# Massive vs. Massive X



## José Herring

Not sure if this topic has come up yet. I did do some searching for it before posting.

I own Massive from NI. Never used it. Just downloaded it today for the first time. Went and listen to the NI demos. They sound like crap to me. But....people swear by this synth so I'm willing to give it a chance. 

Massive X on the other had sounds really good to me. Edgy without being nasty sounding. I'm sure it can do nasty but it just seems better to me, but.....man I have a 1000 softsynths that can do edgy and don't really need to learn a new one. 

Anybody that has experience with both, would love your opinions. Or even your opinion on one or the other. Trying to decide if it's worth it to me to get down and learn yet another softsynth. Or....is there something out there that can do just as well that's even better?

Specifically, I need to fill a niche in my synth collections because I've gravitated by my own aesthetic towards 100 synths that basically sound similar. So looking for something that is just not the same. But, also not horrible sounding.


----------



## X-Bassist

I have Massive for the few sounds it does well (mostly techno sounds for club scenes) then recently got the upgrade to Massive X for $75 at the half price sale. The video reviews and walkthroughs give you a good idea of the range of sounds. How much of it is useful is up to you. For me U-He Synths and Serum sound better, but I'm not sure if there is a crossover in sounds.

For me these kind of synths are fallbacks for when I need a particular sound, or I just want a synth to explore with a digital edge (Razor is also interesting). But I'm not sure even with 580 presets there is enough there to make it worth the price aside from a decent sale.


----------



## vitocorleone123

Massive is old, and sounds it. It can still do certain sound well.

Massive X is new, and sounds like a top tier synth. Because it is. The presets are known to be weak.

Sometime in 2020 I aim to finally use it! Too many others first in line.


----------



## AmbientMile

vitocorleone123 said:


> Massive is old, and sounds it...



I don't agree with this. if you are only listening to the presets that come with it than yes, it sounds dated. But Massive is VERY powerful and is still VERY capable of making wonderful and fresh sounds just like any synth.

EDIT: Somehow I missed that you said "It can still do certain sound well". Sorry. Plus, with your name being Vito Corleone, I figured I better apologize!


----------



## vitocorleone123

AmbientMile said:


> I don't agree with this. if you are only listening to the presets that come with it than yes, it sounds dated. But Massive is VERY powerful and is still VERY capable of making wonderful and fresh sounds just like any synth.



Vintage hardware synths still make amazing music. I'm afraid my earlier post from my iPhone came across as too terse and dismissive. In terms of the sounds Massive can make - it's a full-fledged digital synth and I have no doubt many people are still using it daily to make great sounds and music.

I suppose I meant that "old" means it sounds more digital and aliased compared to several other synths that are available. That may or may not be a desired sound. I don't really like it, personally, as is probably clear!


----------



## AmbientMile

vitocorleone123 said:


> I suppose I meant that "old" means it sounds more digital and aliased compared to several other synths that are available. That may or may not be a desired sound. I don't really like it, personally, as is probably clear!



Yep, I can agree with that!


----------



## Mornats

Have a listen to some third party presets from Mike Adle http://liv.mikaeladle.se/massive.html and The Unfinished http://www.theunfinished.co.uk/. I think they bring a lot more to Massive than the factory presets for sure.


----------



## gsilbers

keep an eye out for the system specs. 
"*Note:* MASSIVE X requires an AVX-compatible CPU to run."

I was pretty pissed at ni 1st since my Mac Pro 12 core couldn't handle it (didn't have the avx). 

I finally got a new computer and got it to work and still don't see why it needs avx or anything related to high cpu. or don't know why it it needed avx at all. 

but I checked it out and its ok but the assignment and routing is going to take forever to figure it out in a intuitive way. 

I just got Dune3 to replace my virus ti. so you probably remember dune1 or dune2 as more generic synths but dune3 its obvious they are copying the virus ti based on the design updates that look very similar. plus they added multistage envelopes which makes it very cool for cinematic stuff. 

other than that, the Arturia pigment to me has to be one of the cooler ones lately. the granular, plus virtual analog and wavetable and the routing is pretty neat and cool. 
since its dual layer you can mix granular and VI or with wavetable and get some nice sounds. its drag and drop wav file to granular so it can change a lot the sound.


