Casio CZ-101 vs Casio CZ-1 Battle (David vs Goliath!) - Is there a difference?

[@branchleader73]

Those Strings do sound really different on here - much more top end on the 101 to my ears.

[@branchleader73]

The first string sound, the others are pretty similar

[@kenzieprice6745]

You can hear quite a difference on all of them but maybe you can match them back with a couple of parameter tweaks on the CZ-1..

[@akirakosaintjust]

It sounds like the DCW is way more open on the 101.

[@ray_notes8170]

At 20:00 they don't sound the same. The 8k dip is present as the CZ-1 has a much darker sound. The top end is rolled off considerably.

[@thirstyCactus]

Thank you for that thorough comparison! The different horizontal slopes seen on the square-wave, for example, is likely due to the CZ-1 having a lower dc blocking frequency than that of the CZ-101. DC blocking (aka high-pass filter) is used to remove DC offset from the output. If the selected blocking frequency is below hearing range, it may not be audible, but can have a significant effect on the wave-shape. Curiously, this measurement is the opposite of what I expected, considering claims that the CZ-1 has less low-end than CZ-101. In some cases, to me, the CZ-1 sounded a bit "darker" than the CZ-101. I couldn't pick a favorite though :)

[@maxmatson1578]

My first time stumbling onto this channel? my very first synthesizer was a Casio CZ 3000 it was cumbersome as hell to program😵‍💫 and I had absolutely no idea what I was doing! 😱😂👍 but when I came across a good sound... it was a good sound! 🎹🎧👌 I miss that beauty 🙏

[@retrosound72]

Had both and hold the CZ101. Hotter Out 🎹🔥

[@zerstaerker]

101 seems to be smoother and more organic at some sounds but the 1 is still in that ballpark. And it's got all those extra features.

[@charlesco689]

CZ1 is F* amazing. A lot of folks don't know what they''re saying. And Casio is loosing money, They should provide the world a new CZ1

[@frankstetka7206]

I would really like to see them synced via midi as to the phasing difference. I love the sound of them together with the same patch and wonder how much of a delay creates a chorus? Anyhow thanks for helping us geek out 😆🥰

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Good suggestion about syncing them via MIDI to observe any potential phasing. My dilemma was trying to cover as much as possible between them without making the video excessively long, and also overly complicated. But it's a great suggestion, and one that might benefit from a dedicated video covering it.

[@spazkong]

I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this and it's making me gush figuratively. You appear young and so, I'd like to mention that in 1983, a DX7 was like a remortgage of your house job in order to buy one. It makes the Montage range seem cheap in comparison. Casio took a direction which changed music production in a very different way. The high end CZ and FZ machines changed everything. They were so good, many of us 80:s musicians are still wondering, are Casio going to blow everyone out of the water again? It's been around thirty five years and many are still waiting with baited breath. Come on Casio, we know you can do it!

[@xidoxido7080]

Very entertaining video and nice comparison thanks a lot! They both sound great to my ear - I like synths which offer only a limited choice of waveforms to work with :) Happy 2022 and look forward to yout next video!

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thank you so much for the compliment! Yes, both sound great, and IMO, all CZs sound great! Considering that the first CZ was released in 1984 they're still very flexible and powerful. Phase Distortion FTW!

[@carlobuongiovanni7934]

Very interesting comparison, i owned a CZ5000 in the past and now i have a CZ1. They sound very close, maybe the small differencies are due to some modification in the audio chain after the dac, different low cut freq at the output stages are just enough to give a different low end response. Also slight intermodulation distortion could give a different high freq response that could not be visible in the spectrum analyzer or oscilloscope. Consider that the ear is very sensitive to some details that could look almost insignificant on the scope screen. Few db differences on some harmonics could be almost similar on the spectrograph but give a different impression to the ears. Another point is that introducing velocity sensitivity over many parameters could lead to a slightly different zero-velocity bias at design level to improve the final dynamics when velocity is different from zero, and this could make the two instruments sounding differently with the same patches. KZbin also is not the best media for us to hear exactly what you were listening in your studio.

