Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

Hi, Summa,

I always like and appreciate your messages, and admire your knowledge  
about synthesizers and programming :-) Thanks for explanation! We have  
the same opinion.

Daniel Forro


On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Summa wrote:

> On 17 Aug 2012 at 16:02, Daniel Forró wrote:
>
>> Although you are right in most facts you have written, there are some
>> small inaccuracies which maybe ask more explanation.
>
> Well, planed not to bore the reader with to many technical details,
> since at the end it's not making that much difference and tends to be
> cumbersome and time consuming to explain. I never had the intention
> to post a scientific essay about that topic ;)
>
>
>> Casio called this type of synthesis Phase Distortion (not Phase
>> Modulation), they just change the shape of the wave by changing the
>> speed of reading the memory,
>
> If you read the Yamaha patents you'll recognise they're doing almost
> the same thing, judging by the result I'd say, when it comes to read
> out data, the Casio is using "frozen" Oscillators aka waveshapers (as
> the term distortion suggest) instead of running ones.
> Newer FM-Synths like the TG77 and most FM softsynths can do that too
> using Operators at 0Hz for Waveshaping purposes but this is a bit
> tricky with the FS1R, at least when it comes to waves other than
> sine, since it seems to create the different waveshapes/skirt
> waveshaping wise. I use that difference to create richer waveshapes,
> by shifting the phase of the shapers independently from the
> oscillators phase.

Zero tuned operators can be used as well on DX7...
>
>> and combine (by mixing) two waves in one
>> line, and combine (by mixing or ring modulation) two such lines. This
>
> Well, mixing is simply a way to create parallel carriers or using two
> modulators on one carrier when using it as modulator for another
> pair.
>
>> way it was in CZ series. VZ is more complex and uses iPD synthesis,
>> interactive Phase distortion where four lines are involved. And Casio
>> doesn't use term Operator for its oscillators.
>
> But the term is easier to understand for someone with (Yamaha) FM
> background.

Do you think so? IMHO Yamaha FM is more complex to explain then Casio  
PD/iPD...

> I guess Casio used different terms since Yamaha and NED
> holding the FM patents or it was a marketing thing to name things
> differently to Yamaha.

Or to make it more easy for user... as you have written, too.
>
>> So it hasn't much common with FM on Yamaha machines,
>
> I ported a few sound from DX Synths to the VZ-1, it's a mess that
> feedback is missing on the VZ series, since steady waveforms aren't
> as good for things like FM sweeps. Other than that the results are
> pretty similar but differ character wise. Btw. it's also a mess that
> Yamaha never thought of integrating ringmod into FM, since it's a
> great addition...
> Please read my unfinished (still has some flaws) VZ-1 tutorial for
> instruction how to convert DX algorithms and sounds to the VZ-1.
>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth/files/VZ%20-%20DOCs/VZ%20Tutorial.txt
>

Great job!

>> where there are
>> 4, 6 or 8 operators configured in many algorithms. And however in  
>> fact
>> it's Phase Modulation, the user interface is done on the base of
>> Frequency Modulation, and operator pitch is the main sound changing
>> parameter in algorithms (together with changing algorithm itself).
>> Mixing (additive principle) is also used in algorithms, and some of
>> them are only additive, not FM. It's much more complex then Casio.
>> Also not all operators must be always used which gives even more
>> combinations.
>
> Well, muting an operator simply puts its level to 0, the VZ can do
> that too. Well, If you include the ringmod I'd say the VZ is
> superseding the 88 Algorithms. Still, the connections might be a bit
> cumbersome to plan on the VZ-1..
>
>> FS1r is more complex with it's 8 voiced/8 unvoiced operators, 88
>> algorithms, Formant Shaping, Formant Sequences... Simulation of DX
>> sound is only a small part what it can do.
>
> That's more or less what I wrote...
>
>> I wouldn't compare Casio and Yamaha sound synthesis systems. Too
>> different beasts.
>
> It's synthesis system wise more alike than apart, one could say that
> they're two sides of the same medal/coin.

OK. To me - Casio is just much simpler system, not so flexible as  
Yamaha FM. Also range of sounds is more wide on DX and both system can  
produce different sounds. This is what I wanted to say in answer to  
original question - I think it's good to have both :-) Which is what  
you have written as well here:


>>> When it comes to the sound, the character of VZ-1 is rather
>>> different to for instance a DX7, even with similar settings (and
>>> it's obviously the same sound), you'll recognise the differences
>>> most of the time. While the FS1R has been constructed to be an DX7
>>> impersinator, even has a parameter wise identical (greatly expanded)
>>> DX7 core, it is flexible enough to cover most VA type sounds and
>>> (being pretty much an chameleon) even is able to do convincing VZ-1
>>> alike sounding stuff, but only if you know what you're after.
>>>
>>> User Interface wise, when trying to make you're own sound, the VZ-1
>>> is a lot easier to programm without an editor compared to the FS1R,
>>> even so its display is rather slow.
>>>
>>> So I'd say, if you're into FM (Phase Modulation) and searching for a
>>> character wise alternative to the Yamaha stuff, it's like comparing
>>> moog to oberheim.