Zebra 3.0 - out now

[ptnah]

It's great that MSEG can run in Motion Sequencer mode, but it would be even better if a Motion Sequence Module were included.
While it might be possible to achieve this using existing modules, I would prefer to use a more user-friendly module if one were available.

Sure. There were worries expressed by Urs, though, that another 4x cluster of visually represented mod sources would overload or clutter the GUI too much. Understandable, although it would not be a problem for me personally.

[pdxindy]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around it: The heart of the feature request solely applies to polyphonic patches that are played in a melodic fashion (i.e. not held chords) with long release phases that are overlapping attacks of new notes, where some form of complex rhythmic pattern is applied globally in sync to the host tempo, and that complex rhythmic pattern needs the spline based MSEG

I spent 2-3 hours today, playing with the MSEG's and LFO's.

If you are making a complex rhythmic pattern (MSEG), you are generally going to have a continuous sound so that the pattern can be heard.

If the MSEG is on Single Mode, one only needs to hold a note. The Amp Env can be a quick pluck even, with no sustain, and the held note quickly becomes silent yet it still keeps the MSEG looping without retriggering. So that works fine.

Then the LFO's can drive a Mapper and that can have all sorts of shapes and be tempo sync'ed. The LFO's themselves can make all sorts of shapes and many more using the Matrix modifiers and Math module.

I created the various scenarios a few peeps mentioned and My conclusion is it's some ado about not much.

[EvilDragon]

Wasting an LFO to scan a modmapper to get a custom waveform going is worse than LFOs having custom waveforms in them.

[ptnah]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around it: The heart of the feature request solely applies to polyphonic patches that are played in a melodic fashion (i.e. not held chords) with long release phases that are overlapping attacks of new notes, where some form of complex rhythmic pattern is applied globally in sync to the host tempo, and that complex rhythmic pattern needs the spline based MSEG

I spent 2-3 hours today, playing with the MSEG's and LFO's.

If you are making a complex rhythmic pattern (MSEG), you are generally going to have a continuous sound so that the pattern can be heard.

If the MSEG is on Single Mode, one only needs to hold a note. The Amp Env can be a quick pluck even, with no sustain, and the held note quickly becomes silent yet it still keeps the MSEG looping without retriggering. So that works fine.

Then the LFO's can drive a Mapper and that can have all sorts of shapes and be tempo sync'ed. The LFO's themselves can make all sorts of shapes and many more using the Matrix modifiers and Math module.

I created the various scenarios a few peeps mentioned and My conclusion is it's some ado about not much.

It seems we are still not on the same page regarding this request. Some people instantly see what is meant and want it themselves, while others don't see it and, thus, don't understand how anyone could ever want it.

Your account and Urs's have thousands of posts, while mine barely has two digits. Because of that, I have to take into consideration, or even assume, that I might be the one who is wrong here.
At this point, I have explained it numerous times and am a bit out of... I don't even know. This is not a cop-out, though. If you insist, I can absolutely answer your post line by line so we can figure out exactly where the misunderstanding emerges.

We all know, and it has been said several times in this thread, that yes, there are ways to do nearly everything requested using the available tools in Zebra.

However, one point is that we shouldn't have to waste all the fancy modules, clever cross-routings, and the resulting CPU processing for such a basic, standard, and super useful and therefore often used function like a custom LFO/FEG/MotionSeq.

Another point is that for some of us, myself included, four LFOs with standard waveforms and lengths simply may not be enough. We yearn for a few more easily available, tempo-synced (not note-triggered) LFO-like modulation sources. even a bit more customizable? great!
This also may perhaps be a matter of taste, both in production style and music genre.

For now, I can get what I want via A/B/C/D triggered by external modulation sources, and I shall be and am content with that.

[loctune]

IMHO, the issue here is there are too many workarounds in Zebra 3, yet it lacks the ability to do a number of things in the most basic and standard ways. It's currently a synth with unnecessary level of complexity and thus the workflow can easily become quite messy.

[Andreya_Autumn]

So...

For my OSC entry I had a sound where the MSEG played a 7/8 clave (with two curves to switch between 3+2+2 to 2+2+3 variants, very neat!). Getting it synced to the tempo was trivial, and having the instance constantly playing to stay synced did work with the musical idea in this case.

*But* here's the annoying part: while working on an arrangement we are constantly moving the playhead around and listening to evaluate changes etc, right? With this MSEG setup I had to always start playback from a barline! The MSEG starts up from phase 0 on first note-on, so if I press play from any other beat than the one, the MSEG syncs up wrong with the timeline, and the groove totally falls apart. This was very very annoying to deal with, and eventually I ended up freezing/rendering that track so I didn't have to deal with it.

I think that might be the missing link that folks haven't managed to articulate: Locking not just the *rate* but also the *phase* of the MSEG to the timeline has a huge impact on the workflow. If that's already possible and I just missed it, then I agree with Urs and Indy that we have everything we need. I don't think there is though?

[Andreya_Autumn]

That being said... that the MSEGs can morph, and can determine voice lifetime, does indeed have potential to make this much more confusing. I can't say I fully grasp all the implications currently.

