Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

Here is the million dollar question noone has been able to answer for me. 

I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the same "punch", "bass", "low 
end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000 have?

Is there any truth to this.  From what I can tell, the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
older brothers on the CZ line.

Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this argument to rest once and for all

micah

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "yazzofever" <yazzofever@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is the million dollar question noone has been able to answer
for me. 
> 
> I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the same "punch",
"bass", "low 
> end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000 have?
> 
> Is there any truth to this.  From what I can tell, the CZ-1 sound
exactly like it's 
> older brothers on the CZ line.
> 
> Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this argument to rest once and
for all
> 
> micah

Hello, Micah. 

 I can tell you this much: compared to all my other keyboards, my
cz-5000 lacks pretty much all of what you mentioned. If it had
anything that you could call a filter, this would have made it an
impressive instrument! I am seriously considering heavily modifying
mine(bending), because I haven't had a use for it for years. I'm not
putting down cz synths, in fact for a casio they're very impressive,
it's just that the sounds these things normally produce don't measure
up to any other keyboard I own. Even my lousy rackmount Mirage. I do
like the envolope generators!

Hey micah,

My first synth was a CZ-1000 and I currently own a
CZ-5000 and a CZ-1.  IF I'm not using the velocity
sensitivity on the CZ-1, I can't tell a difference
between the CZ-5000 and the CZ-1 with identical
patches.  

The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a fairly
bright and punchy sound with no velocity control
programmed in, and then you add the velocity
sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and the
amplitude, then anything less than a full slam on the
keys won't be near as "bright" or "punchy" (depending
on how much velocity sensitivity you add to the
patch).  

For the velocity sensitivity on the CZ-1, it takes the
parameters you've programmed for a patch and
establishes those amounts as the sound you would get
with a maximum velocity key hit.  Anything less than 
max velocity gives you less volume and less brightness
than what you programmed into the sound (depending on
how much you've turned up the velocity sensitivity for
both brightness and amplitude).

Make sense?  Hope so.  I've got a pretty good CZ book
that explains it better, but of course, I can't find
it right now.  I've also seen a similar answer posted
on one of the CZ groups.

Later,
Wadrad

--- yazzofever <yazzofever@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is the million dollar question noone has been
> able to answer for me. 
> 
> I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the
> same "punch", "bass", "low 
> end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> have?
> 
> Is there any truth to this.  From what I can tell,
> the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
> older brothers on the CZ line.
> 
> Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this argument to
> rest once and for all
> 
> micah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

hi micah,

> I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the same "punch", "bass",
"low
> end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000 have?

IMHO that is complete bullshit. my second synth ever was a cz-1000, and was
quickly replaced by a cz-1 because of velocity and aftertouch. the sound
engine is just identical. the cz-1 adds expression to the timbre as it is
velocity sensitive.

hellmuth

DM,

Thanks for the great response.  Let me get this
straight: If I turn off velocity sensitivity on
the CZ-1 and play a patch, it will sound the same
as an identical patch on the 101,1000, etc.

Is that right?

Now if that is right, I still don't understand
this part you wrote:

"The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a
 fairly
 bright and punchy sound with no velocity
 control
 programmed in, and then you add the velocity
 sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and
 the
 amplitude"

Why would you add velocity sensitivity for
brightness or amplitude?  Doesn't velocity
sensitivity strictly have to do with volume due
to amount of pressure on the key.  What does it
have to do with filters?

yazzofever
--- DM <wadrad@...> wrote:

