# Zebra 2 vs omnisphere 2



## AMAROK13

In your opinion the most versatile, evolutionary, offering the best sound reproduction.

On pads, atmospheres, leads, plucks, Zebra 2 or Omnisphere 2?


----------



## wst3

my opinion only, but they are two very different approaches, and the results are different, or can be, but both sound really good.

The differences are not so much in the audio quality as the "ease" (not really the right word, but close) of creating your own sounds.

If pressed I'd guess:
- it is probably a little easier to find a sound in Omni
- it is probably a little easier (for me) to create a sound in Zebra, but I am learning to use Omni, Zebra just came more naturally.
- Omni probably has a slight edge for complex, evolving sounds
- Zebra has a slight edge with a few more techniques

For pads and atmospheres I'd probably start with Omni, for leads and especially plucks I'd start with Zebra. They can both sound awesome, and it is probably nigh impossible to make a poor choice.

And remember, my opinion could well be based on my own shortcomings<G>!


----------



## germancomponist

Manual transmission vs automatic transmission, or Ferrari vs Lamborghini ... . 

There is no "best", if u ask me ... .


----------



## InLight-Tone

Both are essential for modern media composition. Zebra being all synthesis except for wavetables and Omni incorporating samples. For instance Zebra can do some really good FM synthesis, awhile Omni can granulate samples for Atmos and Textures. Both sport excellent patch libraries available like The Unfinished series for both. 

Between the two, pretty much all your synthesis needs are covered except for maybe extended granulation of multi-sampled patches like in HALion and Avenger, but hey get those two as well and you're set for LIFE!


----------



## Christof

The difference:
Zebra is a synth, Omnisphere isn't a synth.


----------



## dog1978

They are totally different.


----------



## Jaap

Christof said:


> The difference:
> Zebra is a synth, Omnisphere isn't a synth.



What makes you think Omnisphere is not a synth?

To the opening poster:

It is all really about a matter of taste and workflow. Both can do incredible things. Both have their own unique sound and approach and both have been used by a large amount of professionals doing all kinds of stuff with it. It really comes down to what you would need in your own productions and how it will fit your workflow. Maybe you can give a bit insight in that and we can help out maybe with pointing out a few things for you


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson

Christof said:


> The difference:
> Zebra is a synth, Omnisphere isn't a synth.


----------



## Geoff Grace

Yes, Omnisphere is a synth. Sometimes, it uses sampled waveforms; and other times, its waveforms are created from scratch. More here:

Spectrasonics | EDIT PAGE - Oscillator

Best,

Geoff


----------



## germancomponist

Christof said:


> The difference:
> Zebra is a synth, Omnisphere isn't a synth.


Omnisphere is a rompler (and now u can use your own samples) with great synth functions, like in Kontakt Sampler ... , where u can manipulate samples with synth functions too. I personally like Zebra much more than Omni, but I have heared a lot of great stuff what was done in Omni. I think both are worth to try out and use .... .


----------



## Geoff Grace

germancomponist said:


> Omnisphere is a rompler (and now u can use your own samples) with great synth functions, like in Kontakt Sampler ... , where u can manipulate samples with synth functions too.


Yes, AND you can create synth patches using no samples at all. (See my link above.)

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Gunther, my friend, allow me to correct you: Aside from the rompler side, there is a (very good) synth engine in Omnisphere that does not use samples, rather DSP-generated waveforms, just like Zebra, Diva, etc (rhymes better if you pronounce the names!). There are many cool presets in Omnisphere that do not use samples at all.

And for the OP, I love them both. Asking to choose between them is like asking a parent which child they prefer!! I say get the two.


----------



## germancomponist

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Gunther, my friend, allow me to correct you: Aside from the rompler side, there is a (very good) synth engine in Omnisphere that does not use samples, rather DSP-generated waveforms, just like Zebra, Diva, etc (rhymes better if you pronounce the names!). There are many cool presets in Omnisphere that do not use samples at all.
> 
> And for the OP, I love them both. Asking to choose between them is like asking a parent which child they prefer!! I say get the two.


Ned, I didn't know this because I have not bought Omnisphere, but as I said, I like its sound also very much, why I wrote "Ferrari vs Lambo" ... . Maybe now it is time for me to check Omni out? Thank you for the hint, Ned, my friend!


----------



## Dewdman42

Omnispheres is definitely not a rompler. 