Still, I get where the request is coming from. Being able to press play anywhere on the timeline and have the patterns play back as intended is important.

Not every synth needs to have that ability everywhere of course. Maybe that's just what it is, Z3 gets the morphing and much better integration of MSEGs with the voice amplitude, other synths get timeline lock. That's also ok if so.

[Urs]

Wasting an LFO to scan a modmapper to get a custom waveform going is worse than LFOs having custom waveforms in them.

The whole point of the Mappers is to lend a custom curve to other modulators. It is literally the one reason they were built for.

[SamDi]

I think Mappers are most useful for discrete step increasements. Compared to vector wavetables they are pretty limited.

[Funky40]

It's great that MSEG can run in Motion Sequencer mode, but it would be even better if a Motion Sequence Module were included.


While it might be possible to achieve this using existing modules, I would prefer to use a more user-friendly module if one were available.

I`m all in with both parts as DNTK has worded it out in short.





The question to me as somebody who is just reading here,...i mean, i don`t do complex "preset creation" myself in Zebra3,.......is: What do we lose if some "motion sequenzing/WT-LFOs was added ? I can`t follow that point.
Other than that it would create more work for the U-He development team. But as a user ?

I belong btw. into that camp of folks who "could" be overwhelmed with even more functionality, more function blocks, etc. . At the same time can i easily imagine how such additional stuff could be added. I mean, Zebra3 IS already modular. We only get to see what has been used in a "patch/preset". I don`t see the problem....where is it ?

In contrary, i think additional WT-LFOs/Motion-sequenzing could even easen up some things vs. some specific patch/preset creation.
The "initial concept idea" behind Zebra3 in all its own right........but i would not clamp down new ideas/feature requests -> "alone from there"


What i personally hope that it never happens is:
- that devs, customers, and sound designers think Zebra3 *has* to serve for any type of sound for as much music genres as possible !

- Zebra3 has its own fortes !* And these are HUGE !
- hope you all continue to "just" create presets in Zebra3s own spirit.
It`s a great spirit ! just follow "that" please / Love it !

[pdxindy]

Wasting an LFO to scan a modmapper to get a custom waveform going is worse than LFOs having custom waveforms in them.

Of course you are welcome to your opinion. What you see as waste, I see as combining modules to create complex results. That's a modular approach.

My point was that there is very little that cannot be done in Zebra 3 as is. So there is no great emergency or terrible lack.

I'm not opposed to an LFO mode with a curve being added. I'm sure I'd use it. But I'd like it to stay simple.

[pdxindy]

IMHO, the issue here is there are too many workarounds in Zebra 3, yet it lacks the ability to do a number of things in the most basic and standard ways. It's currently a synth with unnecessary level of complexity and thus the workflow can easily become quite messy.

There's no issue here.

Zebra 3 is not the synth for you. It's obvious from the many posts you've made heavily criticizing various aspects of the synth. That's fine. You're point of view is valid for you. No synth pleases everyone. The u-he design philosophy just isn't what you want.

U-he carefully curates their feature set. They do that in all their synths. Some people like that approach. Some people don't. There's no right answer. While they will for sure develop the synth further in the coming years, you can be sure they are not going to toss every possible feature in. That's not what Zebra 3 is about. Just as they haven't added samples, granular, etc.

Zebra 3 has something of a modular approach. What you call workarounds, are that modular approach in action. Modules are meant to be combined. The Math module uses other modules. And with the Math Module and an LFO, you can obtain a wide range of results not possible with the LFO alone. That's a feature, not a workaround.

[pdxindy]

*But* here's the annoying part: while working on an arrangement we are constantly moving the playhead around and listening to evaluate changes etc, right? With this MSEG setup I had to always start playback from a barline! The MSEG starts up from phase 0 on first note-on, so if I press play from any other beat than the one, the MSEG syncs up wrong with the timeline, and the groove totally falls apart. This was very very annoying to deal with, and eventually I ended up freezing/rendering that track so I didn't have to deal with it.

That's a good point.

[Urs]

*But* here's the annoying part: while working on an arrangement we are constantly moving the playhead around and listening to evaluate changes etc, right? With this MSEG setup I had to always start playback from a barline! The MSEG starts up from phase 0 on first note-on, so if I press play from any other beat than the one, the MSEG syncs up wrong with the timeline, and the groove totally falls apart. This was very very annoying to deal with, and eventually I ended up freezing/rendering that track so I didn't have to deal with it.

That's a good point.

Yeah.

[exmatproton]

well..somehow Arturia made that work....so, yeah, good point, if one isn't able to solve that.. In serum2 it works too. There is a button in Serum2 to "anchor" the phase of an lfo to the playhead. So it is always in sync with where the phase of the lfo SHOULD be, and NOT restarting from 0.

Maybe i am missing something...i really don't see the issue. However, i am not a dev. So if it for some reason just won't work with the MSEG's in Z3, then, it is what it is. There are other synths which do what i want

i guess it has to do with the fact that the end-loop-points in the MSEG's in Z3 aren't fixed...

One could consider a "free-run" mode where the MSEG's loop-end-point becomes a fixed point. I guess it might just be easier to give the LFO's the option for a free-draw (in the same vein as the MSEG editors) editor