----------



## babylonwaves

josejherring said:


> Specifically, I need to fill a niche in my synth collections because I've gravitated by my own aesthetic towards 100 synths that basically sound similar. So looking for something that is just not the same. But, also not horrible sounding.


try hive - surprisingly good.


----------



## Dr.Quest

I have both and in the long run I'd rather use U-he Zebra/HZ. Better synth hands down.


----------



## José Herring

Reading all the post now. Somehow I've missed all the replies except the first one until today.

I appreciate the responses.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

vitocorleone123 said:


> Massive is old, and sounds it.



Just curious, in what way does it sound old to you?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You know what's a great synth (which I just opened up since I mentioned it earlier today)?

Trilian!

It wouldn't surprise me if that's what Ramin Dajawdi uses for those gorgeous, thick analog filter-growling sounds in Westworld.

Actually it would, because it's unlikely.  But Trilian can produce the beefiest analog synth sounds there am.


----------



## EvilDragon

gsilbers said:


> I finally got a new computer and got it to work and still don't see why it needs avx or anything related to high cpu. or don't know why it it needed avx at all.



AVX allows to throw more number-crunching muscle into the DSP algorithms (which makes it sound great) while the CPU usage remains low. If MX didn't use AVX, you could expect doubled CPU usage from what it's using now, easily.


----------



## Zero&One

Massive was a true game changer. However, it was almost like NI didn't realise what a beast they had created, so the presets are just awful.
Thankfully, users dug deep into it and 1000's of YouTube videos emerged showing the sheer depth and power of it. That was Massive's main success... the users.

Massive X was released years and years too late. It came back into the market to compete with Avenger, Serum, Sylenth etc. Along with the AVX shambles, the release wasn't great either tbh.

Avenger would be my advice these days, better than Massive X by a long shot.


----------



## jcrosby

The original Massive is notorious for aliasing. That was basically Steve Duda's whole selling point with Serum early on...

The original Massive does sound somewhat brittle compared to Massive X but I still use it and love it. If anything probably because I find Massive X's UI a little overwhelming. There are so many tabs and views that I've found programming it is kind of laborious, and still haven't warmed up to it.

I'm probably just getting old and being stubborn though 

Also agree Massive X might as well be a day late and a dollar short, in that NI took way too long to update it. The original was probably one of the most widely used plugin synths. Since then a number of other synths have come along and the bigger brother hasn't managed to climb back anywhere close to where the original was. (It sure seems that way at least...)


----------



## EvilDragon

OG Massive doesn't alias as much when it's at Ultra quality. But then it consumes as much or even more CPU than Massive X, which sounds much better and also has way less aliasing by comparison too.


I don't think Avenger sounds better than Massive X. Having a bajillion of everything in one synth doesn't guarantee it will sound good. MX clearly wins in filter quality and non-linear effects.


----------



## Zero&One

EvilDragon said:


> Having a bajillion of everything in one synth doesn't guarantee it will sound good.



Omnisphere and Avenger disagree.


----------



## EvilDragon

Well IMHO Avenger doesn't sound better than MX. Omnisphere is not really comparable since as a wavetable synth it doesn't do one tenth of things MX can do.


----------



## Zero&One

I never doubted you wouldn't.

I get your point, loads more options doesn't always mean better. But in Avengers case... it does. Not really a debate as countless reviews agree on this.


----------



## EvilDragon

I don't really care about reviews  Been checking out Avenger and never found it sounding as organic and lifelike as MX can sound. But this is to be expected from EDM-focused Vengeance productions. No foul, just a different focus group.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig

Haven't tried Massive X yet (have used the original a LOT), but it seems Pigments is doing a lot of the same things - but with a neater interface. It has a special free trial until july right now, so it's the best time to check it out.