> Hey micah,
> 
> My first synth was a CZ-1000 and I currently
> own a
> CZ-5000 and a CZ-1.  IF I'm not using the
> velocity
> sensitivity on the CZ-1, I can't tell a
> difference
> between the CZ-5000 and the CZ-1 with identical
> patches.  
> 
> The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a
> fairly
> bright and punchy sound with no velocity
> control
> programmed in, and then you add the velocity
> sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and
> the
> amplitude, then anything less than a full slam
> on the
> keys won't be near as "bright" or "punchy"
> (depending
> on how much velocity sensitivity you add to the
> patch).  
> 
> For the velocity sensitivity on the CZ-1, it
> takes the
> parameters you've programmed for a patch and
> establishes those amounts as the sound you
> would get
> with a maximum velocity key hit.  Anything less
> than 
> max velocity gives you less volume and less
> brightness
> than what you programmed into the sound
> (depending on
> how much you've turned up the velocity
> sensitivity for
> both brightness and amplitude).
> 
> Make sense?  Hope so.  I've got a pretty good
> CZ book
> that explains it better, but of course, I can't
> find
> it right now.  I've also seen a similar answer
> posted
> on one of the CZ groups.
> 
> Later,
> Wadrad
> 
> --- yazzofever <yazzofever@...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Here is the million dollar question noone has
> been
> > able to answer for me. 
> > 
> > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have
> the
> > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > end" and other stuff that the
> CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > have?
> > 
> > Is there any truth to this.  From what I can
> tell,
> > the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
> > older brothers on the CZ line.
> > 
> > Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this
> argument to
> > rest once and for all
> > 
> > micah
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources
> site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
> 


y[]a[]z[]z[]o[]f[]e[]v[]e[]r[]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Well, since you can do some very cool changing sounds for instance using velocity 
filter control combined with ringmod and since the CZ has no other controller to 
change filter in real time, it's the only way to create controllable filter 
movement or other major realtime sound changes...

...Summa


On 19 Mar 2005 at 16:32, M.J.B. wrote:

Why would you add velocity sensitivity for
brightness or amplitude?  Doesn't velocity
sensitivity strictly have to do with volume due
to amount of pressure on the key.  What does it
have to do with filters?

yazzofever
--- DM <wadrad@...> wrote:

> Hey micah,
> 
> My first synth was a CZ-1000 and I currently
> own a
> CZ-5000 and a CZ-1.  IF I'm not using the
> velocity
> sensitivity on the CZ-1, I can't tell a
> difference
> between the CZ-5000 and the CZ-1 with identical
> patches.  
> 
> The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a
> fairly
> bright and punchy sound with no velocity
> control
> programmed in, and then you add the velocity
> sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and
> the
> amplitude, then anything less than a full slam
> on the
> keys won't be near as "bright" or "punchy"
> (depending
> on how much velocity sensitivity you add to the
> patch).  
> 
> For the velocity sensitivity on the CZ-1, it
> takes the
> parameters you've programmed for a patch and
> establishes those amounts as the sound you
> would get
> with a maximum velocity key hit.  Anything less
> than 
> max velocity gives you less volume and less
> brightness
> than what you programmed into the sound
> (depending on
> how much you've turned up the velocity
> sensitivity for
> both brightness and amplitude).
> 
> Make sense?  Hope so.  I've got a pretty good
> CZ book
> that explains it better, but of course, I can't
> find
> it right now.  I've also seen a similar answer
> posted
> on one of the CZ groups.
> 
> Later,
> Wadrad
> 
> --- yazzofever <yazzofever@...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Here is the million dollar question noone has
> been
> > able to answer for me. 
> > 
> > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have
> the
> > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > end" and other stuff that the
> CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > have?
> > 
> > Is there any truth to this.  From what I can
> tell,
> > the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
> > older brothers on the CZ line.
> > 
> > Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this
> argument to
> > rest once and for all
> > 
> > micah
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources
> site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
> 


y[]a[]z[]z[]o[]f[]e[]v[]e[]r[]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own
computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/c9hWNA/3MnJAA/n1hLAA/QnLolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
> 


Yahoo! Groups Links








-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator


Wellenform Chat  So and Do 22.00 CET: http://chat.moogulator.com/

--- "M.J.B." <yazzofever@...> wrote:
> DM,
> 
> Thanks for the great response.  Let me get this
> straight: If I turn off velocity sensitivity on
> the CZ-1 and play a patch, it will sound the same
> as an identical patch on the 101,1000, etc.
> 
> Is that right?

