Zebra 3 feature suggestions

[Shiek927]

Hehehe, thanks for these!

Yes, MPE is going to happen. Pretty much anything about curves, smoothing, AT whichever is gonna happen too.

I am however quite opposed to making Z3 structurally more complex. For instance, the Mod Matrix will get double target slots like Hive instead. The Grid will stay at 4 lanes, Z3 will stay a "4 of each" synth in general.

There are two structural concepts which will be more complex, but which make day-2-day tasks more simple: We'll detatch pitch control from voice parameters and wrap it into special modules. The other thing is treating gates and triggers as equals to modulation sources. This opens amazing possibilities, both for performing musicians and producers.

Individual modules will become more complex. Some will be simplified. For instance, the LFOs will drop custom waveforms, but they will get some mighty good feature additions. Oscillators will (optionally) become FM-able, naturally at the expense of CPU.

New modules will include per-voice spectral processors (EQ/Modal Synthesis/Resonators), West Coast inspired modulators and very dynamic mixing/routing modules.

I'm not fond of OSC or any such protocols (wasn't there something called Copperlan once?).

Last but not least, I do not like Sampling in synthesizers. It's the one thing I don't think I'll ever add to Zebra. There'll be .wav import for sure, but merely for stuff like wavetable/room/body extraction. Maybe not. We'll see.

In any case, Zebra3 will likely start with fewer modules than Zebra2. Simply because we'll never finish if we need to catch up first.

- U

Ahw why the hate on sampling in a synth, especially granular..? As some one doing sound design for film it's so nice to have one complex tool to do everything as often I have to swap studio rigs. If Zebra^2 would be capapble of sampling / granular it would be one thing to install and basta (often have to use PT). Right now it's just not quite the everything tool and I'm left installing Pigments which I don't like overall (looks like a toy but the granular engine is good).

Urs has gone into the subject a lot and there are many fair reasons. As annoying as this response is, definitely use the search button because as it's a convo that comes up every now and again.

[rootaudio]

Hehehe, thanks for these!

Yes, MPE is going to happen. Pretty much anything about curves, smoothing, AT whichever is gonna happen too.

I am however quite opposed to making Z3 structurally more complex. For instance, the Mod Matrix will get double target slots like Hive instead. The Grid will stay at 4 lanes, Z3 will stay a "4 of each" synth in general.

There are two structural concepts which will be more complex, but which make day-2-day tasks more simple: We'll detatch pitch control from voice parameters and wrap it into special modules. The other thing is treating gates and triggers as equals to modulation sources. This opens amazing possibilities, both for performing musicians and producers.

Individual modules will become more complex. Some will be simplified. For instance, the LFOs will drop custom waveforms, but they will get some mighty good feature additions. Oscillators will (optionally) become FM-able, naturally at the expense of CPU.

New modules will include per-voice spectral processors (EQ/Modal Synthesis/Resonators), West Coast inspired modulators and very dynamic mixing/routing modules.

I'm not fond of OSC or any such protocols (wasn't there something called Copperlan once?).

Last but not least, I do not like Sampling in synthesizers. It's the one thing I don't think I'll ever add to Zebra. There'll be .wav import for sure, but merely for stuff like wavetable/room/body extraction. Maybe not. We'll see.

In any case, Zebra3 will likely start with fewer modules than Zebra2. Simply because we'll never finish if we need to catch up first.

- U

Ahw why the hate on sampling in a synth, especially granular..? As some one doing sound design for film it's so nice to have one complex tool to do everything as often I have to swap studio rigs. If Zebra^2 would be capapble of sampling / granular it would be one thing to install and basta (often have to use PT). Right now it's just not quite the everything tool and I'm left installing Pigments which I don't like overall (looks like a toy but the granular engine is good).

Urs has gone into the subject a lot and there are many fair reasons. As annoying as this response is, definitely use the search button because as it's a convo that comes up every now and again.

Alright bit of newbie on forums in general, so will investigate like you suggested, it's truly what is missing from z^2/3 for me

[rootaudio]

Once samples get in, they tend to draw a lot of focus. Then there would be the inevitable requests for multi-samples and granular, and round robin, and time-stretching and disk streaming and scripting and a sample library and various sorts of sample editing and so on.