----------



## Living Fossil

josejherring said:


> Anybody that has experience with both, would love your opinions. Or even your opinion on one or the other. Trying to decide if it's worth it to me to get down and learn yet another softsynth. Or....is there something out there that can do just as well that's even better?



Having both i think both have their comfort zone where they really shine.
(Discussions about "quality" are always a bit funny when it's not about an emulation...)
However, if i had to recommend one to do similar stuff, it would be clearly Hive 2.
One big plus are the tons of great presets that are really useful, since it's quite easy to edit Hive.
And of course, downloading Xfer's free OTT plugin in addition will make it easy to broaden the palette.


----------



## gsilbers

Zero&One said:


> Massive was a true game changer. However, it was almost like NI didn't realise what a beast they had created, so the presets are just awful.
> Thankfully, users dug deep into it and 1000's of YouTube videos emerged showing the sheer depth and power of it. That was Massive's main success... the users.
> 
> Massive X was released years and years too late. It came back into the market to compete with Avenger, Serum, Sylenth etc. Along with the AVX shambles, the release wasn't great either tbh.
> 
> Avenger would be my advice these days, better than Massive X by a long shot.



very true. 

plus i think massive is the main sound for skrillex and that sort new dubstep styles thats main sound is very upfront in your face synths. or it went from the wobble to that sound. 
im not seeing massive x going there.


----------



## gsilbers

Zero&One said:


> I never doubted you wouldn't.
> 
> I get your point, loads more options doesn't always mean better. But in Avengers case... it does. Not really a debate as countless reviews agree on this.



i didnt even thought massive x would be in the same legue. avenger and serum are so more widley used and in general easier to use and program cool sounds fast. and without any avx shenaniganss


----------



## EvilDragon

If Serum used AVX it would've had a really nice reduction in CPU usage, but it doesn't. 


*AVX is a GOOD thing. *And yes it does make sound MX better where it really matters, because as mentioned, AVX allows more number crunching within the same amount of CPU time.


----------



## vitocorleone123

AVX is a good thing. I’d expect more and more synths and maybe plugins to use it. DAWs, too.

Massive X sounds great. I just haven’t found it approachable like the other synths in my collection, so, despite having had it since release, it still collects virtual dust. I’m sure I’ll get to learning it and using it some day.


----------



## X-Bassist

Zero&One said:


> I never doubted you wouldn't.
> 
> I get your point, loads more options doesn't always mean better. But in Avengers case... it does. Not really a debate as countless reviews agree on this.


This may just be a matter of opinion, but for me Avenger comes across as cold and lifeless in the mix, as ED pointed out. Something about the oscillators or filters that don’t have the warmth of Omnisphere, Diva, or Repro. Perhaps I just don’t do enough dance music, but the idea of these synths is they can do a wide variety of genres and are flexible, no? This is where I feel Avenger also falls flat. After having it for 6 months I have been trying to use it, but always end up with one of the other three.

It may be popular, but many people don’t think about the quality of the sound to enhance a mix, rather than detract. But if you like distractions...


----------



## Zero&One

I agree those 3 are better than Massive X 

I also enjoy stuff like this. It may lifeless but it's my thing


----------



## ghobii

EvilDragon said:


> I don't really care about reviews  Been checking out Avenger and never found it sounding as organic and lifelike as MX can sound.


Totally agree with this. The sound of MX is gorgeous, and extremely flexible. I suppose the interface might seem a bit daunting at first, but I really like it, and find the design of it's workflow very logical. All the tabs make it seem more complex, but to me, it gives each section plenty of room for a big clear interface. I am still looking forward to a better preset browsing experience, and can't wait till they implement the modulation animations though.

I think most of MX's bad rep came from its shaky launch of an unfinished product.


----------



## EvilDragon

ghobii said:


> and can't wait till they implement the modulation animations though.



AFAIK there was no confirmation that this will happen, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that. There's bigger fish to fry.


----------



## ghobii

Really? Seems like a huge mistake if they don't, as visual feedback is really an essential element for efficient sound design. Not to mention most modern synths now do this. In one of the first MX videos I watched when it came out, someone cited an NI source as saying it was coming. But I guess priorities can change.