Yes, since the synth-engines are the same minus
velocity and after-touch the earlier CZ's don't have

> Why would you add velocity sensitivity for
> brightness or amplitude?  Doesn't velocity
> sensitivity strictly have to do with volume due
> to amount of pressure on the key.  What does it
> have to do with filters?

I put filter in quotes because the CZ doesn't really
have a filter.  It achieves the brightness or timbre
changes through phase-distortion (hence the name of
the synth). When you play a real piano and strike the
keys harder (with greater velocity) the sound not only
is louder (the amplitude of the sound waves are
greater), it's also brighter.  So if you program the
CZ-1's loudness (amplitude) and brightness (the
"filter" or phase-distortion) to respond to velocity,
you can have greater dynamic control over the sound,
making it louder and brighter (or less so) just by
playing with different velocities.  


> yazzofever
> --- DM <wadrad@...> wrote:
> 
> > Hey micah,
> > 
> > My first synth was a CZ-1000 and I currently
> > own a
> > CZ-5000 and a CZ-1.  IF I'm not using the
> > velocity
> > sensitivity on the CZ-1, I can't tell a
> > difference
> > between the CZ-5000 and the CZ-1 with identical
> > patches.  
> > 
> > The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a
> > fairly
> > bright and punchy sound with no velocity
> > control
> > programmed in, and then you add the velocity
> > sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and
> > the
> > amplitude, then anything less than a full slam
> > on the
> > keys won't be near as "bright" or "punchy"
> > (depending
> > on how much velocity sensitivity you add to the
> > patch).  
> > 
> > For the velocity sensitivity on the CZ-1, it
> > takes the
> > parameters you've programmed for a patch and
> > establishes those amounts as the sound you
> > would get
> > with a maximum velocity key hit.  Anything less
> > than 
> > max velocity gives you less volume and less
> > brightness
> > than what you programmed into the sound
> > (depending on
> > how much you've turned up the velocity
> > sensitivity for
> > both brightness and amplitude).
> > 
> > Make sense?  Hope so.  I've got a pretty good
> > CZ book
> > that explains it better, but of course, I can't
> > find
> > it right now.  I've also seen a similar answer
> > posted
> > on one of the CZ groups.
> > 
> > Later,
> > Wadrad
> > 
> > --- yazzofever <yazzofever@...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Here is the million dollar question noone has
> > been
> > > able to answer for me. 
> > > 
> > > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have
> > the
> > > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > > end" and other stuff that the
> > CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > > have?
> > > 
> > > Is there any truth to this.  From what I can
> > tell,
> > > the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
> > > older brothers on the CZ line.
> > > 
> > > Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this
> > argument to
> > > rest once and for all
> > > 
> > > micah
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________ 
> > Do you Yahoo!? 
> > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources
> > site!
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
> > 
> 
> 
> y[]a[]z[]z[]o[]f[]e[]v[]e[]r[]
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

This sounds like an excellent explanation to me.  I haven't noticed 
any difference when my CZ-5000 patches were played on the CZ-1.

One possibility, though: Since the velocity output on the earlier 
CZs is 64 and the CZ-1 goes from 0 to 127, it might be that a 
sequence played from a sequencer that recorded the velocity as 64 
would sound duller on the CZ-1 if the patches make use of velocity.  

Hope this helps.

