Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

> > > > It's really pretty limited for straight FM- the voice structure is
> > > > versitile enough in theory, but when operator pairs are strictly
> > > > limited to a modulator:carrier ratio of 2:1, it really constricts
> > > > things.  It works well enough for a 2-operator pair ring-modulated
> > > > with another wave, but it doesn't have near the flexibility of FM
> > > > algorithms.
>
>Well, it can do most of the DX7 Algorithms, even same a DX7 can't do...

How's that?  Unless I'm missing something, the algorithms I'd consider most 
useful (1, 3, 5, 12, 20, 21, and 22) don't seem to be possible on the VZ 
architecture, at least without the fixed frequency limitation.  (and I know 
I'm ignoring the ring mod and the options it enables, I'm just talking about 
straight FM here).


>The algorithms of the DX7 work within the limitation of its architecture, 
>what
>means no Operator will have more than 3 inputs. They're not the most 
>usefull
>ones, having worked a lot with FMHeaven and FM7 I create some quite even 
>more
>usefull connections that a DX7 can't do..

I'm just wondering how an SY/TG-77/99 or FS1r improve things... One day I'm 
going to have to pick one of those up...


>The VZ has quite some abilities that surpass the DX7, for instance that it 
>can
>pitch the operator frequency down to 0Hz, what the DX can't, what can be 
>used for
>very nice moving pad sounds or as sine waveshaper (it's not working with 
>other
>waveforms than sine, since those are no real operator waveforms an the VZ 
>as they
>aren't on the FS1R). Another thing is the 2nd LFO per Voice...

0 Hz?  I've noticed it can go a lot lower than the DX but I don't think it 
goes all the way down to 0 Hz...  does it?

The two LFOs are definately appreciated, though honestly I don't use the 
tremolo much.  I at least like the "multi" setting (but the TX802 includes 
that, right?), and the way the controllers can change the speed.  No random 
wave though!


>Well, it's less the character of the feedback that causes a problem with 
>the DX7
>but having only one per algorithm. I like the waveforms created by FM 
>feedback
>very much, even used in small doses and even on operators in the middle of 
>an
>algorithm can enhance the sound a lot...

I regret not playing with that enough when I had my TX7, it was definately 
cool...


> > making a song, sure, but I wouldn't want to do much more than one, I'd
> > end up beating my head against the wall trying to get a certain sound
> > on the VZ when the ESQ-M can do it much easier and much better.
>
>I for sure wouldn't go for an ESQ-M, I'm too much an FM geek and prefere 
>real
>synthesis to taylor the waveforms instaed of simply layering them...
>I'm pretty much know my FM, so it wouldn't end up in headbanging... ;)

I'm not saying the ESQ-M is the king of all synths any more than the VZ is, 
but waveforms, when used with AM or sync, can do some radical timbre changes 
that give very dynamic sounds.  It's got more options than you'd think, 
especially with modulation (which tends to be pretty tame in FM synths, at 
least the ones I've used).  For the VZ to compete in that area, it would 
have to have multiple pitch envelopes and LFOs that can be routed freely to 
control whatever (for instance, LFOs in the ESQ-M can be used to crossfade 
oscillators, detune oscillators against each other, modulate other LFOs, 
etc.).   Plus filter overdrive, modulated panning (which I think the VZ-8M 
can do?), and other nice little things like that.

Of course, I got the Dave Smith Instruments Evolver recently, and it has a 
totally sick modulation matrix that is way better...