----------



## EvilDragon

Yes, and "visual feedback that is coming" it meant envelope graphs moving based on how parameters change. That is implemented now.

Animations for modulation I wouldn't hold my breath for, personally.


----------



## gsilbers

Living Fossil said:


> Having both i think both have their comfort zone where they really shine.
> (Discussions about "quality" are always a bit funny when it's not about an emulation...)
> However, if i had to recommend one to do similar stuff, it would be clearly Hive 2.
> One big plus are the tons of great presets that are really useful, since it's quite easy to edit Hive.
> And of course, downloading Xfer's free OTT plugin in addition will make it easy to broaden the palette.



Oh man.... hive 2 is amazing. So much better imo. Uhe does indeed put out amazing stuff.


----------



## José Herring

I've been interested in Hive for a while but I have Zebra2 and about to get the Dark Zebra (been saying that for a year so it's gonna happen any moment now ) and not sure if Hive2 would be just Zebra lite. What makes Hive2 so different? Also, from the demo of Hive2 it sounds very different that either version of Massive.

Maybe I need to pull up the demo again.


----------



## vitocorleone123

josejherring said:


> I've been interested in Hive for a while but I have Zebra2 and about to get the Dark Zebra (been saying that for a year so it's gonna happen any moment now ) and not sure if Hive2 would be just Zebra lite. What makes Hive2 so different? Also, from the demo of Hive2 it sounds very different that either version of Massive.
> 
> Maybe I need to pull up the demo again.



Workflow, primarily. I believe Urs said something to the effect of "Hive is modular disguised as a candy bar." That is, it's surprisingly powerful, but packed into something pretty easy to use. And it sounds pretty damned good, too. I chose it over Dune 3, Spire, etc. based on the sound of the oscillators. Zebra/HZ is going to be more powerful, certainly, and sound great, but it's also more of an investment in time and synth vs. Hive 2.

However, again, I want to say that Massive X sounds every bit as good as any of the leading softsynths - at least in my experience. I just haven't gelled with the UI yet.


----------



## EvilDragon

Yep Hive is really great. But most of all, it is really superfast to work with. Also creating wavetables through scripting, and two-dimensional wavetables are stand-out features. You can get stuff you can't get anywhere else this way. No other synth that I know of does 2D wavetables.

That said, I do wish it had more filter types.


----------



## Mornats

Weirdly, despite what people say about its UI, Massive X is the one synth that I've gelled with quite well. I've even created so patches with some notion of what I'm doing! I love the performer setting for getting movement into the sounds. I've always struggled a bit with getting to grips with synths but this one I just get.


----------



## TomislavEP

Personally, I prefer Massive X though I still haven't used it extensively thus far. Usually, I tend to stick with Kontakt libraries and I have a number of favorites for synth sounds too. On the other hand, I always like to have Reaktor and Massive X at hand for more experimental uses.

Though I've only scratched the surface, Massive X feels much more intuitive to program than its predecessor, at least to me. Like most of the synths (virtual and non-virtual), it has a ton of presets. Those are (as usual) somewhat a mixed bag, but Massive X features much more sounds suitable for ambient, cinematic and new age styles, which is what interests me the most when it comes to synths. The original Massive always felt more at home for EDM than for anything else.


----------



## Zero&One

There's no doubt Massive X is a phenomenal piece of software. I wish it every bit of success, and I'm sure users will exploit every inch of it's power in the years to come.
I'm not really into that scene now, so I'm sticking with the tools I have/know.

I do have fond memories of loading Massive up, working a patch. Then stick on Ohmicide, WOW & Effectrix. Pure bliss of nasty sounds. That GUI was simply amazing.


----------



## JPQ

I found even some nice presets form Massive. one veryt simple pad for example but such sound is still hard program itself to me. i bad making pads.