--Steve

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, DM <wadrad@y...> wrote:

> Hey micah,
> 
> My first synth was a CZ-1000 and I currently own a
> CZ-5000 and a CZ-1.  IF I'm not using the velocity
> sensitivity on the CZ-1, I can't tell a difference
> between the CZ-5000 and the CZ-1 with identical
> patches.  
> 
> The drawback with the CZ-1 is if you have a fairly
> bright and punchy sound with no velocity control
> programmed in, and then you add the velocity
> sensitivity for the brightness ("filter") and the
> amplitude, then anything less than a full slam on the
> keys won't be near as "bright" or "punchy" (depending
> on how much velocity sensitivity you add to the
> patch).  
> 
> For the velocity sensitivity on the CZ-1, it takes the
> parameters you've programmed for a patch and
> establishes those amounts as the sound you would get
> with a maximum velocity key hit.  Anything less than 
> max velocity gives you less volume and less brightness
> than what you programmed into the sound (depending on
> how much you've turned up the velocity sensitivity for
> both brightness and amplitude).
> 
> Make sense?  Hope so.  I've got a pretty good CZ book
> that explains it better, but of course, I can't find
> it right now.  I've also seen a similar answer posted
> on one of the CZ groups.
> 
> Later,
> Wadrad
> 
> --- yazzofever <yazzofever@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Here is the million dollar question noone has been
> > able to answer for me. 
> > 
> > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the
> > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > have?
> > 
> > Is there any truth to this.  From what I can tell,
> > the CZ-1 sound exactly like it's 
> > older brothers on the CZ line.
> > 
> > Please respond CZ users.  Let's put this argument to
> > rest once and for all
> > 
> > micah
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Hi Everybody,
 OK, from my experience the CZ-1 sounds thinner than the CZ-101.
The CZ-101 just blows away the CZ-1 when it comes to the bass and
range. I play by ear and find I get more of "THAT" sound from the 
CZ-101. They sound close, but no cigar for the CZ-1. It's just 
missing something that is difficult to describe.
 Could be a few reasons for this. The CZ-101 does use different CPU 
(uPD7811G)than the CZ-1(uPD7810HG), but both use the similar uPD933D
(CZ101)and uPD933AC(uses 2 of these on CZ1) for the music LSI. The 
12-bit DAC and expanders are also different components on the CZ-101 
and CZ-1. So there are some slight differences in the sound
generating hardware on these synths, they are not identical.
 But perhaps the biggest difference is the voltage applied to the 4558
final output op-amp. The CZ-101 being battery powered, runs on 
+,-9 volts, while the CZ-1 runs at +,-15 volts. The original designers
of the CZ optimized the design around the original CZ-101. 
 Should be noted all of the battery powered CZ's use identical 
components for sound generation. (CZ101,1000, 230S). Not sure about 
the CZ3000,5000. But I suspect there may be a slight difference, as 
when I A/B my 3000 to the 101, I still prefer the sound of the CZ-101.
Could be the 9 volts driving that 4558 making the difference?
 I like all of my CZ's, and I wish my supirior CZ-1 sounded as good
as my battery operated CZ's, but the portables seem to have an
edge soundwise, to my ears anyway!

Terry (The Casio Kid)

> > > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't have the
> > > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > > end" and other stuff that the CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > > have?
> > > 
> > > Is there any truth to this.

>Hi Everybody,
>  OK, from my experience the CZ-1 sounds thinner than the CZ-101.
>The CZ-101 just blows away the CZ-1 when it comes to the bass and
>range. I play by ear and find I get more of "THAT" sound from the
>CZ-101. They sound close, but no cigar for the CZ-1. It's just
>missing something that is difficult to describe.
>  Could be a few reasons for this. The CZ-101 does use different CPU
>(uPD7811G)than the CZ-1(uPD7810HG), but both use the similar uPD933D
>(CZ101)and uPD933AC(uses 2 of these on CZ1) for the music LSI. The
>12-bit DAC and expanders are also different components on the CZ-101
>and CZ-1. So there are some slight differences in the sound
>generating hardware on these synths, they are not identical.
>  But perhaps the biggest difference is the voltage applied to the 4558
>final output op-amp. The CZ-101 being battery powered, runs on
>+,-9 volts, while the CZ-1 runs at +,-15 volts. The original designers
>of the CZ optimized the design around the original CZ-101.
>  Should be noted all of the battery powered CZ's use identical
>components for sound generation. (CZ101,1000, 230S). Not sure about
>the CZ3000,5000. But I suspect there may be a slight difference, as
>when I A/B my 3000 to the 101, I still prefer the sound of the CZ-101.
>Could be the 9 volts driving that 4558 making the difference?
>  I like all of my CZ's, and I wish my supirior CZ-1 sounded as good
>as my battery operated CZ's, but the portables seem to have an
>edge soundwise, to my ears anyway!