[@unyu-cyberstorm64]

6:50 Did you turn on “TouchMax”? If you didn’t the notes are played at 50% velocity. (Source: I have a WK-1800, and I noticed my sound getting a lot “bigger” once TouchMax was enabled)

[@CasioChaosTheory]

There is no "Touch Max" feature in the CZ series, nor in any other 80's Casios with velocity sensitive keyboards i.e. FZ-1, VZ-1, CT-6000 and HT-6000. Your WK-1800 is a much later and totally different model from the year 2000, 16 years after the CZ Phase Distortion synths were released. @ 6:30 in the video I showed that both velocity and after touch in the CZ-1 were switched off. This meant that patches played in the CZ-1 would respond exactly the same as identical patches played with the CZ101 that has no velocity or after touch. Please also take note of the audio spectrum graphs and oscilloscopes used during the video, that for the most part are nigh on identical when playing the same patch in both CZ models.

[@unyu-cyberstorm64]

@@CasioChaosTheory noted. I notice they sound mostly the same most of the time. Good synths

[@respawnedfluff5942]

CZ-1 likely has larger AC coupling (DC removal) capacitors on its line out. This would easily account for the flatter parts of the square waves. Smaller caps discharge faster. But this also depends whether you've plugged them into similar enough input interfaces, because the impedance of these matters relative to the caps for low frequency rolloff.

[@respawnedfluff5942]

I found a schematic on the web for the 101; it should have 330uF output caps... for the headphones out. These are actually a bit under-spec'd compared to what the producer of the opamp used (LA4138) recommended: 470uF. But they still are pretty beefy. However, the line out doesn't actually go through that, only the headphone jack does. The line out only has a 0.22uF cap. But not much luck finding the schematics for the CZ-1 thus far.

[@respawnedfluff5942]

I found somewhat blurry schematics for the CZ-1; makes the fine print on the parts hard to read, but it seems to have 10uF line out caps. So that's quite a bit more than the CZ-101 has on its line out (0.22uF).

[@respawnedfluff5942]

Headphones wise, the CZ-1 also has 330uF caps, but the amp for those is a LA4170, which might sound different than the one on the CZ-101. The datasheet for this amp only recommends 100uF on its output. It's lower power part: 1.05W max vs 4.8W on the CZ-101. When people say the CZ-101 has 'hotter' output, they probably mean the headphones one. The opamps for the line out are pretty similar though. The CZ-1 uses LA6462D (dual)opamps; the CZ-101 a 4558DD. These are both 500mW max parts. (The other opamp in the 4558D pair is permanently used as pre-amp for the headphone amp on the 101, while on the CZ-1, the headphone jack plug when plugged seems to trigger a relay that switches the LA6462D to work as a stereo pre-amp for the LA4170. I'm not totally sure what triggers that relay, as the notation for its line trigger is pretty cryptic in the schematic I found.)

[@lbsincro]

Great video, nice memorys from my early times in electronic music

[@thechronicnoizeco.6675]

My high school had an brand new DX-7 and an DX-100. 85 to 88. I didn’t realize how new they really were.

[@unyu-cyberstorm64]

Hey, I don’t know if you will ever see this comment, but there is an important point I need to make. Make sure that any touch sensitive Casio keyboards have “TouchMax” turned on before comparing sounds. This can usually be enabled by holding down certain buttons and then turning the synth on. Without touch max the Touch sensitivity disabled mode plays the notes at half velocity. That can cause a thinner sound, obviously.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thanks for commenting! The CZ series does not have "Touch Max" - that is a later feature that wasn't available until 1990s Casios. The CZ-1 is the only CZ model to have keyboard velocity (aka touch sensitive), and it's also the only CZ to come with keyboard after touch. It's also the only CZ that has envelopes that can react to keyboard velocity, which is why @ 6:30 I explained and showed that this feature was switched off so that the CZ-1 would play the patches the same as the CZ101. Also note how close/ identical the spectrum analyzers are when I play the same patch on the CZ101 and the CZ-1. If the CZ-1 had velocity enabled, unless I hit the keys with maximum velocity then they would show noticeable differences.

[@jakelawson1]

There are some really subtle differences, but to my imperfect ears, they're closer than, say, two older minimoogs. I wonder if the differences are more a matter of them being nearly 40 years old than any difference in engineering.

