Zebra 3 feature suggestions

[EvilDragon]

And I think the control rate of the synth you are modulating makes a difference too yes?

Yes, absolutely.

[Urs]

Here's the IMHO major flaw in modulation based on DAW-automation: Zipper noise.

During the first ten years of VST, any review of a plug-in has commonly had a section pointing out that either the plug-in was well behaved, or it had steppy parameters. Since then, every plug-in developer has learned to heavily lowpass any parameter movement so that the user does not experience zipper noise. Failing to do so is considered buggy. We've seen people throw demos off their harddrive when they experience this.

So no, don't expect fast and precise modulation from within the DAW. Too many potential customers will dislike a plug-in because of zipper noise before they can appreciate the feature.

And let's be honest: It doesn't support polyphony. There's already MIDI for that, an established standard for sending expression/controllers to plug-ins. It doesn't save with preset, i.e. it's non-transferrable.

Nothing against parameter automation, by curve or by algorithm, but can't add an option to "switch parameter smoothing of for this parameter in this instance" anytime soon

[Hanz Meyzer]

@EvilDragon but can I target them in the modmatrix? Couldn't find it.

EDIT: Nope, does not seem so. See, that's what I meant in my post, I also mentioned the XY pads. But targetable then. What a coincidence, I just read about ZebraHZ that the HZ just requested this feature. So will it come to the normal people's Zebra, too?

Just buy ZebraHZ and you got it!! Plus some other significantly cool features!

Way too expensive IMO. Also I now think HZ wanted the modmatrix targetable in the XY pads, and I want it vice versa, the XY pads targetable in the modmatrix.

[Urs]

Way too expensive IMO. Also I now think HZ wanted the modmatrix targetable in the XY pads, and I want it vice versa, the XY pads targetable in the modmatrix.

I was always opposed to that, since the XYs are a performance control on a global level.

Here's the thing: We've reworked the Mod Matrix in Repro and Hive. From the outside perspective it works pretty much the same as in Zebra - it has major technical advantages though. But in Hive we're also introducing reworked XYs. The fun part, they are now literally the same. XYs use the same underpinnings as the Mod Matrix, but instead of a modulation source of choice, you get an X or a Y.

So instead of modulating an XY in Z3, you can maybe just copy paste their setting into a ModMatrix slot and there you go

[fladd]

For instance, the LFOs will drop custom waveforms

I wonder what's the reason for this and whether there will be other ways then to achieve the same results.

[fladd]

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.

Does that mean that there will be things/ sounds that one can do with Z2 but not with Z3?

[EvilDragon]

For instance, the LFOs will drop custom waveforms

I wonder what's the reason for this and whether there will be other ways then to achieve the same results.

You can always draw a MSEG with whatever shape you want and use it as an LFO.

[Urs]

For instance, the LFOs will drop custom waveforms

I wonder what's the reason for this and whether there will be other ways then to achieve the same results.

Various reasons. In Zebra2 you have many contradicting concepts to create curves, shapes, waveforms whatever, for MSEGs, Oscillators, LFOs, ModMappers. All of these will have one unified system in Zebra3.

MSEGs can already do everything an LFO can. So why not hand it over to them and make LFOs special in other ways? If it isn't enough, we can always bring shapes back, but for now I'd like to try this approach.

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.

Does that mean that there will be things/ sounds that one can do with Z2 but not with Z3?

Yes. Example: I see no need to keep normal filters and XMFs separate. So Z3 will have 4 filters where Z2 has 8. Also, no need for separate distortion and shaper modules. No need for separate reverb modules with different feature set.

But also, Zebra2 now has a whole lot of Oscillator effects. We might start with a smaller selection in Zebra3, which might however be more powerful though. We can still add more over time.

That kind of stuff.

[fladd]

Thanks for the quick reply (impressive how responsive you are)!

You can always draw a MSEG with whatever shape you want and use it as an LFO.

True.

Various reasons. In Zebra2 you have many contradicting concepts to create curves, shapes, waveforms whatever, for MSEGs, Oscillators, LFOs, ModMappers. All of these will have one unified system in Zebra3.

MSEGs can already do everything an LFO can. So why not hand it over to them and make LFOs special in other ways? If it isn't enough, we can always bring shapes back, but for now I'd like to try this approach.

That makes a lot of sense.

Yes. Example: I see no need to keep normal filters and XMFs separate. So Z3 will have 4 filters where Z2 has 8. Also, no need for separate distortion and shaper modules. No need for separate reverb modules with different feature set.

But also, Zebra2 now has a whole lot of Oscillator effects. We might start with a smaller selection in Zebra3, which might however be more powerful though. We can still add more over time.

That kind of stuff.

That's a bit of a pity. Especially the reduced amount of available filters. I guess I always tend to think of an increased version number being a superset of the previous one in terms of features/capabilities. But then again I might also just be very biased due to an experience with another audio software in the past where the new version was basically an entirely different (and in that particular case unfortunately inferior) product.

[Hanz Meyzer]

So instead of modulating an XY in Z3, you can maybe just copy paste their setting into a ModMatrix slot and there you go

That sounds reasonable even to an unreasonable person like me. Is there a Zebra 3 newsletter ?

[#rob]

Is there a Zebra 3 newsletter ?

Only the regular u-he newsletter, you can sign up here.
But no separate Z3 newsletter, sorry. One mailing list is enough to handle.

[pdxindy]

That's a bit of a pity. Especially the reduced amount of available filters. I guess I always tend to think of an increased version number being a superset of the previous one in terms of features/capabilities. But then again I might also just be very biased due to an experience with another audio software in the past where the new version was basically an entirely different (and in that particular case unfortunately inferior) product.

Personally, I think Zebra has become a bit crowded. So I'm glad that it will work out for Z3 to start out a bit slimmed down and go from there. More and more of everything is not a great approach (imo)

In my own use I don't recall ever using more than 4 filters. I assume there will still be EQ's and Filters in the FX section for final sound shaping too.

[fladd]

That's a bit of a pity. Especially the reduced amount of available filters. I guess I always tend to think of an increased version number being a superset of the previous one in terms of features/capabilities. But then again I might also just be very biased due to an experience with another audio software in the past where the new version was basically an entirely different (and in that particular case unfortunately inferior) product.

Personally, I think Zebra has become a bit crowded. So I'm glad that it will work out for Z3 to start out a bit slimmed down and go from there. More and more of everything is not a great approach (imo)

In my own use I don't recall ever using more than 4 filters. I assume there will still be EQ's and Filters in the FX section for final sound shaping too.

I also haven't used as many yet. However, there are situations when I need to feed one filter into another (e.g. for 303ish sounds; but maybe I am just not doing it right) in order to get a certain sound. So more than one filter per lane is not that unusual either I think.

[pdxindy]

I also haven't used as many yet. However, there are situations when I need to feed one filter into another (e.g. for 303ish sounds; but maybe I am just not doing it right) in order to get a certain sound. So more than one filter per lane is not that unusual either I think.

The XMF filter is two filters in one. So 4 Z3 filters will actually be 8.

But besides such details... there is just no need to worry! Urs makes amazing stuff! Zebra 3 will be outstanding and if over time there is a legitimate need for filters 5 and 6... no doubt they will be added.

[fladd]

The XMF filter is two filters in one. So 4 Z3 filters will actually be 8.

Yes, but I cannot use them entirely individually like I can with two individual filter modules.

But besides such details... there is just no need to worry! Urs makes amazing stuff! Zebra 3 will be outstanding and if over time there is a legitimate need for filters 5 and 6... no doubt they will be added.

I know. I am actually not that worried