----------



## bill5

Living Fossil said:


> However, if i had to recommend one to do similar stuff, it would be clearly Hive 2.
> One big plus are the tons of great presets that are really useful,


eh - there are some usable ones but overall I think they're no better than Massive's. And both have some nice ones but both have a lot of presets which sound really similar so take however many they say and divide by 10 for a better answer  and a lot techno-dance electro kind of thing. But both very capable and I do like the workflow of Hive a lot. Massive, ecch. (And both are rather ugly IMO lol - but that's secondary at most)


----------



## telecode101

..


----------



## doctoremmet

José Herring said:


> I've been interested in Hive for a while but I have Zebra2 and about to get the Dark Zebra (been saying that for a year so it's gonna happen any moment now ) and not sure if Hive2 would be just Zebra lite. What makes Hive2 so different? Also, from the demo of Hive2 it sounds very different that either version of Massive.
> 
> Maybe I need to pull up the demo again.


José, just got bitten by the Hive virus after programming Bazille yesterday. Did you ever get this, or Zebra/HZ? I am also still tempted by MSF and will of course at some point end up with all of the above. I listened closely to some Hive demos and the oscillators sound very nice and I’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and Zebra in a blind test “character wise”. At least I feel that way. The sound is gorgeous and “fuller” than Melda’s stuff. The workflow also looks kind of nice. I figure you got Obsession which likely has distracted you from the U-he stuff for a while, but I’m not sure.

Edit: re-read and understand you already have Zebra (just not the HZ add-on).


----------



## José Herring

doctoremmet said:


> José, just got bitten by the Hive virus after programming Bazille yesterday. Did you ever get this, or Zebra/HZ? I am also still tempted by MSF and will of course at some point end up with all of the above. I listened closely to some Hive demos and the oscillators sound very nice and I’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and Zebra in a blind test “character wise”. At least I feel that way. The sound is gorgeous and “fuller” than Melda’s stuff. The workflow also looks kind of nice. I figure you got Obsession which likely has distracted you from the U-he stuff for a while, but I’m not sure.
> 
> Edit: re-read and understand you already have Zebra (just not the HZ add-on).



I passed on Hive after demoing it for about 2 days. It is really good but just not my thing. I can't explain why. 

I have a feeling that Zebra 3 is going to have everything included in HZ plus more. My hands are full learning Zebra. I'm getting there. I also feel like the Zebra 2.9 update is 90% of ZebraHZ-- 4 less XY pads is the only real difference I can see atm. Maybe there's more but I haven't dived deep enough to even notice. Zebra 2.9 sounds great to me.

Hive is something that Howard Scar recommended to me on Facebook a long time ago and I didn't have Zebra at the time. He said that Zebra would pretty much cover what Hive could do and more but Hive had better FX. Since then Zebra 2.9 included new FX that may have come from Hive and Hive has been updated. I may revisit Hive but man my synth plate is full. 

I ended up just getting Zebra because.....Hans. Really that was the only reason I got Zebra instead of Hive. I just couldn't ignore as kind of superficial that it may seem that Zebra has been in more hit films that any synth in history. I don't think that way usually but I just couldn't get that out of my head and finally after years broke down and got and started learning Zebra. Hive was a close second though at the time.

MPowersynth was going to be my Zebra killer. I was going to use it instead of Zebra in my mind but as I learned more about synthesis the more I realized that they are two complete different synths. MPowersynth is better at additive synthesis and has way better FX though. 

At any one time I'm learning about 3 synths at a time. Right now, Zebra is a bit in the back seat as I learning Blamsofts Expanse, Obession, and lately I've gone back to Reason's Thor so that I can learn more about Wavetables because Thor has PPG wavetables built in. 

But, I already know Thor really well because it was my first serious soft synth so soon I switch back to learning more about The Legend, Europa, Grain, and Zebra again. I go back and forth on Zebra because I still am not too comfortable with it but I know it well enough now. I just need practice. 

Yes, Melda stuff is thinner sounding but I'd be hard pressed to find anything that does ambient synths better.


