelming' the design.

I'd rather have a z2 with current features (ok, maybe a few more lol) that was rock-solid and sounded awesome & dynamic (not all synthesis modes in Z2 sound equally good IMO) than a jack-of-all-trades DSP programming environment. Come on, reaktor/maxMSP and the like, they have a massive crew working on them full-time and there's still issues that crop up when someone comes up with an unexpected patch, causing bugs/crashes and whatnot..

Isn't one strong point of using plug-in based composition environments that no plug has to be an island? I'd rather have a bunch of plugs that do perfectly what they aim to do, within a certain scope of options, than have another Reason-style-all-in-a-box. Perhaps this view is also shared by Urs, since there is no stand-alone version of zebra? And including zrev/zebralette with the package?

[Urs]

No worries. Zebra will not change its general concept. Instead I'd rather ad some fancy new features (and the fx version of course).

not all synthesis modes in Z2 sound equally good IMO

What would you like to see improved most?

[Howard]

What would you like to see improved most?

I'm not missing the chance to answer this question, even taking it out of context!

* sound library

* compressor

* modulation source and destination lists: implement or remove all dormant functions, RENAME and SORT sensibly, add seperators.

* Mod matrix strictly left to right i.e. Modulator>Via>Target (lose the labels at the bottom, then there's just enough room!)

* template libraries for arpeggiator, reverb.

[wonshu]

not to forget free running lfo's instead of the synced ones!!!

[Howard]

not to forget free running lfo's instead of the synced ones!!!

I'd almost forgotten about that! Yep...

[Urs]

Howie!

Well, I've just decrackled the Output parameter. And now I'm finalizing Eleven.

Everything else comes as it comes...

[djsubject]

Everything else comes as it comes...

So no Focus for me just yet?

[tetsuneko]

No worries. Zebra will not change its general concept. Instead I'd rather ad some fancy new features (and the fx version of course).

FX version would be highly !!! I'd crap my pants like the rest o dem :v

not all synthesis modes in Z2 sound equally good IMO

What would you like to see improved most?

That's a big question! - It's not that I'd find anything to be dissatisfactory (Just bought it anyway). Could be just me not still having grips with all that power.. Compared to a juno-106/simple fm system the options are vast.

Just a weird gut feeling I have ATM.. I should get back on this a bit later to see if I still feel the same about it, and if do, to let you know what was buggin me the most..


Cheers

[Mighty Pea]

What would you like to see improved most?

I'm not missing the chance to answer this question, even taking it out of context!

* sound library

* compressor

* modulation source and destination lists: implement or remove all dormant functions, RENAME and SORT sensibly, add seperators.

* Mod matrix strictly left to right i.e. Modulator>Via>Target (lose the labels at the bottom, then there's just enough room!)

* template libraries for arpeggiator, reverb.

I agree with all of these. Especially the one about the Mod Matrix, I've really grown to dislike how counter-intuitive it is. Removing dormant functions also sounds very, very good to me. If possible, I'd like to see a large mod matrix. Actually, I want to see the Wusikstation Mod Matrix in Z2. And it'd help if ALL modulations were visible here, including those set in a component's own interface (I'm talking about the dedicated modulation-destinations next to knobs like 'Tune' etc...). To be able to see all modulation at a glance, rather than having to hunt around for it, that would be fantastic.

[Urs]

Howie, by dormant function you mean the fill modes of the combs and stuff (soon to be joined by LFO modes and Detune modes)?

Regarding additional ModMatrices... where would you put them?

[Dunc]

How about a pop up window when you click on a Mod Matrices button. Make the window moveable so you could have it at the side of the main Zebra window...or am I talking outta my ass here (quite likely, I know )