Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

I wouldn't doubt that FM or PM has broader capabilities (I think that 
phraseology is a bit more clear than "powerful", if you don't mind) than PD, 
although I wouldn't like to really say it's more versatile in effect on a 
listener.  But the latter is purely aesthetic, and so I do emphasize that 
it's "to my ears" rather than any more general statement.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...>
To: <CZsynth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:05 PM
Subject: [CZsynth] Re: CZ-Synthesis


> Firstly, let me say that I've always been pretty satisfied with the
> (marketing) distinctions between FM, PM, and PD synthesizers.
> Since FM already had a long (since B.C. [Before Chowning]) and
> illustrious history in radio (I don't mean a variety show!), and was
> understood as a sine (cosine) wave modifying a sine (cosine) wave, and
> there were lots of sources for printouts and graphs of the Bessel
> functions, to help with understanding the sidebands generated, I think
> it would have misled me if Casio had called the CZs "frequency" or
> "phase" modulation synthesizers.  The Bessel graphs don't help much
> with PD synthesis!
> Although, technically (so I've read), the DX7 and its kin use PM,
> rather than the FM claimed, the Bessel graphs still help.
> I guess that anything using a modulator and carrier that are not both
> sine (cosine) waves could be considered PD, the way I think of it.
> So, I think of the TX81Z as a PD synth (this might be where I would
> say the "FM" description is misleading; the value in the TX81Z comes
> more from the complex waveforms available, rather than from the
> modulation varieties).  I think of the VZs (which I love!) as PM
> synths with PD abilities.  I also think of the Synergy as a PM synth,
> although it has a non-sine wave available (a kind of pointy sine wave,
> or over-inflated triangle wave).
> I completely agree that the CZs are far easier to program than FM/PM
> synths, but I think FM/PM synths are more "powerful" and "versatile"
> than the CZs.  Please, don't think that I am putting down the CZs - I
> love them!  I have a CZ1, 5000, and two 101s.  A CZ is my first
> recommendation for a beginning synthesist who wants to learn to
> program.  Most people can be having loads of fun programming a CZ in a
> short time.
> Even more interesting to me are the FM/PM synths, whose power remains
> largely untapped, IMO, even with the thousands of DX7 patches
> available.  Almost every time I sit down to program a DX7, or,
> especially, a VZ, I find something I've never heard before!
> I don't think of PD as dead, with used instruments constantly
> available.  It's true that PD, in the CZ sense, is not being
> developed, anymore.  But, fairly recently, Yamaha made the FS1R (16
> operators, OK 8+8), which I have not plunged into programming, yet,
> but the presets are worth current cost.
>
> (enough, already! B^{)
> - synergeezer
>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...> wrote:
>>
>> The "phase distortion" name never made me blink, I never even
> thought about
>> it.  And, to me, it sounds accurate. I'm NOT saying you're wrong,
> what I'm
>> saying is that in terms of perceptions I never at all shared that
> one.  So
>> that makes me curious; I know this is a tangent, but did others find
> that
>> term off-putting or misrepresentational?
>>
>> I'm very sad that PD died.  I love it, and that's even at the
> limited state
>> it was left at.  For my ears, it was far superior to FM, and I also
> found it
>> easier to make sounds in.
>>
> <lots of noble discussion clipped>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>