pol
Wiki Editors
Posts: 1,278
|
Post by pol on Oct 25, 2023 17:16:21 GMT
I bought this cracking little polysynth when it first came out about 1985/86. It was my only polysynth until I got the Korg MS2000 when that came out in the late 90s, maybe 2000.
In this age of vintage synth revival I am surprised Casio haven't re-released in one form or another, I know there is a software emulation somewhere but don't track that stuff.
The CZ range are Phase Distortion synthesisers, similar in sound to the DX and other FM synths. CZs are a million times easier to program however, as I can attest having a large notebook of patches I have written down for my CZ101. It is still an excellent synth in my, now, much larger studio, recently doing bass on a song on SoundCloud. All the keys and buttons still work fine, and I actually like the minikeys as you can do strange chord shapes/ patterns with one hand you couldn't on a regular keyboard. Midi is good, but set to channel 1 only. The range of sound possibilities are very similar to FM synths but wider in that it can get more analoguey, particularly in bass and very, very raucous for lead etc. Generally it is a very clean sound, very "digital" but the important bit is they are usually easy to incorporate in the mix. In my youth I put it through a distortion pedal, vaguely immitating Throbbing Gristle which was fun 😊. The internal programme memory needs 6 or 8 C cell batteries so I gave up do that years ago. I have a 3rd party sound cartridge which can hold 64 sounds with 2 AAA batteries which is still working fine. One of my favourite CZ features is the instant switch to the new sound, hold a chord and change the program and WHAM, with the right sound!
The CZ101 was the most produced of the range, and they are pretty valuable 2nd hand. The CZ1000 is the same synth engine etc but with full size keys - this can often be found cheaper. The CZ3000 was an intermediate model, and usually cheaper than the 101 even though better spec'd and full sized keys. The CZ5000 was, supposedly 2 101s with a sequencer built in but not quite true looking at mine. The CZ1 was supposed to be the more pro oriented machine with velocity sensing in particular but also other parameters that made it better than the rest of the range, they are rarely available 2nd hand and so go for lots dosh - I will buy one, one day however....
If get chance to buy/ try a CZ series synth, do, you'll have fun... 😎
|
|
namke
wonkystuff
electronics and sound, what's not to like?!
Posts: 654
|
Post by namke on Oct 25, 2023 17:47:31 GMT
I had a CZ5000 for a while… I was given it as partially non-working by the guy who wrote the CZ emulation, who happens to be someone I knew from university (he now works for Ableton in Berlin).
i couldn’t quite get on with programming it to be honest — so I sold it a couple of years ago! The 101 would be a bit more manageable size wise 🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by feijai on Oct 25, 2023 18:00:39 GMT
I think Phase Distortion (the patented technique Casio developed for the CZ) is one of the more fun and unique synthesis methods developed in the last forty years. When I was a kid I really badly wanted a CZ-101, which was the first polysynth to break the $500 barrier. It's worth clearing up a few misconceptions that lots of people have about PD. Phase Distortion isn't actually related to FM synthesis at all. It's true that they both operate on the phase of signals, but plenty of techniques do that. It's also true that Casio was fishing for methods to get around the FM patent (which Yamaha had exclusive rights to), but everybody was in that boat at that time. PPG/Waldorf were doing wavetables, Roland was doing Linear Arithmetic, Kawai was trying additive and PCM, Korg was doing PCM + Vector Synthesis, and so on. So what is PD then? The closest analog to Phase Distortion is waveshaping. In waveshaping, you're taking a signal f(t), where t is time ranging from 0 to 2pi for our purposes, and you're pushing it through another function g(x,m) -- the waveshaper modulated by m -- as g(f(t),m). In Phase Distortion you're doing the opposite, that is, you're doing f(g(t,m)). The problem with this is that f(g(0,m)) and f(g(2pi, m)) do not necessarily meet depending on the nature of g and m, so you'll get a pop. To prevent that, Casio would push the result through a windowing function (a function which starts at 0, ends at 0, and is non-zero in the middle) w(t) so the two ends would be zero. So you have f(g(t,m)) * w(t). Casio was looking for a waveshaping analogue because they could use it to twist a sine wave into a variety of shapes that resembled sawtooth waves, pulse waves, and resonant filters. Basically they were looking for many of the features of a poor-man's analog synthesizer in digital form. I think it was a cool approach.
The CZ series provided several g(...) options and several w(...) options, quite a number of them actually, but the front panel interface of the synthesizers dramatically simplified what you could do with the machine. I don't know why they chose to dumb it down like that: to get full access to stuff the CZ series could do, you have to use an editor. Try Edisyn, which I wrote. You might check out Section 6.5 of a free book I wrote which discusses the technique. Another fun fact: every Casio CZ synth, from the little CZ 101 clear out to the big CZ-1, actually used exactly the same engine internally. They just differed in minor features (interface, step sequencer, velocity sensitivity, size of keys, etc.)
