Is the VZ1 bad because its a Casio?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
Sexor
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:01 pm
Gear: Prophet6, Jupiter-7, MS25, Juno-50, TR-303, Rhodes 63
Location: IJsland

Re: Is the VZ1 bad because its a Casio?

Post by Sexor » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:11 pm

Wow, they really knew how to make programming a chore back in the late 80's !!
Monkey business since 2007!

User avatar
bendragon
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:08 pm
Real name: Ben
Gear: Novation Launchkey 49, Korg Monologue, Roland TR-8, Roland TB-03, VPROM 2.0, VSDSX, Behringer DeepMind 12

Re: Is the VZ1 bad because its a Casio?

Post by bendragon » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:04 pm

rhino wrote:Yes. The name CASIO gives most younger players the willies. They just can't get the image of "toy" out of their heads long enough to LISTEN and PLAY the CZ-1, FZ-1 and VZ-1... a trio of mighty deep and innovative synths. The VZ is NOT the go-to synth for piano and strings, thick choirs, rainbow-inducing pads etc. This box spits out razorblades and rusty nails !! Yeh, the programming is two steps forwards and three steps sideways from the DX, but random discoveries are one of the best parts of synths.
The CZ-3000 I own is one of my all time favourite synthesizers. Every time I use it I find something interesting and crazy. Two saw waves slightly detuned with a little play in the pitch creates some freakishly rich and bright PWM leads. Two of those patches at different detune values layered together and I had a perfect Gary Numan "Are Friends Electric" lead synth.
madtheory wrote:bendragon you gotta post some sounds!

I think the user interface is horrible, but it does make some excellent sounds. About 26 actually. Best Wurlitzer ever. Then you can layer those and forever come up with new ones just by playing with the tuning. But why did Casio make it so difficult? It takes far too much time to do stuff and it's too easy to accidentally destroy an hour of careful parameter balancing.
I would post this brilliant analogue string I made but I accidentally overwrote the patch with that rhodes piano :S
It was bright, deep and had a great resonant filter effect linked to the velocity. I wish I at least wrote down the settings...
rhino wrote:Yes. The name CASIO gives most younger players the willies. They just can't get the image of "toy" out of their heads long enough to LISTEN and PLAY the CZ-1, FZ-1 and VZ-1... a trio of mighty deep and innovative synths. The VZ is NOT the go-to synth for piano and strings, thick choirs, rainbow-inducing pads etc. This box spits out razorblades and rusty nails !! Yeh, the programming is two steps forwards and three steps sideways from the DX, but random discoveries are one of the best parts of synths.
I have to disagree on the strings. I've gotten a few funky bits out of this beast. Organs, Bass, E.Pianos, Sci-Fi and just 'odd' are its forte I think.
Sweep wrote:It's just the bad associations people have with the name Casio.

I rate Casio pretty highly, personally, depending on which keyboards we're talking about.

People just think of the cheap, basic keyboards they used to make (some of which were excellent for the price, anyway), and the home keyboards they make as their main lines. Nothing with built-in speakers is supposed to be cool. (Which is why hardly anybody realises the CTK900 has a built-in ring modulator.)

Yamaha might well have suffered the same fate if they'd started with cheap home keyboards. But they also did professional keyboards from the beginning, and they've never suffered with their reputation as a result.

Value Casios, check them out and buy while they remain cheap.
I wish I bought a CZ-1 when they were cheap and common as dirt - but I went for the 3000 because it was cheaper. Not to blow on my own trumpet but they all seemed to disappear off of eBay or shoot up in value once I started posting endless patch demos to YouTube (benanderson88, anyone?)
Sexor wrote:Wow, they really knew how to make programming a chore back in the late 80's !!
Its understandable given the inherit complexity of these synthesizers. But I will say this, its easier than the DX - at least I can actually see what the h**l I'm doing :b

Post Reply