I agree: if you add sampling functions, it makes sense to consider adding granular and other related functions. However, I think there are plenty of other interesting synthesis methods to explore, and there are many good sampling synths from other companies. I also enjoy doing sound design with synthetic synthesis more than with samples, hence my support for Urs' stance above.

Which good samples are you reffering to?

[Shiek927]

Once samples get in, they tend to draw a lot of focus. Then there would be the inevitable requests for multi-samples and granular, and round robin, and time-stretching and disk streaming and scripting and a sample library and various sorts of sample editing and so on.

I agree: if you add sampling functions, it makes sense to consider adding granular and other related functions. However, I think there are plenty of other interesting synthesis methods to explore, and there are many good sampling synths from other companies. I also enjoy doing sound design with synthetic synthesis more than with samples, hence my support for Urs' stance above.

Which good samples are you reffering to?

To highlight just a few of Urs' issues and why he prefers to stick to pure synthesis

+he believes synths that focus on pure synthesis simply encourage users to synthesize more and create more dynamic and interesting patches
+synths with the ability to load/use samples tend to slowly start on a slippery slope where that becomes the main highlight to the detriment of the whole synth. VPS Avenger is a real-world example where there are very expensive and regularly released genre-based sample packs that are essentially keeping the synth afloat. Synth exploration or creation isn't high on the list of priorities anymore and the synth has essentially become one giant sample-back player as opposed to a synth playground where users are encouraged to experiment and explore.
+An entire host of issues and things now becomes something to work on: round-robins, multisamples, "samples not found errors", Factory Samples, and so-on and so-forth. People will then start to inevitably ask for more samples, more sample-based features, genre-specific samples, making comparisons to Omnisphere with his ridiculous HDD space made up of samples even though the synth engine itself could do with some work...

Zebra2 is a sonic playground that encourages it's users to play. Introducing samples opens a number of Pandora's Boxes where that's no longer encouraged, they become the main star, and the synth itself is completely diluted. I genuinely enjoy VPS Avenger, but I'll be the first to admit that Zebra2 kills it in the synth department despite Avenger being newer and having even MORE features than Z2 such as an entire drum section. The main reason why is because much of the really interesting sounding stuff in Avenger is purely drawn off of or using samples. It's not about actual synth exploration so much as it's about using samples to cut corners and being essentially this gigantic sample-back player. While the results might sound really good, that's simply not the philosophy behind Zebra2. It genuinely wants people to explore and create their own dynamic sound-design which is why it's so inviting to use by being a wireless semi-modular synth where the only modules that are on display are the ones being actively used.

I don't want to presume as I'm sure some Avenger users are genuinely creating their own sound-design, but Vengeance-Sound is continuing to sell ridiculously expensive sample packs to keep the synth going. They sound fantastic imo, but they're all built up on the back of samples which are pooled from the many synths Vengeance-Sound has in their studio and other guest producers who are bringing in their strengths, outboard-gear, and resources. It's no longer about simply using a limited set of built-in oscillators, filters and envelopes to create very dynamic and moving synth patches and that's what Z2 is all about.

That's why Z2, despite being as ancient as it is, still sounds so good and is still the go-to particularly in film-scoring. Because the "synth" part in this synthesizer has always been and remained it's number one strength and, in a sea of many other contemporary synths that focus more on sample-based features, it makes for stuff that just sounds very good and tends to stand the test of time.

[pdxindy]

Alright bit of newbie on forums in general, so will investigate like you suggested, it's truly what is missing from z^2/3 for me

Urs has been very clear. There will not be samples in Zebra 3.

[rootaudio]

Alright bit of newbie on forums in general, so will investigate like you suggested, it's truly what is missing from z^2/3 for me

Urs has been very clear. There will not be samples in Zebra 3.

