u-he at Superbooth 23

[Urs]

In Z3, you can draw pure sine waves easily. Hence, drawing single partials is already easy with the tools presented.

Random, thin and dense spectra are available through the OscFX.

I pretty much decided to try and get along with a curve based editor only. Note that Z2's Blend modes - which are sample based - only ever allowed for 128 harmonics. This certainly contributed to one major criticism of Z2, when people find its base sound somewhat dull. Therefore, the Morph modes always had some advantage, particularly for bass sounds.

However, I don't think the Spectroblend will be missed too badly, as I'm sure the new SpectroMorph will do the trick. The editor in Z3 should be capable of precisely editing individual harmonics as well, due to its toolchain and zoom capabilities. To do so there needs to be a grid with a logarithmic scale. This gives a lot of space to lower harmonics, which is what people often requested for the reasons gentleclockdivider mentioned. I have not experimented with non-uniform grids yet, but the software architecture is already set up for these.

Take this with a grain of salt, I have not done it yet and thus I don't know how well it works. We'll see...

[pdxindy]

I'm fine to let go of SpectroBlend mode. I like the idea of the editor being entirely curve based and then developing new tools/concepts from there.

[Beachboy]

In Z3, you can draw pure sine waves easily. Hence, drawing single partials is already easy with the tools presented.

I have no idea how I can manipulate a waveform to get the results that I get by working with harmonics directly. Maybe it´s just me but I don´t even know how a waveform looks with the fundamental (100%) and the first harmonic (50%). How would I know the shape of more complex sounds? And if i´d know I still have to learn how to draw them. I´ll miss the SpectroBlend mode.

[Urs]

Drawing a more complex spectrum in the new SpectroMorph will certainly work just as well as it used to in the old SpectroBlend, because you might optionally have a snappable Grid for the harmonics.

I'll make a video when/if I get there. If not,I'll think of something.

[pdxindy]

I have no idea how I can manipulate a waveform to get the results that I get by working with harmonics directly. Maybe it´s just me but I don´t even know how a waveform looks with the fundamental (100%) and the first harmonic (50%). How would I know the shape of more complex sounds? And if i´d know I still have to learn how to draw them. I´ll miss the SpectroBlend mode.

In Zebra 2 is the SpectroMorph mode. It is the same 'partials' view as SpectroBlend, but curve based. It would be slow and tedious in Z2, but you can draw in partials in Spectromorph too. My understanding of what Urs is saying is that Z3 will have the similar SpectroMorph option but instead of the clunky old curve editor, it will be all the new tools, plus a grid that conforms to the partials.

[Beachboy]

I have no idea how I can manipulate a waveform to get the results that I get by working with harmonics directly. Maybe it´s just me but I don´t even know how a waveform looks with the fundamental (100%) and the first harmonic (50%). How would I know the shape of more complex sounds? And if i´d know I still have to learn how to draw them. I´ll miss the SpectroBlend mode.

In Zebra 2 is the SpectroMorph mode. It is the same 'partials' view as SpectroBlend, but curve based. It would be slow and tedious in Z2, but you can draw in partials in Spectromorph too. My understanding of what Urs is saying is that Z3 will have the similar SpectroMorph option but instead of the clunky old curve editor, it will be all the new tools, plus a grid that conforms to the partials.

Thanks for the explanation. I never used SpectroMorph before so I tried it and I can see now that this would indeed be similar to SpectroBlend with a suitable grid.

[gentleclockdivider]

In Z3, you can draw pure sine waves easily. Hence, drawing single partials is already easy with the tools presented.

I have no idea how I can manipulate a waveform to get the results that I get by working with harmonics directly. Maybe it´s just me but I don´t even know how a waveform looks with the fundamental (100%) and the first harmonic (50%). How would I know the shape of more complex sounds? And if i´d know I still have to learn how to draw them. I´ll miss the SpectroBlend mode.

In spectroblend you draw the individual partials .
Spectromorph let's you draw the filter curve , open up a spectrum analyzer and all will become clear .
You can then mimick the behaviour of opening -closing a BP-Hp-LP (resonant ) filter etc..

[Beachboy]

In Z3, you can draw pure sine waves easily. Hence, drawing single partials is already easy with the tools presented.

I have no idea how I can manipulate a waveform to get the results that I get by working with harmonics directly. Maybe it´s just me but I don´t even know how a waveform looks with the fundamental (100%) and the first harmonic (50%). How would I know the shape of more complex sounds? And if i´d know I still have to learn how to draw them. I´ll miss the SpectroBlend mode.

