Dear Zebra

[fladd]

Not sure why you would even bring this up, seems very far fetched.

Because I fully agree with this:

I voted no. I really like the sample oscillator in Phase Plant, but already people are asking for multisample and granular functionality and I feel it will be the same for Zebra. People will always ask for more, more, more and adding even the most basic sample playback function in Zebra will almost certainly open the floodgates for users demanding additional features/content, which Urs has made clear on many occasions he's not keen on pursuing.

A single sample (like Serum) leads to granular stuff. And to multisamples. And factory content. And to add-on content. And to a lot less time, emphasis and recognition for the synthesis engine.

If we added sample playback to Zebra, I'm afraid I'd spend the rest of my worklife listening to sample packs. But I really just want to make synthesizers.

And also, we have other ideas for sample manipulation. Just no time to ever get started on this.

Interesting... I kind of get what you mean.
I just think there were many great synthesizers in the past that were (partly) based on sample playback and I personally just think of sample import as a way to emulate those (think e.g. Roland LA synthesis) with Zebra. I would also be fine if you just included those samples as a fixed set into Zebra (like those great synthesizers had a fixes set of samples), but of course you can't do that due to copyright, so sample import would give me a mean to just load them myself.

[pdxindy]

I would also be fine if you just included those samples as a fixed set into Zebra (like those great synthesizers had a fixes set of samples), but of course you can't do that due to copyright, so sample import would give me a mean to just load them myself.

But then people want a lo-fi mode to emulate how they sounded in the past... others want a higher res mode... and then timestretch so the samples can be pitched and still the same length and so on.

There are already good tools to work with samples... from simple to complex to suit everyones interests and the DAW is a good place to make a layered sound of some sample plus Zebra.

[Urs]

We thought of doing a D-50 emulation where we would resynthesize all samples necessary in Zebra first

[fladd]

[Shiek927]

Not sure why you would even bring this up, seems very far fetched.

Because I fully agree with this:

I voted no. I really like the sample oscillator in Phase Plant, but already people are asking for multisample and granular functionality and I feel it will be the same for Zebra. People will always ask for more, more, more and adding even the most basic sample playback function in Zebra will almost certainly open the floodgates for users demanding additional features/content, which Urs has made clear on many occasions he's not keen on pursuing.

A single sample (like Serum) leads to granular stuff. And to multisamples. And factory content. And to add-on content. And to a lot less time, emphasis and recognition for the synthesis engine.

If we added sample playback to Zebra, I'm afraid I'd spend the rest of my worklife listening to sample packs. But I really just want to make synthesizers.

And also, we have other ideas for sample manipulation. Just no time to ever get started on this.

Interesting... I kind of get what you mean.
I just think there were many great synthesizers in the past that were (partly) based on sample playback and I personally just think of sample import as a way to emulate those (think e.g. Roland LA synthesis) with Zebra. I would also be fine if you just included those samples as a fixed set into Zebra (like those great synthesizers had a fixes set of samples), but of course you can't do that due to copyright, so sample import would give me a mean to just load them myself.

As someone with a very huge love for the Roland JD990 and 90's synths which indeed very much use samples, I see where you're coming from. But I understand Urs' concerns that introducing samples opens Pandora's Box.

and to be completely utterly honest, while I can only speak for myself, I don't often import my own samples into a synth. Is it nice having the option for creativity's sake? Yes. Is it something that I use very often? No. While Hive can load wavetables, It already comes with a fantastic set of wavetables and I'll be totally honest that I'm more than happy if Zebra3 was the same with no real need to import more unless you really, really wanted too.


As I saying before, it's not as much of a requirement as some people say it is imo.

[sekka]

I still don't get it.. There are roughly two ways of working with samples: playing multisamples as if you are playing some real instruments vs recording own farts and showing you mom what you can do with them...

Seriously, while everyone is against of multisamplers, why take this route then? I see Zebra as a creative tool, not a replication tool. And many here agree that sample editing can be fun. If you don't wan't to see that in Zebra - just ignore this option then! Effects are not technically part of synthesis either, may I remind you, but you are not asking Urs to remove them from Zebra.

[HTT]

I still don't get it.. There are roughly two ways of working with samples: playing multisamples as if you are playing some real instruments vs recording own farts and showing you mom what you can do with them...

Seriously, while everyone is against of multisamplers, why take this route then? I see Zebra as a creative tool, not a replication tool. And many here agree that sample editing can be fun. If you don't wan't to see that in Zebra - just ignore this option then! Effects are not technically part of synthesis either, may I remind you, but you are not asking Urs to remove them from Zebra.

Including options most people don’t want for Zebra 3 wastes u-he’s product development resources. Instead of sampling options, u-he could then devote those resources to options for Zebra 3 people want or for other projects the majority of people want.

[sekka]

Because right now Zebra is unbalanced sound-design wise. And I see people asking for specific things rather than fundamentals. Whould this help to sell more? Well, may I disagree.

You know what's ironic? You want the developers to spend their time for their customers needs. At the same time people here acknowledge, that adding a sampler will open a Pandora's box. Box of those same customers needs. But customers needs aren't a bad thing, remember?