I'm pretty sure the only possible factor in the sound would be the DAC.

Have you ever done a "blind" test, either with somebody else playing the two keyboards or yourself playing both from a MIDI keyboard and getting somebody to switch mixer channels between the 1 and the 101? That would determine it for certain...

Simon

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Nordlund 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:36 AM
  Subject: RE: [CZsynth] Re: CZ-1 sound-same as 101,1000,3000,5000


  >Hi Everybody,
  >  OK, from my experience the CZ-1 sounds thinner than the CZ-101.
  >The CZ-101 just blows away the CZ-1 when it comes to the bass and
  >range. I play by ear and find I get more of "THAT" sound from the
  >CZ-101. They sound close, but no cigar for the CZ-1. It's just
  >missing something that is difficult to describe.
  >  Could be a few reasons for this. The CZ-101 does use different CPU
  >(uPD7811G)than the CZ-1(uPD7810HG), but both use the similar uPD933D
  >(CZ101)and uPD933AC(uses 2 of these on CZ1) for the music LSI. The
  >12-bit DAC and expanders are also different components on the CZ-101
  >and CZ-1. So there are some slight differences in the sound
  >generating hardware on these synths, they are not identical.
  >  But perhaps the biggest difference is the voltage applied to the 4558
  >final output op-amp. The CZ-101 being battery powered, runs on
  >+,-9 volts, while the CZ-1 runs at +,-15 volts. The original designers
  >of the CZ optimized the design around the original CZ-101.
  >  Should be noted all of the battery powered CZ's use identical
  >components for sound generation. (CZ101,1000, 230S). Not sure about
  >the CZ3000,5000. But I suspect there may be a slight difference, as
  >when I A/B my 3000 to the 101, I still prefer the sound of the CZ-101.
  >Could be the 9 volts driving that 4558 making the difference?
  >  I like all of my CZ's, and I wish my supirior CZ-1 sounded as good
  >as my battery operated CZ's, but the portables seem to have an
  >edge soundwise, to my ears anyway!

  I'm pretty sure the only possible factor in the sound would be the DAC.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    CZsynth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The CZ-1 sounds "thinner"-yikes.

Does anybody else agree with this.  When you say
"thinner"-how noticable of a difference are we
talking about between the two-huge-or slight. 
Like on final mix, could you tell if one used a
CZ-1 compared to a CZ-101?

micah


--- Terry <daytona@...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Everybody,
>  OK, from my experience the CZ-1 sounds thinner
> than the CZ-101.
> The CZ-101 just blows away the CZ-1 when it
> comes to the bass and
> range. I play by ear and find I get more of
> "THAT" sound from the 
> CZ-101. They sound close, but no cigar for the
> CZ-1. It's just 
> missing something that is difficult to
> describe.
>  Could be a few reasons for this. The CZ-101
> does use different CPU 
> (uPD7811G)than the CZ-1(uPD7810HG), but both
> use the similar uPD933D
> (CZ101)and uPD933AC(uses 2 of these on CZ1) for
> the music LSI. The 
> 12-bit DAC and expanders are also different
> components on the CZ-101 
> and CZ-1. So there are some slight differences
> in the sound
> generating hardware on these synths, they are
> not identical.
>  But perhaps the biggest difference is the
> voltage applied to the 4558
> final output op-amp. The CZ-101 being battery
> powered, runs on 
> +,-9 volts, while the CZ-1 runs at +,-15 volts.
> The original designers
> of the CZ optimized the design around the
> original CZ-101. 
>  Should be noted all of the battery powered
> CZ's use identical 
> components for sound generation. (CZ101,1000,
> 230S). Not sure about 
> the CZ3000,5000. But I suspect there may be a
> slight difference, as 
> when I A/B my 3000 to the 101, I still prefer
> the sound of the CZ-101.
> Could be the 9 volts driving that 4558 making
> the difference?
>  I like all of my CZ's, and I wish my supirior
> CZ-1 sounded as good
> as my battery operated CZ's, but the portables
> seem to have an
> edge soundwise, to my ears anyway!
> 
> Terry (The Casio Kid)
> 
> > > > I've heard rumors that the CZ-1 doesn't
> have the
> > > > same "punch", "bass", "low 
> > > > end" and other stuff that the
> CZ-101,1000,3000,5000
> > > > have?
> > > > 
> > > > Is there any truth to this. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