----------



## doctoremmet

José Herring said:


> I passed on Hive after demoing it for about 2 days. It is really good but just not my thing. I can't explain why.
> 
> I have a feeling that Zebra 3 is going to have everything included in HZ plus more. My hands are full learning Zebra. I'm getting there. I also feel like the Zebra 2.9 update is 90% of ZebraHZ-- 4 less XY pads is the only real difference I can see atm. Maybe there's more but I haven't dived deep enough to even notice. Zebra 2.9 sounds great to me.
> 
> Hive is something that Howard Scar recommended to me on Facebook a long time ago and I didn't have Zebra at the time. He said that Zebra would pretty much cover what Hive could do and more but Hive had better FX. Since then Zebra 2.9 included new FX that may have come from Hive and Hive has been updated. I may revisit Hive but man my synth plate is full.
> 
> I ended up just getting Zebra because.....Hans. Really that was the only reason I got Zebra instead of Hive. I just couldn't ignore as kind of superficial that it may seem that Zebra has been in more hit films that any synth in history. I don't think that way usually but I just couldn't get that out of my head and finally after years broke down and got and started learning Zebra. Hive was a close second though at the time.
> 
> MPowersynth was going to be my Zebra killer. I was going to use it instead of Zebra in my mind but as I learned more about synthesis the more I realized that they are two complete different synths. MPowersynth is better at additive synthesis and has way better FX though.
> 
> At any one time I'm learning about 3 synths at a time. Right now, Zebra is a bit in the back seat as I learning Blamsofts Expanse, Obession, and lately I've gone back to Reason's Thor so that I can learn more about Wavetables because Thor has PPG wavetables built in.
> 
> But, I already know Thor really well because it was my first serious soft synth so soon I switch back to learning more about The Legend, Europa, Grain, and Zebra again. I go back and forth on Zebra because I still am not too comfortable with it but I know it well enough now. I just need practice.
> 
> Yes, Melda stuff is thinner sounding but I'd be hard pressed to find anything that does ambient synths better.


Man, I just love answers like this one. Seriously cool. Thanks mate. I guess I’ll do a demo.


----------



## José Herring

doctoremmet said:


> Man, I just love answers like this one. Seriously cool. Thanks mate. I guess I’ll do a demo.


Would love to hear what Hive can do these days. I do remember it had really crystal clear osc.


----------



## babylonwaves

José Herring said:


> Would love to hear what Hive can do these days. I do remember it had really crystal clear osc.


Hive 2 has three different preset sound esthetics for the synth engine: clean/normal/dirty. it's a different beat in comparison to the original Hive (which didn't interest me so much). Hive 2/Diva/RePro-1/5 I use a lot, Zebra 2.x I don't use anymore.


----------



## doctoremmet

José Herring said:


> Would love to hear what Hive can do these days. I do remember it had really crystal clear osc.


The sound does seem to be something else. U-he oscillators just sound GOOD. Only one I currently own is Bazille, because I basically own every FM synth in existence. Same thing, the oscillators basically sound pristine.


----------



## doctoremmet

babylonwaves said:


> Hive 2 has three different preset sound esthetics for the synth engine: clean/normal/dirty. it's a different beat in comparison to the original Hive (which didn't interest me so much). Hive 2/Diva/RePro-1/5 I use a lot, Zebra 2.x I don't use anymore.


Interesting! What makes that you prefer Hive2 over Zebra2? Workflow or sound related things?


----------



## babylonwaves

doctoremmet said:


> Interesting! What makes that you prefer Hive2 over Zebra2? Workflow or sound related things?


actually both. I just prefer Hive2.


----------



## EvilDragon

José Herring said:


> I have a feeling that Zebra 3 is going to have everything included in HZ plus more.



Don't expect this. Zebra 3 will be a reimagined Zebra. Less modules but more flexible ones. More unified editors (i.e. for waveforms), etc.


----------



## José Herring

EvilDragon said:


> Don't expect this. Zebra 3 will be a reimagined Zebra. Less modules but more flexible ones. More unified editors (i.e. for waveforms), etc.


Are you alpha testing it?