I wonder if Grains has a PD module yet. If not I might write one. |
|
|
|
Post by solipsistnation on Oct 25, 2023 18:02:23 GMT
The CZ101 was my gateway drug to synthesizers. I spent a LOT of time messing with one in high school. I'm on my third now, actually-- at various times I'd sell it and then miss it and see one used and buy another. This one I'm just going to hang onto. (I think I found it at the MIT Flea Market for something like $80 in the 90s. Let me just check reverb real quick.......... lolwut.) People love them for those buzzy string patches, and yeah, they're super nice for those! They have RIDICULOUS envelopes, too-- 8 steps, you can pick the sustain and release points and time between steps and everything. I came up with a patch that would only make sound when you let up on the keys, and one that did a suuuuuper long droney detuning thing, and on and on. You can take the preset drum voice and switch from noise mod to ring mod and get a really moist-sounding clicky noise that makes mildly distressing lip-smacky sounds when you mash the keys. I also had the 64-voice cart (I might still have it somewhere!), made by MIDI Mouse? It had DIP switches to choose the bank. The interface is nice! One button per parameter group and then +/- buttons for each-- it's one of the better implementations of a synth using a 2-line LCD for programming. Yeah, if you like old-school digital synthesis, CZs are often inexpensive and are pretty fun! They've aged quite well compared to some other older digital synths, and are a nice way to get into programming your own patches. They're sensible and sound good and can be made to sound pretty weird and horrible if you want. And the CZ101 has strap knobs for full 1980's keytar action.
|
|
|
|
Post by solipsistnation on Oct 25, 2023 18:08:28 GMT
Ah, here we go. Pictured on the right is Yr Humble Narrator rockin trenchcoat, ski goggles, and CZ101. My friend Lance is on a borrowed DX7, and Ray on bass. This would be about 1988, I believe. _   |
|
pol
Wiki Editors
Posts: 1,278
|
Post by pol on Oct 26, 2023 12:18:07 GMT
So what is PD then? The closest analog to Phase Distortion is waveshaping. In waveshaping, you're taking a signal f(t), where t is time ranging from 0 to 2pi for our purposes, and you're pushing it through another function g(x,m) -- the waveshaper modulated by m -- as g(f(t),m). In Phase Distortion you're doing the opposite, that is, you're doing f(g(t,m)). The problem with this is that f(g(0,m)) and f(g(2pi, m)) do not necessarily meet depending on the nature of g and m, so you'll get a pop. To prevent that, Casio would push the result through a windowing function (a function which starts at 0, ends at 0, and is non-zero in the middle) w(t) so the two ends would be zero. So you have f(g(t,m)) * w(t).
This paragraph is why I use computers, not program them, goes whizzing way over my head!
The CZ series provided several g(...) options and several w(...) options, quite a number of them actually, but the front panel interface of the synthesizers dramatically simplified what you could do with the machine. I don't know why they chose to dumb it down like that: My opinion is that it was to make the synth more friendly/usable - you can have every parameter in the world but that won't make it a great synth - look at the Moog Model D and its popularity with bugger all control over the sound versus modern gear!
Another fun fact: every Casio CZ synth, from the little CZ 101 clear out to the big CZ-1, actually used exactly the same engine internally. They just differed in minor features (interface, step sequencer, velocity sensitivity, size of keys, etc.)
This made me smile, "minor features" like an in built chorus or velocity sens can have a huge impact on the sound/feel/ wow factor, and there's quite a few musicans would argue mini or regular sized keys are not a minor feature  I personally feel that the interface/front panel/ amount of menu diving etc. are pretty critical to how much I like/ will use a particular synth.... I do get where you are coming from, the core of the machine is the same; but this could be said of almost every analogue synth, or each family of digital synths - thinsg just get repackaged....
Thanks for the links etc. Your reply was really interesting.Pol. |
|
pol
Wiki Editors
Posts: 1,278
|
Post by pol on Oct 26, 2023 12:21:13 GMT
The CZ101 was my gateway drug to synthesizers. I spent a LOT of time messing with one in high school. I'm on my third now, actually-- at various times I'd sell it and then miss it and see one used and buy another. This one I'm just going to hang onto. (I think I found it at the MIT Flea Market for something like $80 in the 90s. Let me just check reverb real quick.......... lolwut.) I bought a 2nd 101 for £90 in 2009 at a Pawn shop, I keep it as a spare is my excuse  And the CZ101 has strap knobs for full 1980's keytar action. Yeah, never dared doing that, was too valuable to me!
|
|
I personally feel that the interface/front panel/ amount of menu diving etc. are pretty critical to how much I like/ will use a particular synth.... I do get where you are coming from, the core of the machine is the same; but this could be said of almost every analogue synth, or each family of digital synths - thinsg just get repackaged....