Feature request: PCM Sample import for Hive 2/Zebra 2/3

[Lbdunequest]

Feature request: PCM Sample import for Hive 2/Zebra 2/3

Please add that

[Urs]

On it. They'll be transformed to wavetables though.

[Lbdunequest]

Wow for real?!

[Urs]

Why, yes. I must clarify though, it won't happen for Zebra2 anymore.

But it might be common knowledge that - for me - the redesign of the waveform editor in Zebra is the main motivation to do version 3. As it happens, this is what I'm working on right now (and the reason KVR and Facebook haven't seen much of me lately). Furthermore a way to import and convert samples/.wav is part of that concept. I can't yet say how well this will work because I haven't fully implemented it yet: I can convert hand drawn waveforms to Zebra3 waveform geometry, and also anything formula based, but I'm waiting for a colleague to implement .wav drag'n'drop before I start testing that. And maybe another colleague has to figure out pitch detection in order to get it right.

However, as things progress, more and more ways to interface with Hive come up. Wavetable export to Hive/Serum/whatsoever is certainly a top priority, and we already use a language extension to .uhm as one kind of internal representation for Zebra3 waveforms. Latter, .uhm, is our text-based mathematical wavetable description and manipulation language built into Hive. I think there's going to be quite some synergy between Zebra3 wavetable creation and Hive's .uhm scripting.

I'm very excited about this.

I might add, I'm still not keen on sample playback itself. Instead, we hope that the things we've planned for Zebra3 render sample import more or less moot.

[Teksonik]

I might add, I'm still not keen on sample playback itself. Instead, we hope that the things we've planned for Zebra3 render sample import more or less moot.

May I ask why you're not keen on sample playback?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

There have been a LOT of threads and discussion about why Zebra, or really any U-he product, won't include straight sample playback. A quick KVR or Google search will return lots of information as it's something that comes up regularly.

Here's one such thread with lots of direct input from Urs:
viewtopic.php?t=557366

[tony10000]

TL;DR version

One of Urs' comments from the referenced thread:

"I wished that people would simply let go of the idea that "everything u-he touches gotta be good". We can only excel in a small corridor of expertise, and that's hammered out quite well in our portfolio. If we start diverging from it, the quality of stuff will decline in that area and also in our core business.

"Apparently our strengths are in synthesis technologies, workflow concepts and modular economy. While we have acquired great competence in content management, making a sample based device on the same level as our other products requires a whole lot more manpower, which is a) hard to find and b) hard to pay for.

"Therefore I wished people could simply settle with the fact that we don't do sampling and that is that. Enjoy our synths and effects. They're good. They only can be good because we don't try to do things we can't."

[Urs]

May I ask why you're not keen on sample playback?

I'd prefer you would not ask. I'll tell you why in a bit... (fourth paragraph)

I've answered this differently various times before. If you search this forum for "sample playback" you can easily follow my development from "oh, this sounds fun" in about 2006 to the definite stance against it in recent years ("not really our field of work").

Unfortunately, maybe with age, I've become less excited to try and convince people of my point of view, and more excited about getting stuff out of my head and into musical results. I say "unfortunately" because I get the impression that people really like to argue about things a lot, and sample playback - or lack thereof - in particular. The search function bears witness to that: Usually people would publish extensive lists of sorts, which start out with "pros of sampling" over "cons of not doing it" and soon enough escalate into "ways your company will die". All the while I come up with my own lists that apparently nobody ever reads.

... and that's very stressful for me. That's why I'd prefer not to answer that question and refer to what's written in the past.

In a meta way, the discussion about sampling has started sampling itself and is now inherently transcending all my resentments of implementing sample playback with the dislikes of the discussion itself. It "sounded fun" at first and but after some point it became "not really our field of work"

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

My only thought would be: Urs, maybe just post a page on the U-he site that can be linked to whenever the question comes up, or copy/paste a stock answer whenever it comes up and then just engage no further than that so you're not wasting time or diverting from things you'd rather work on.

[Teksonik]

May I ask why you're not keen on sample playback?

I'd prefer you would not ask. I'll tell you why in a bit... (fourth paragraph)
I've answered this differently various times before.

Oh I've seen you post your resistance to samples in the past but it was just a simple question. No need to stress about it....

I get the impression that people really like to argue about things a lot, and sample playback - or lack thereof - in particular.

I'm not looking for an argument I was just curious as to your position now.

But there can be no argument that samples expand the range of sounds a synth can make by orders of magnitude.

If it's not your field of work then it is what it is....I won't ask again if it's going to cause you so much distress....

[Urs]

Hehehe, no worries, no stress at all

I'm not looking for an argument I was just curious as to your position now.

Sorry, I should've mentioned that regardless of whose question I'd reply to, experience tells me that someone else - probably unaware of previous debates - would compose a list of arguments, and often enough one thing leads to the next, and that's when it becomes stressful.

But yeah, what Funkybot's Evil Twin says, I should write a blog entry or something, like when I had those endless discussions regarding the possibility of creating analogue sound in software. I have a hunch though I'd be writing a lot of those entries though... *sigh*

[FAS122]

I think there's going to be quite some synergy between Zebra3 wavetable creation and Hive's .uhm scripting.

That is exciting. I always thought .uhm needed a boost, cause it's very underutilized despite not really being that hard to learn (I'm nowhere near a pro at it, but it's fun.) I imagine Z3 will be able to load .uhm files, or will it work another way?

[Urs]

That is exciting. I always thought .uhm needed a boost, cause it's very underutilized despite not really being that hard to learn (I'm nowhere near a pro at it, but it's fun.) I imagine Z3 will be able to load .uhm files, or will it work another way?

Yes, I'm sure Zebra3 will load .uhm - I'm just not 100% sure how to combine the different kinds of wavetables yet.

If I had the time (or if Covid declines enough to permit us to hire more devs) I would even consider working on a visual .uhm editor. Something that, for each line written, displays the result in a preview window. And maybe for certain commands simply offers drop downs with the options available.

[AnX]

Last but not least, I do not like Sampling in synthesizers.

Me neither, especially when it's so badly implemented, as it is in many synths.

Gimme a dedicated sampler/rompler any day.

[Shiek927]

But it might be common knowledge that - for me - the redesign of the waveform editor in Zebra is the main motivation to do version 3. As it happens, this is what I'm working on right now (and the reason KVR and Facebook haven't seen much of me lately).

Hehe, your absence has been noticed!! happy you're in the groove and hopefully getting those 'six months without interruption'