----------



## EvilDragon

Nope, this is just gathered tidbits of info Urs splattered over KvR throughout the years.

It's also the reason why Z2 will continue being a separate plugin still supported after Z3 eventually gets released.


----------



## José Herring

babylonwaves said:


> Hive 2 has three different preset sound esthetics for the synth engine: clean/normal/dirty. it's a different beat in comparison to the original Hive (which didn't interest me so much). Hive 2/Diva/RePro-1/5 I use a lot, Zebra 2.x I don't use anymore.


Interesting indeed! Going to check Hive2 out now. In truth, if I could find a way to not use Zerbra I would.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> He said that Zebra would pretty much cover what Hive could do and more but Hive had better FX.



Definitely. The FX of zebra are not great IMO.

I love Hive for simple bread and butter sounds, its filters are fantastic, but for sound design Zebra is still king. Hive can get quirky with the function generators but I always wish it had MSEGs and the mod mapper from Zebra/Bazille.

One interesting trick in Hive (that I missed when I started using it) is that you can overload the filters with the input knob. The result will be very different depending on which mode you're on (clean, dirty, normal) and how much resonance you're using.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> Interesting indeed! Going to check Hive2 out now. In truth, if I could find a way to not use Zerbra I would.



What do you want to use Zebra for?


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> What do you want to use Zebra for?


Actually funny that you should ask. I had been looking for a synth that had mseg for a while. I also like the modulation options especially the mod option using the MMap thingy I think it's called. 

Not impressed with it's wave shaping though. I find that Reason's Europa is better for that. Zebra has a limited wavetable functionality too. It's cool enough but it's an older system of using "scenes" that I first ran across back in 2010 using Devine Machine's Krishna synth. Which I loved, but sadly no longer supported and now there's 1000's of synths that can do the same or better.

What I find most appealing about Zebra though is that it just sounds high quality. The more you program it, it doesn't want to stop on you. Many other synths I had up until then would only go so far. 

In that same conversation with Howard Scar I asked him how he judged the quality of a soft synth. And, he told me that even at extreme settings it still sounds good. Zebra has that. Before that I was happily using Thor and Retrologue in all my ignorance. Then I took Howard Scar's advice and Retrologue failed miserably and Thor did well but not good enough for me. 

So I started testing Hive and Zebra. Started building patches side by side with Thor, Retrologue, Hive and Zebra. Zebra went the farthest the fastest, Thor was second but only went about 1/2 way and Retrologue barely got out of the gate. Hive I couldn't figure out and gave up. 

I also like the fact that you can put fx and mix Zebra on the osc.

Things that I'm not sold on is that I haven't found a way to automate the X/Y pads with a controller. I'm sure there's a way. And, I'm going to explore that now.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> Actually funny that you should ask. I had been looking for a synth that had mseg for a while. I also like the modulation options especially the mod option using the MMap thingy I think it's called.
> 
> Not impressed with it's wave shaping though. I find that Reason's Europa is better for that. Zebra has a limited wavetable functionality too. It's cool enough but it's an older system of using "scenes" that I first ran across back in 2010 using Devine Machine's Krishna synth. Which I loved, but sadly no longer supported and now there's 1000's of synths that can do the same or better.
> 
> What I find most appealing about Zebra though is that it just sounds high quality. The more you program it, it doesn't want to stop on you. Many other synths I had up until then would only go so far.
> 
> In that same conversation with Howard Scar I asked him how he judged the quality of a soft synth. And, he told me that even at extreme settings it still sounds good. Zebra has that. Before that I was happily using Thor and Retrologue in all my ignorance. Then I took Howard Scar's advice and Retrologue failed miserably and Thor did well but not good enough for me.
> 
> So I started testing Hive and Zebra. Started building patches side by side with Thor, Retrologue, Hive and Zebra. Zebra went the farthest the fastest, Thor was second but only went about 1/2 way and Retrologue barely got out of the gate. Hive I couldn't figure out and gave up.
> 
> I also like the fact that you can put fx and mix Zebra on the osc.
> 
> Things that I'm not sold on is that I haven't found a way to automate the X/Y pads with a controller. I'm sure there's a way. And, I'm going to explore that now.