Zebra and Omni are very different, I ended up with both for that reason. One is not better then the other. They both make great sound, but Omni comes with a ton more presets so if you're more of a preset player, or make small easy tweaks, Omni will be much easier to program in general. A real synthesist will say that Zebra is more straightforward and flexible to do many cool things for those that really know what they're doing with synthesis, and not even close to the same number of presets as Omni. Also Omnispheres tends to have a lot of cool sounds that are synthy and atmospherey, etc, but based on samples such as a string section or choirs or acoustic piano, etc.. You might think of those particular sounds are romplerish, but you can do a lot more with Omni's synth engine then is typical with a rompler. And then there are the wave tables and all the included filters and modulation possibilities, etc.. way more then a rompler.


----------



## germancomponist

Dewdman42 said:


> Omnispheres is definitely not a rompler.
> .



If you read my last post, then you get it that I told that I was wrong by thinking this .... . Again, I like the sound of Omnisphere!


----------



## Geoff Grace

Here's how I'd put it:

1) Omnisphere is a synth, but it doesn't always create synth sounds using pure synthesis.
2) Omnisphere is like a ROMpler in that it often combines samples with synthesis, but the resulting sound is rarely like that of a ROMpler. (That's why you don't often see Omnisphere vs. SampleTank threads.)

Best,

Geoff


----------



## zvenx

I haven't gone thru all 1,000 sounds but it seems that the new Hardware Section of Omnisphere is almost entirely made by synthesis on waveforms.
rsp


----------



## wst3

germancomponist said:


> Manual transmission vs automatic transmission, or Ferrari vs Lamborghini ... .
> 
> There is no "best", if u ask me ... .


I might want to debate Manual vs Automatic<G>


----------



## chimuelo

There’s no versus, you either have both or your missing out.
Just break down and buy both.


----------



## jononotbono

They sound so different. I love owning both and they are easily my favourite soft synths.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Beer or wine? Both!


----------



## germancomponist

I watched this vid today and I gladly admit it: I am very excited.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Glad to see you're thinking about getting it, Gunther! After watching that video, it's like saying, "oh, there must be _something_ wrong with this? Then again, maybe not ...":


----------



## Parsifal666

It really is hard to compare imo, mostly because Zebra is to a degree a character synth, while Omnisphere is a bit like Serum in that's it's essentially vanilla.

If you really love the Zebra sound (which I do), then you're all set. Just keep in mind how many people went off the charts emulating that sound after Dark Knight...might turn you around to Omnisphere.

I liked Omnisphere when I bought it, but I ended up never using it because I'd already studied the hell out of my other synths (Wavemapper/Generator, XILS IV, Harmor and Sytrus, Nave, Serum, Largo) and just didn't feel I needed it.

That said, you couldn't do much better than Omnisphere if you're looking for one mighty, swiss army knife Romplesynthskin. I just prefer character synths.


----------



## germancomponist

@Parsifal666. I normally also prefer character synths like U-he's, use it all the time and always thought that Omnisphere was just a rompler. But yeah, it is more than that .... .


----------



## Parsifal666

germancomponist said:


> @Parsifal666. I normally also prefer character synths like U-he's, use it all the time and always thought that Omnisphere was just a rompler. But yeah, it is more than that .... .



It's hard to go wrong with u-he imo. Diva is a MONSTER. A gotta have.

For romplers I already had Nexus and the original (sacred) Alchemy. Another reason I got rid of Omnisphere (again, please know that if I'd never owned any synths and romplers before, I would have held onto Omnisphere for dear life).


----------



## Christof

Okay, this is a synth.


----------



## zvenx

Tastes are so personal and different. I would have described Alchemy as Vanilla sounding and not in a million years would I think of Omnisphere as not a character synth. Roland a la Eric is stamped, tattooed and branded all over Omnisphere to me.
rsp


----------



## germancomponist

zvenx said:


> Roland a la Eric is stamped, tattooed and branded all over Omnisphere to me.
> rsp


In the past and very past, I did tons of radio-commercials and pop songs with all that Roland romplers and some Roland synth's, and they all worked very good.


----------



## Parsifal666

zvenx said:


> Tastes are so personal and different. I would have described Alchemy as Vanilla sounding and not in a million years would I think of Omnisphere as not a character synth. Roland a la Eric is stamped, tattooed and branded all over Omnisphere to me.
> rsp



Alchemy is very vanilla sounding. I mentioned it because I already had that.

I'll take your word Omnisphere is a character synth, though I know a lot of owners whom _completely_ disagree with that. No disrespect intended.


----------



## Geoff Grace

Well, Omnisphere has over 14,000 patches. It's quite possible some are vanilla and others are filled with character.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## chimuelo

When I wind out Zebra2HZ’s Diva Filter it’s really close to the fried greasy bacon sound of a good discrete audio filter like the Oberheim SEM.
I just made a PC free stage rig after 13 years of software, and to replace Omnisphere and Zebra it took a Studio Electronics Code 8 and a Roland Integra 7.
You know a softsynth is good when you exclaim I have a Hardware Omnisphere.
But it’s a deadly beast.
Stack on the left I’m prepping for October.