y[]a[]z[]z[]o[]f[]e[]v[]e[]r[]


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

I only used a CZ-101 in a store, with headphones, so I can't compare 
the two.  

If someone has a CZ-101, a CZ-1, a soundcard, a sequencer, and a 
cable to record the output of the Casios, they can make audio files 
of the same tune on the same preset and place them in the files 
section (FileA.mid and FileB.mid) so we can do a blind test and 
possibly vote on whether or not we hear a difference. 

--Steve

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "M.J.B." <yazzofever@y...> wrote:

> The CZ-1 sounds "thinner"-yikes.
> 
> Does anybody else agree with this.  When you say
> "thinner"-how noticable of a difference are we
> talking about between the two-huge-or slight. 
> Like on final mix, could you tell if one used a
> CZ-1 compared to a CZ-101?
> 
> micah

Hi Steve,
> 
> I only used a CZ-101 in a store, with headphones, so I can't compare 
> the two.  
Wow,that is one area where the CZ-101 really fails. They put the 
crappiest op-amp on the headphone out, has a built in white noise 
generator. Anyone ever complains that thier CZ-101 is noisy, they have
probably pluged into the headphone out. Line out is fine.
> If someone has a CZ-101, a CZ-1, a soundcard, a sequencer, and a 
> cable to record the output of the Casios, they can make audio files 
> of the same tune on the same preset and place them in the files 
> section (FileA.mid and FileB.mid) so we can do a blind test and 
> possibly vote on whether or not we hear a difference. 
> 
> --Steve
 OK, I'll give this a shot! I found some really big differences in the
two. With both CZ's volume set at max, the CZ-101 had a much hotter 
signal. Had to set the CZ-101 to about 8 to match the CZ-1. Simple
answer, "The volume on the CZ-101 goes to 11, man!" :)
 Another interesting difference is with the extra op-amp on the CZ-1
for final volume, all of the CZ-1's waveforms are inverted phase?
 So I guess the CZ-1 is an "Inverted Phase-distrotion Synth". :)
Really, all of the CZ-1 recorded sounds mirrored the sounds recorded
on the CZ-101. Very strange but obvious if you study the schematics.
Some of the waveforms don't really matter as they are symetrical, but
most, like the saw wave is positive on the CZ-101 and negative on the 
CZ-1. I suspect the CZ-3000/5000 are also inverted as they too have 
the extra inverting op-amp.
 So I made a few sound samples and uploaded them into the files 
section. Some of the patches are dead on, with no difference, while
others I had to double check as they sounded like different patches.
 Files recorded with same MIDI file run into a Anatek thru, audio out
into a Boss A/B switch. Recorded CZ-1 first then the CZ-101. Volumes 
set with a meter to be about the same. All patches sent via MIDI to
both synths. All velocity,aftertouch settings on CZ-1 set at 0. These
were CZ-101 patches so the CZ-1 automaticly sets defaults for the 
extra paramaters. Level 15, velocity amp=0 wave=0 pitch=0.
 Is there a difference?