Great post!

Could you elaborate what extreme settings are you referring to?


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> Great post!
> 
> Could you elaborate what extreme settings are you referring to?


He didn't elaborate much and I didn't ask, but for me what I did is this. You know when a legend like that is kind enough to answer my questions many times I'm like, I have no idea what he's talking about but rather than bother him with 1000 stupid questions, Imma gonna just try and figure it out.

So.......
I found it's best to do side by side. For me I had the demo of Zebra at the time and Retrologue and Thor.

I would do things like set the resonance to max, and do top to bottom filter sweeps with no envelope and just listen. Then make a mental note to myself of which one I thought sounded more "musical" to me. Retrologue was harsh and Zebra sounded good. It was that subjective. Not very "scientific".

Then, I'd set the envelopes to percussive and find out which one sounded better. Zebra was more musical to me. Thor fairly clinical like and Retrologue again sounded pretty nasty, harsh, ect... Also, Thor was unstable in some weird way it would drift out of time.

Set lfo's to audio rate and modulate anything you can find and find which one sounded cooler. ect...

Set envelopes to super long and hear if they descr and cres well. They all did well with this.

Super short and Thor was inconsistent. Retrologue was good and Zebra was good.

Super quiet, as loud as it will go, ect, ect. Whatever parameter you can tweek, then just set it to max and see what happens.

The bass also, Set it super low and see which one will go lower. You'll be surprised by this one. Many soft synths can barely make it lower than 60 hz before then lose the center of the tone and all you hear is buzzing.

Then super high on the scale and a lot of soft synths even with oversampling will alias.

It's not really exact and I'm not sure that' what Howard Scar meant, but that's what I did and it was informative.

Not to disparage any synth really. Soft synths are modern day wonders. I scored whole movies with Thor as my only synth back then. It did fine. Zebra would have done finer though.

In the end, it wasn't anything but just my own personal judgement.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> He didn't elaborate much and I didn't ask, but for me what I did is this. You know when a legend like that is kind enough to answer my questions many times I'm like, I have no idea what he's talking about but rather than bother him with 1000 stupid questions, Imma gonna just try and figure it out.
> 
> So.......
> I found it's best to do side by side. For me I had the demo of Zebra at the time and Retrologue and Thor.
> 
> I would do things like set the resonance to max, and do top to bottom filter sweeps with no envelope and just listen. Then make a mental note to myself of which one I thought sounded more "musical" to me. Retrologue was harsh and Zebra sounded good. It was that subjective. Not very "scientific".
> 
> Then, I'd set the envelopes to percussive and find out which one sounded better. Zebra was more musical to me. Thor fairly clinical like and Retrologue again sounded pretty nasty, harsh, ect... Also, Thor was unstable in some weird way it would drift out of time.
> 
> Set lfo's to audio rate and modulate anything you can find and find which one sounded cooler. ect...
> 
> Set envelopes to super long and hear if they descr and cres well. They all did well with this.
> 
> Super short and Thor was inconsistent. Retrologue was good and Zebra was good.
> 
> Super quiet, as loud as it will go, ect, ect. Whatever parameter you can tweek, then just set it to max and see what happens.
> 
> The bass also, Set it super low and see which one will go lower. You'll be surprised by this one. Many soft synths can barely make it lower than 60 hz before then lose the center of the tone and all you hear is buzzing.
> 
> Then super high on the scale and a lot of soft synths even with oversampling will alias.
> 
> It's not really exact and I'm not sure that' what Howard Scar meant, but that's what I did and it was informative.
> 
> Not to disparage any synth really. Soft synths are modern day wonders. I scored whole movies with Thor as my only synth back then. It did fine. Zebra would have done finer though.
> 
> In the end, it wasn't anything but just my own personal judgement.



That's what I imagined but I wanted to make sure it's what you meant.

Thanks for sharing!


----------