In spectroblend you draw the individual partials .
Spectromorph let's you draw the filter curve , open up a spectrum analyzer and all will become clear .
You can then mimick the behaviour of opening -closing a BP-Hp-LP (resonant ) filter etc..

The filter analogy helped me for finally get what the SpectroMorph mode is about. Thanks.

[liinnerd]

https://youtu.be/lmnctQqDiA0

[MrJubbly]

In the next round of u-he product updates, could you possibly increase the maximum GUI scaling options up to at least 300%, or perhaps even beyond for each of your u-he plugins, if it's not too much trouble?

I own many of your synth and effect plugins and have recently moved to a new Windows 11 device with a 4K display and unfortunately, the current 200% maximum scaling setting, isn't quite as large as I require.

An increased 'maximum scaling' setting (to at least 300%) would be very much appreciated, and would save me from further eye strain, as I'm not getting any younger!

Thank you.

[Urs]

Well, this just means a lot more CPU on GUI. 300% would be 8 times the CPU usage for GUI than the 100% setting that we're designing for.

I think we'll eventually have to go fully vectorised UIs processed on hardware accelerated things, but that is probably a year of work alone to get right on every platform, and then we'd have to redesign every UI without any bitmaps.

[MrJubbly]

Well, this just means a lot more CPU on GUI. 300% would be 8 times the CPU usage for GUI than the 100% setting that we're designing for.

I think we'll eventually have to go fully vectorised UIs processed on hardware accelerated things, but that is probably a year of work alone to get right on every platform, and then we'd have to redesign every UI without any bitmaps.

Really? I didn't notice it going up so much from 100% to 200%. Either way, I think the option should still be there for the user, with the performance caveat highlighted, to let each user decide what's best for them.

Personally, for the time being, I'd probably take the extra performance hit, in exchange for the visual convenience, since my new device seems to have plenty to spare. With each user deciding what is the best setting trade-off for themselves.

But as for the future 'vectorised' GUI idea. I'm sure you could also make a success of that eventually. Your GUIs are for sure beautiful. But I have always felt that their 'clean' interfaces would translate well to a 'vectorised' layout.

In the mean time, I for one would certainly appreciate having the choice to increase the GUI scaling to around 300%. Presumably, the performance increase is only while the plugins are visible (and being used) on screen? Which, is certainly an acceptable trade-off for me for the increased accessibility.

Please look at the following GUI scaling comparisons image at 4K, where 100% becomes almost postage-stamp sized, and the current maximum of 200% is more like a 'bare minimum' baseline at this display size. I feel the perfect size for me would be closer to 300% scaling (even with the current performance hit for scaling those bitmap graphics).

[pdxindy]

Really? I didn't notice it going up so much from 100% to 200%. Either way, I think the option should still be there for the user, with the performance caveat highlighted, to let each user decide what's best for them.

Personally, for the time being, I'd probably take the extra performance hit, in exchange for the visual convenience, since my new device seems to have plenty to spare. With each user deciding what is the best setting trade-off for themselves.

For the time being, you have 200 and that's it. It's not like u-he can snap their fingers and 300 is instantly there. It's a bunch of work and for what looks like a marginal benefit (if any) based on the image you posted where 200 looks plenty useable.

[Fannon]

I wonder if that's also something that a DAW could / should handle. In Bitwig you have an option to also scale your plugins. It will look a bit blurry, but if you have a 4k screen that's not that much of an issue. If you have troubles with visual perception, you might also not notice the difference if such upscaling is involved?

[MrJubbly]

Really? I didn't notice it going up so much from 100% to 200%. Either way, I think the option should still be there for the user, with the performance caveat highlighted, to let each user decide what's best for them.

Personally, for the time being, I'd probably take the extra performance hit, in exchange for the visual convenience, since my new device seems to have plenty to spare. With each user deciding what is the best setting trade-off for themselves.

For the time being, you have 200 and that's it. It's not like u-he can snap their fingers and 300 is instantly there. It's a bunch of work and for what looks like a marginal benefit (if any) based on the image you posted where 200 looks plenty useable.

You seem quite sure about how just much work it would take to implement an increase in the GUI scaling limit from 200% to 300%. I wonder how you can be so certain about this, since I would have thought only the internal developers at u-he who are familiar with their code, would actually be privy to such information.

Also, if it isn't as much effort as you are making it out to be, then it shouldn't bother you either way, since it is an optional setting. i.e. nobody would force you to use it if you didn't want to. But for those of us who would, it would be very much appreciated.

My guess is, you're just guessing.