My points are:
a) You will not stop using Zebra if it has a sampler, but it will attract those who want to use samples (at least every third person, considering this pole)
b) It won't take long to implement a basic sampler to cover the fundamental hole
c) You can devote more development time to it later as much as you would consider it necessary
d) Multisampling is an additional feature, see point c
e) I don't think that the developer is obliged to supply sample banks if (multi)sampling is not a main feature of the device. Adding samples is a user's responsibility (like it works in KarmaFx, for example)

[ariston]

Because right now Zebra is unbalanced sound-design wise. And I see people asking for specific things rather than fundamentals. Whould this help to sell more? Well, may I disagree.

You know what's ironic? You want the developers to spend their time for their customers needs. At the same time people here acknowledge, that adding a sampler will open a Pandora's box. Box of those same customers needs. But customers needs aren't a bad thing, remember?

My points are:
a) You will not stop using Zebra if it has a sampler, but it will attract those who want to use samples (at least every third person, considering this pole)
b) It won't take long to implement a basic sampler to cover the fundamental hole
c) You can devote more development time to it later as much as you would consider it necessary
d) Multisampling is an additional feature, see point c
e) I don't think that the developer is obliged to supply sample banks if (multi)sampling is not a main feature of the device. Adding samples is a user's responsibility (like it works in KarmaFx, for example)

The design philosophy behind U-He has been a success story, wouldn't you agree? And a big part of that has been that Urs is able to prioritize and focus, to concentrate on what makes U-HE special and stand out from the crowd. Developers have to take a lot more into account than just "it would be cool to have XYZ in this product".

[Howard]

Because right now Zebra is unbalanced sound-design wise.

Hardly!

[sekka]

The design philosophy behind U-He has been a success story, wouldn't you agree? And a big part of that has been that Urs is able to prioritize and focus, to concentrate on what makes U-HE special and stand out from the crowd. Developers have to take a lot more into account than just "it would be cool to have XYZ in this product".

Like everyone else here, I praise Urs for his wish to make only the best stuff. But I am still sure that anyone can be biased in some regards (like I may be in regards to samplers ).

Right now I see two counter-points on samplers from him: multisampling libraries and too much of functionality to make it a proper sampler. So I say - libraries aren't the developer's responsibility, while the desire to make only the best sampler makes no sampler at all and it's not clever (at least from my stricktly functional point of view)

[pdxindy]

Because right now Zebra is unbalanced sound-design wise.

Zebra is one of the best sound design tools available today. It is the opposite of unbalanced! There is nothing better for balancing power and ease of use, sound quality and cpu use.

You want the developers to spend their time for their customers needs. At the same time people here acknowledge, that adding a sampler will open a Pandora's box. Box of those same customers needs. But customers needs aren't a bad thing, remember?

Actually, I want u-he to spend their time for my needs

Adding samples would not be a pandoras box as such. There is nothing wrong with sample based synthesis. Thing is, there is already a lot of it. That ground is well covered by other existing synths. What there is not a lot of is innovative pure synthesis. For example, there are far more sample based synths than there are physical modeling synths. Zebra with its Comb Modules can do some beautiful modeling of acoustic instruments. I would love to see that capability expanded. Nothing else out there has Zebras Comb Modules. I would like to see Zebra continue to add unique tools to the toolbox... not just duplicate well covered ground.

b) It won't take long to implement a basic sampler to cover the fundamental hole

It is only a fundamental hole if you are thinking that every synth should do everything. I like the u-he stuff exactly because they avoid doing that. What you are calling a deficiency I consider a strength!

Adding samples is a user's responsibility (like it works in KarmaFx, for example)

KarmaFX is an obscure synth. You can declare that adding samples is the users responsibility but most users never create their own samples. The most popular sample based synths are from companies that have some speciality in creating and selling sample libraries.

[Biscotto]

Because right now Zebra is unbalanced sound-design wise.

Hardly!

Of course it is unbalanced, it’s too powerful

[Shiek927]

If uhe were to explore samples, I feel the best place for it would be in its own dedicated plugin. Whether it be a sampler or a sample based synth. That way, the plugins entire design philosophy is derived from it using samples and it's not simply functionality added that otherwise doesnt has to be there.

The idea that Zebra2 is unbalanced is crazy considering its enduring success. To me, a synth is balanced when it's all around within its intended functionality, not having every conceivable feature.

[sekka]

Just to defend my "unbalanced sound-design wise" statement, let's be a bit abstract.

If you'd ask an avarage (not in quality) sound-designer what his main tool should have first - at least some basic sampler functionality or even more improved than already is comb filter - what would he answer? Let me quote a famous classic:

Exactly.

And it should be obvoius why. Using own samples brings uniqueness to you sound right away with very satisfying and pretty minimal effort (I mean recording and editing samples).

Also - not saying it is of great significance, but still delivering a fresh portion of contradiction - how many of you here considering a bias of asking existing customers, instead of those who never became a customer (for reasons of missing features)?

PS.

KarmaFX is an obscure synth

I wouldn't call KarmaFx so obscure, but if you wish so, it is probably not because of having a sampler.