Yes but I read myself thorugh the history of that discussion now.
And he has previously restrained from creating wavetables oscillators that load .wav files aaand tadaaa: Hive 2

[rootaudio]

Once samples get in, they tend to draw a lot of focus. Then there would be the inevitable requests for multi-samples and granular, and round robin, and time-stretching and disk streaming and scripting and a sample library and various sorts of sample editing and so on.

I agree: if you add sampling functions, it makes sense to consider adding granular and other related functions. However, I think there are plenty of other interesting synthesis methods to explore, and there are many good sampling synths from other companies. I also enjoy doing sound design with synthetic synthesis more than with samples, hence my support for Urs' stance above.

Which good samples are you reffering to?

To highlight just a few of Urs' issues and why he prefers to stick to pure synthesis

+he believes synths that focus on pure synthesis simply encourage users to synthesize more and create more dynamic and interesting patches
+synths with the ability to load/use samples tend to slowly start on a slippery slope where that becomes the main highlight to the detriment of the whole synth. VPS Avenger is a real-world example where there are very expensive and regularly released genre-based sample packs that are essentially keeping the synth afloat. Synth exploration or creation isn't high on the list of priorities anymore and the synth has essentially become one giant sample-back player as opposed to a synth playground where users are encouraged to experiment and explore.
+An entire host of issues and things now becomes something to work on: round-robins, multisamples, "samples not found errors", Factory Samples, and so-on and so-forth. People will then start to inevitably ask for more samples, more sample-based features, genre-specific samples, making comparisons to Omnisphere with his ridiculous HDD space made up of samples even though the synth engine itself could do with some work...

Zebra2 is a sonic playground that encourages it's users to play. Introducing samples opens a number of Pandora's Boxes where that's no longer encouraged, they become the main star, and the synth itself is completely diluted. I genuinely enjoy VPS Avenger, but I'll be the first to admit that Zebra2 kills it in the synth department despite Avenger being newer and having even MORE features than Z2 such as an entire drum section. The main reason why is because much of the really interesting sounding stuff in Avenger is purely drawn off of or using samples. It's not about actual synth exploration so much as it's about using samples to cut corners and being essentially this gigantic sample-back player. While the results might sound really good, that's simply not the philosophy behind Zebra2. It genuinely wants people to explore and create their own dynamic sound-design which is why it's so inviting to use by being a wireless semi-modular synth where the only modules that are on display are the ones being actively used.

I don't want to presume as I'm sure some Avenger users are genuinely creating their own sound-design, but Vengeance-Sound is continuing to sell ridiculously expensive sample packs to keep the synth going. They sound fantastic imo, but they're all built up on the back of samples which are pooled from the many synths Vengeance-Sound has in their studio and other guest producers who are bringing in their strengths, outboard-gear, and resources. It's no longer about simply using a limited set of built-in oscillators, filters and envelopes to create very dynamic and moving synth patches and that's what Z2 is all about.

That's why Z2, despite being as ancient as it is, still sounds so good and is still the go-to particularly in film-scoring. Because the "synth" part in this synthesizer has always been and remained it's number one strength and, in a sea of many other contemporary synths that focus more on sample-based features, it makes for stuff that just sounds very good and tends to stand the test of time.

Yeah I can see that, yet that is not happening in pigments for example (your avenger example, I didn't know about it but it's pretty clear when you open the imo tasteless (can I say that on KVR?) website that clearly signals the intention to upsale you (I never liked avenger just from how everything looks and handles)). Clearly a big part of this is how you market it, pigments has one of the nicest simple samplers imo but it's definitly not become a omnisphere/kontakt like product. It's a thing of speed, at least in film production everything has to move rapidly. Some directors already found certain sounds they like (in exisitng musical works). To be able to use a sample for speed sake but to transform it a way from it's original state with granular or other sampling methods (giving it a new pitch envelope for example) is a blessing. I'm mostly asking for a simple sampler with the main idea of a granular engine. For general sound design what I would do for example: Make crazy patches just trying a lot of things and record the output, recording all weird modulation and timbres I'm creating. From that output make a selection of newly created sounds and I then use and put in a sampler/granular engine, to evolve it even more. For me it would be perfectly fine if it didn't come with any default waveforms at all (but maybe an internal option to record z2/3's output (that would be crazy)). Really when you have a sampler like simpler in Live, by chosing very small portions of a sample, one is actually doing wavetable synthesis. So sampling is actually not far off from synthesis everything is interlinked and granular canno't be written off as somehow not a creative process as it definitly requires some skill to get good results (fast) (and again the sampling points are so small it's basically wavetable synthesis). Also with pitch preserving warping one can get interesting tones from the artifcats. So So I see Urs point but it seems more a case of intereset and I guess sound design philosophy than it practically being an issue. Enfin I'm ont gonna bother him about it again I love my u-he synth's as is