Terry (The Casio Kid)

Thanks Terry,

Well interesting.  I did notice a difference
especially in organ 2-the CZ-1 was a bit more
muffled-not quite as crisp.  But as in science,
so many variables to consider.  But all in all
they both sound the same.  It's such a hard thing
to study.  You have to wonder how thin we are
slicing this.  I wonder even if two CZ-101's or
CZ-1's sound the same when put side by side.  

But I really appreciate your research.  My
feeling is that the CZ-1 is close enough to the
101 but gives you a lot more keyboard for the
buck.  Some Casio purists may disagree.  

What does everyone else think after listening to
these mp3's?

micah
--- Terry <daytona@...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> > 
> > I only used a CZ-101 in a store, with
> headphones, so I can't compare 
> > the two.  
> Wow,that is one area where the CZ-101 really
> fails. They put the 
> crappiest op-amp on the headphone out, has a
> built in white noise 
> generator. Anyone ever complains that thier
> CZ-101 is noisy, they have
> probably pluged into the headphone out. Line
> out is fine.
> > If someone has a CZ-101, a CZ-1, a soundcard,
> a sequencer, and a 
> > cable to record the output of the Casios,
> they can make audio files 
> > of the same tune on the same preset and place
> them in the files 
> > section (FileA.mid and FileB.mid) so we can
> do a blind test and 
> > possibly vote on whether or not we hear a
> difference. 
> > 
> > --Steve
>  OK, I'll give this a shot! I found some really
> big differences in the
> two. With both CZ's volume set at max, the
> CZ-101 had a much hotter 
> signal. Had to set the CZ-101 to about 8 to
> match the CZ-1. Simple
> answer, "The volume on the CZ-101 goes to 11,
> man!" :)
>  Another interesting difference is with the
> extra op-amp on the CZ-1
> for final volume, all of the CZ-1's waveforms
> are inverted phase?
>  So I guess the CZ-1 is an "Inverted
> Phase-distrotion Synth". :)
> Really, all of the CZ-1 recorded sounds
> mirrored the sounds recorded
> on the CZ-101. Very strange but obvious if you
> study the schematics.
> Some of the waveforms don't really matter as
> they are symetrical, but
> most, like the saw wave is positive on the
> CZ-101 and negative on the 
> CZ-1. I suspect the CZ-3000/5000 are also
> inverted as they too have 
> the extra inverting op-amp.
>  So I made a few sound samples and uploaded
> them into the files 
> section. Some of the patches are dead on, with
> no difference, while
> others I had to double check as they sounded
> like different patches.
>  Files recorded with same MIDI file run into a
> Anatek thru, audio out
> into a Boss A/B switch. Recorded CZ-1 first
> then the CZ-101. Volumes 
> set with a meter to be about the same. All
> patches sent via MIDI to
> both synths. All velocity,aftertouch settings
> on CZ-1 set at 0. These
> were CZ-101 patches so the CZ-1 automaticly
> sets defaults for the 
> extra paramaters. Level 15, velocity amp=0
> wave=0 pitch=0.
>  Is there a difference?
> 
> Terry (The Casio Kid) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

y[]a[]z[]z[]o[]f[]e[]v[]e[]r[]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "M.J.B." <yazzofever@...>
To: <CZsynth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: CZ-1 sound-same as 101,1000,3000,5000


> What does everyone else think after listening to
> these mp3's?

        Where can I hear the MP3's?  I went to the file section and I can't 
find any.

Terry, Thanks for the files and the analysis. The side-by-side waveform 
gif is fascinating!! On several of the patches I also heard the CZ-101 
as brighter and the CZ-1 as more muffled. If you can upload both the CZ-
101 and CZ-1 patches (single syx files for each, if possible) and a 
midi file of the test sequences you played, perhaps others can 
replicate the tests on their own CZs.

Fantastic job!!!! (BTW, what did you use to generate the gif images?)