----------



## AMAROK13

First of all, a big thank you for your many participation and opinion on the subject.

The more I read you and listen to videos of the two, the more it seems to me that they are indeed complementary.

Zebra 2 has a really special and more aggressive sound in the leads and more massive in the plucks.

Omnispehere 2 is very comfortable in the pads, atmospheres and evolving sounds, even if Zebra 2 is doing pretty well too.

My search for sonorities, are planing pads, atmospheres evolutives, Leads and plucks aggressives.

My question is, Omnisphere 2, can it reproduce this grain this aggressive for leads and plucks of Zebra 2 ?


----------



## germancomponist

You can download all U-He synth's for testing it for free. Just do it! 
Try the Hive synth too! This synthesizer can do a lot, is very underrated!


----------



## AMAROK13

In fact, Products U-He, I have an idea of sounds that are simply monstrous and excellent quality.

I'm just wondering, considering the new Omnisphere 2.5, if this one, could not arrive at a similar sound result to Zebra 2.


----------



## germancomponist

AMAROK13 said:


> I'm just wondering, considering the new Omnisphere 2.5, if this one, could not arrive at a similar sound result to Zebra 2.


No, it can not, and it was not developed for that either.


----------



## AMAROK13

Thank you for that clarification. So, they are complementary.


----------



## germancomponist

I do not think Urs Heckmann built his synthesizers to piss off other synths, and I think Erik did not build Omnisphere, to piss off other synths. Both live for their ideas and implement them without this absurd competitive thinking.
Both are great creators.


----------



## AMAROK13

My remarks are not in opposition.

They are creators of genius.

Exactly, I say that both are complementary, therefore, nothing negative, quite the opposite.

A perfect combination.


----------



## sostenuto

Eri*c* plz.


----------



## AMAROK13

As for my decision for the Bundle of effects, I read your answers carefully and was still consulting a lot of video and I will rather at first take different products at U-HE.

I love this company, their products of excellent quality, a team of kindness and professional exceptional, in short, just perfect.

I will eventually take Omnisphere 2, because a monster Vst, it could really be enough to itself, given its power of typing and version 2.5, gives it a much more infinite potential.

I can not wait to see the next version 3, who knows maybe a hardware / software version.

Spectrasonics, like U-HE, are remarkable, both in their products close to perfection and the people who work there.


----------



## jononotbono

Just buy both of them.


----------



## AMAROK13

Yes, but no.

In two phases, U-He, then Omnisphere 2.


----------



## Geoff Grace

AMAROK13 said:


> Yes, but no.
> 
> In two phases, U-He, then Omnisphere 2.


I think your choice to buy them in succession is wise: both for your wallet and for the learning curve. Much better to take them on one at a time.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## wst3

Geoff Grace said:


> I think your choice to buy them in succession is wise: both for your wallet and for the learning curve. Much better to take them on one at a time.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff


What he said!!!

I found Zebra a little easier to learn, but it could go either way!


----------



## whiskers

AMAROK13 said:


> Thank you for that clarification. So, they are complementary.


Can you expand on this please? My impression was omnisphere was extremely flexible and you could design sounds beyond the presets - is that not the case? 

And if you can indeed, what is limiting you cook creating a sound similar to zebra's? Just curious - many thanks for any input


----------



## AMAROK13

Thank you for your answers.

Indeed, learning very impotant.

Why, I complete what I already have to start products from

U-he I particularly like (Zebra 2 and Diva).

As a result, by the monstrous Omnisphere 2.5, which for him and in view of practically infinite possibilities must be a sacred pieces.

Even though other Vst Rapid, Dms Ascension really seem to have a lot of potential, at some point you have to stop and start using what you do not like Vst.


----------



## GP_Hawk

Check out Pluginguru on youtube and look into the playlists. Lots on Omnishpere including some programming tips. Also some on Zebra. I use both.


----------



## Erick - BVA

Don't own either (well, I own various free versions of Zebra). But they seem like they would be (potentially) rather different. 
Isn't Zebra pure synthesis? It is not sample based (maybe you can import some waveforms?). 
While Omnisphere is probably capable of producing synthesizer tones (like Engine2 and other sampler environments), it also uses 
samples (similar to Kontakt?). So I see this as an apples and oranges kind of thing. They are completely different. I think a fairer comparison would be Omnisphere 2 vs Falcon, or Zebra 2 vs Dune 2.
Again, I own neither, so everything I said is only based on what little knowledge I've garnered through casual perusing. I may be full of it.


----------