[rootaudio]

Once samples get in, they tend to draw a lot of focus. Then there would be the inevitable requests for multi-samples and granular, and round robin, and time-stretching and disk streaming and scripting and a sample library and various sorts of sample editing and so on.

I agree: if you add sampling functions, it makes sense to consider adding granular and other related functions. However, I think there are plenty of other interesting synthesis methods to explore, and there are many good sampling synths from other companies. I also enjoy doing sound design with synthetic synthesis more than with samples, hence my support for Urs' stance above.

Which good samples are you reffering to?

To highlight just a few of Urs' issues and why he prefers to stick to pure synthesis

+he believes synths that focus on pure synthesis simply encourage users to synthesize more and create more dynamic and interesting patches
+synths with the ability to load/use samples tend to slowly start on a slippery slope where that becomes the main highlight to the detriment of the whole synth. VPS Avenger is a real-world example where there are very expensive and regularly released genre-based sample packs that are essentially keeping the synth afloat. Synth exploration or creation isn't high on the list of priorities anymore and the synth has essentially become one giant sample-back player as opposed to a synth playground where users are encouraged to experiment and explore.
+An entire host of issues and things now becomes something to work on: round-robins, multisamples, "samples not found errors", Factory Samples, and so-on and so-forth. People will then start to inevitably ask for more samples, more sample-based features, genre-specific samples, making comparisons to Omnisphere with his ridiculous HDD space made up of samples even though the synth engine itself could do with some work...

Zebra2 is a sonic playground that encourages it's users to play. Introducing samples opens a number of Pandora's Boxes where that's no longer encouraged, they become the main star, and the synth itself is completely diluted. I genuinely enjoy VPS Avenger, but I'll be the first to admit that Zebra2 kills it in the synth department despite Avenger being newer and having even MORE features than Z2 such as an entire drum section. The main reason why is because much of the really interesting sounding stuff in Avenger is purely drawn off of or using samples. It's not about actual synth exploration so much as it's about using samples to cut corners and being essentially this gigantic sample-back player. While the results might sound really good, that's simply not the philosophy behind Zebra2. It genuinely wants people to explore and create their own dynamic sound-design which is why it's so inviting to use by being a wireless semi-modular synth where the only modules that are on display are the ones being actively used.

I don't want to presume as I'm sure some Avenger users are genuinely creating their own sound-design, but Vengeance-Sound is continuing to sell ridiculously expensive sample packs to keep the synth going. They sound fantastic imo, but they're all built up on the back of samples which are pooled from the many synths Vengeance-Sound has in their studio and other guest producers who are bringing in their strengths, outboard-gear, and resources. It's no longer about simply using a limited set of built-in oscillators, filters and envelopes to create very dynamic and moving synth patches and that's what Z2 is all about.

That's why Z2, despite being as ancient as it is, still sounds so good and is still the go-to particularly in film-scoring. Because the "synth" part in this synthesizer has always been and remained it's number one strength and, in a sea of many other contemporary synths that focus more on sample-based features, it makes for stuff that just sounds very good and tends to stand the test of time.

Also checkout Malström by Reason, granular is not a static non expressive method at all. It all depends on implementation

[pdxindy]

I'm mostly asking for a simple sampler with the main idea of a granular engine.

And of course, you can advocate for that... up to you.