--Steve

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
> 
> Terry, Thanks for the files and the analysis. The side-by-side 
waveform 
> gif is fascinating!! On several of the patches I also heard the CZ-
101 
> as brighter and the CZ-1 as more muffled. If you can upload both 
the CZ-
> 101 and CZ-1 patches (single syx files for each, if possible) and a 
> midi file of the test sequences you played, perhaps others can 
> replicate the tests on their own CZs.
> 
> Fantastic job!!!! (BTW, what did you use to generate the gif 
images?)
> 
> --Steve

Hi everyone, I'm new to this site. I to am interested in the Cz1 and 
101 sound waveform gif. I've actually got 2 cz1 synths and one of 
them is a lot brighter than the other even with the same sounds 
loaded. My mate has got a cz1000 and it sounds different again. I 
think it has to do with the tiny variations of components in the 
output boards. The brighter of the two has less bass end than the 
other and can sound quite sharp with say GLOCKENSPIEL. I've tinkered 
with it by varying the tone by changing the variable resistors by 
tiny amounts. Not recommended though cos these synths are to 
precious. 

Keith.

when i saved my 101's hidden parameter patches to cartridge, then loaded 
them into my friend's 5000, the sounds were significantly different, 
though similar. they were not only brighter, but had translated with 
slight characteristic differences.

shayne



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/05

Hi Shayne, 

Yip this has happened to me even when loading sounds from one CZ1 to the 
other. My friend also let me download data from my CZ1 to his CZ1000 by sysex and 
the same happened. The conclusion that I have come to as stated earlier, it's 
the tiny variations from the internal components and IC's.

One has to remember when components are manufactured they're done in batches 
or production runs. If a component is required later they would 'tool up' as 
known in the trade for another batch. A classic example of this is say the PC 
processor. They're not manufactured as 1000Mhz or 1400Mhz batches but to how 
much speed they can get out of a single batch produced. The better the batch the 
faster they'll go, to a point. After that some redesigning or higher grade 
manufacturing is in order where additional features like SSE2 or 3Dnow! may be 
added. Casio may also source compatible components from cheaper suppliers which 
again causes differences between machines manufactured with these components. 
That's where serial numbers come into play as Casio would keep records where 
changes in component configurations, if reliability issues would arise. 
Voltages are also a common cause of variation because one transformer is different 
form another. Fluctuations in voltage stengths, currents drawn and heat 
dissipation are all variables to consider. The 101 has an external unit while the 
5000 is internal. If you were to lift the lid on both machines (not recommended) 
the generic component count and the identification marks would be completely 
different.

The CZ range was manufactured in vast numbers for years so it's only logical 
that all the IC's weren't made at the same time. Casio isn't interested in 
these small but significant variations but how much extra profit they'd rake in 
from the consumer. But that's business!

This would be the case between say a CZ101 and models up to and including the 
CZ1. The CZ1 may have the same parameters as the 101 but it also has a lot 
more memories and performance features thus different components are used. More 
memory, chorus effect, IC's with the addition functions installed etc, and 
that's where you start to get fluctuations in the sounds once translated to 
memory. The only solution sadly is to manually tweak these sounds with changes to 
parameters on the receiving machine.  Even then its doubtful you can get it to 
sound exactly the same, and this would be true of sounds that are dumped to 
your machine. The 5000 has also got more memory and the sequencer (SZ1) 
circuitry which the machines internal CPU has to drive, an extra function not included 
on the 101, and perhaps a different more powerful CPU.  

Anyhow, I know this explanation is a bit long winded but I hope it clears up 
some of your suspicions. Don't worry, both machine are probably in tip top 
working condition. Any further questions, then don't hesistate to ask. 

Keith.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
>Anyhow, I know this explanation is a bit long winded
>
not at all, keith. thanks for the very informative blurb. i think these 
little differences are just neat-o.
variety rocks.
shayne




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/05