But there is no ambiguity. It will not be in Zebra 2, and it will not be in Zebra 3 initially. Who knows, maybe 5-7 years from now Urs might add granular to Zebra 3.5, but that is not a timeframe that matters to getting stuff done now.

I have Pigments 3, but it uses too much cpu for me.

I use Bitwig's Sampler and Grid for working with samples and doing granular. I can easily layer it with VST synths should I wish. Bitwig is my main sound design instrument and VST's nest nicely in it.

[Teksonik]

To highlight just a few of Urs' issues and why he prefers to stick to pure synthesis

+he believes synths that focus on pure synthesis simply encourage users to synthesize more and create more dynamic and interesting patches

Then in all due respect Urs is wrong. I've created more "dynamic and interesting patches" using sample based synths and that goes back to the very beginning of affordable sample based synths like the Ensoniq Mirage and later synths like the Roland U-20, Korg 03R/W etc etc all the way up to softsynths like Wusikstation and Alchemy.

The notion that sample based synths are not really synths is a recent construct. When I worked in a music store in the mid-late 80's we sold sample based synths, we didn't sell "romplers". Synthesizers make synthetic sounds....it's right in the name....no matter what fuel their Oscs use.

If we simply look at samples as another form of Oscillator fuel then we should be able to see how they can expand the range of sounds any synth can make by several orders of magnitude.

Now stop typing I know not everybody needs those types of sounds but some do.

Would I love to see full multi-sample import for Zebra 3 (or any synth for that matter)? Hell yes. Do I expect it to happen with Zebra? Sadly not really.....

[Shiek927]

Now stop typing I know not everybody needs those types of sounds but some do.

Uhh, rude much?

And nobody said synths using samples aren't 'real synths'. The Roland JD990 is one of my all-time favorite synths and that uses samples. It's simply Urs' preference to not have that as part of Zebra. If you're able to create sounds that are, in your book, more interesting with samples than congrats. Zebra2 can make fascinating stuff without them and that's the point: they'd rather focus on doing more of that instead. If you need those types of sounds, then simply have some sample-based synths in your collection.

[rootaudio]

Now stop typing I know not everybody needs those types of sounds but some do.

Uhh, rude much?

And nobody said synths using samples aren't 'real synths'. The Roland JD990 is one of my all-time favorite synths and that uses samples. It's simply Urs' preference to not have that as part of Zebra. If you're able to create sounds that are, in your book, more interesting with samples than congrats. Zebra2 can make fascinating stuff without them and that's the point: they'd rather focus on doing more of that instead. If you need those types of sounds, then simply have some sample-based synths in your collection.

Urs definitly doesn't view it as part of sound(design)creation and I do aggree he is wrong on that.

[Double Tap]

Now stop typing I know not everybody needs those types of sounds but some do.

Uhh, rude much?

Pretty sure he was talking to himself.

[Teksonik]

Now stop typing I know not everybody needs those types of sounds but some do.

Uhh, rude much?

"Stop typing" is a pretty common phrase around here. Perhaps it's a regional thing. It's a joke that people will start typing out a response before reading the post. At any rate it didn't work this time.

If you need those types of sounds, then simply have some sample-based synths in your collection.

If you need the type of sounds that Zebra 2 can do simply have some of those synths in your collection. It works both ways.

Look at the thread title...."Zebra 3 feature suggestions". Urs responded (almost three years ago but responded none the less):

Bring them on!

So full multi-sample import would be my top request. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. I already have synths with sample import which is why I want more since it's a very powerful feature.

I like Zebra 2 right now so if it never gets another update I'd still be happy with it but if they're going to add something I'd rather it be something that expands the range of sounds it can make a great deal.

If Urs is against sample import that's fine but it's not because it wouldn't be a great addition to the synth but because it doesn't fit his vision.

Still doesn't change my opinion.

[pdxindy]

Urs definitly doesn't view it as part of sound(design)creation and I do aggree he is wrong on that.

Fortunately your opinion doesn't decide things (sorry). It is Urs company and work and he can choose what he wants to do and not to do. I'm glad Z3 is not planned to have samples as I like the focus on synthesis. There is a lot of territory to explore on that front!