[@n8goulet]

I started with a CZ-101 in the mid 80s and I replaced it a year later with a CZ-1000 because I hated the mid size keys. I transferred my sounds to the CZ-1000 and did not notice any differences in sound. I later upgraded to a CZ-1 (and kept my CZ-1000), transferred my sounds, and still did not notice any differences in the sounds. I later bought a 2nd CZ-1000 and a 2nd CZ-1000. I used one set at home & gigs, and the other to leave at band practice. I never noticed any differences in sound with the same patches between the 4 of them. The CZ-1 not only has more keys, aftertouch, and velocity but it also has my polyphony, 64 patch memories to store sounds, sustain pedal & volume (expression) pedal inputs, patches can be named, and other additional features over the CZ-101 or CZ-1000. By all means get the CZ-1.

[@blacrabbit5838]

Great video! One thing I’m a little confused about is that you mentioned 8 notes of polyphony on the CZ 101 but it can only play four notes at the same time? I’m very much considering buying one of these but I like big 6 - note chords so that’s essentially a make or break for me on the CZ 101 (though I do think the CZ 101 sounds slightly deeper and better)

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thanks for the compliment and I'm glad that you enjoyed the video! Regarding the polyphony - the CZ101 (& CZ1000) have a total of eight voices and four modes of operation - Single Line (Line 1, or Line 2) and Dual Line (Line 1 + 2, or Line 1 + 1). Note that "Line" is Casiospeak for "oscillator". In single "Line" mode, the CZ101 has eight notes of polyphony with all eight notes sharing the same waveform and envelopes. In Dual Line mode polyphony is reduced to four notes, with each note now having TWO independent oscillators/ waveforms per note, making it act like a dual oscillator synthesizer. Think of single line mode acting like a single oscillator synth like a Roland Juno 6/60/106 (minus the sub oscillator), and dual line mode acting like a dual oscillator synth such as the Roland Jupiter 8/ 6/JX-3P/ 8P, SC Prophet 5, Oberheim OB-Xa etc. The bigger CZs - 3000, 5000 and 1, have a total of 16 voices of polyphony, which is double the polyphony of the smaller CZs. Thus in single Line mode they have 16 notes of polyphony, and in dual Line mode they have 8 notes of polyphony. They basically double the capabilities of the 101/ 1000. That's why when I compared identical patches between the two models, I made sure that I didn't play more than four notes simultaneously on the CZ-1 because the CZ101 wouldn't be able duplicate that. The goal of the video was to have a direct comparison using the same patches and using the same notes being played on each model to make it an even playing field. Also, most of the patches (probably all!) used dual oscillator mode, so the 101 would only be capable of 4 notes of polyphony whereas the 1 would be capable of 8. In a nutshell, if you need to play five or more notes in dual Line/ oscillator mode, you need to get one of the bigger CZs. If you only need to play five notes or more in single Line/ oscillator mode, and are OK with four notes of polyphony in dual oscillator mode, a 101 or 1000 will suffice. Hope this helps!

[@blacrabbit5838]

@@CasioChaosTheory so in other words, the 101 sacrifices oscillators (voices) in order to play more than four notes at a time. Got it! Thank you for clearing that up. The other synths you compared it to also help. It also helped me understand why the Roland Jupiter and Jx series sound so much thicker than the Junos. Thank god for that Juno chorus other the Juno almost sounds like a toy piano in a lot of cases. Great video. Can’t wait to see more

[@stefpir]

I've got both they are strictly identical in term or sound. On my cz1 vs cz101 there is a very tiny difference in favor of the cz1 for audio quality maybe due to the fact the cz1 has an internal AC power versus external adapter on cz101.. Something to take into consideration is that cz1 has velocity therefore you need to put 0 to all settings regarding velocity on any of the cz1 patches to match the one on a cz101. This is why for eg the preset synth bass is different on a cz101 and on a cz1. Another interesting comparison is trying to reproduce the gorgeous music box match of the cz1 on a cz101. It is very difficult to achieve the same magical sound because of the lack of velocity. On good thing on favor of the cz1 is the Glide. This is not available on the cz101 and it is different from the portamento. A very good slide effect that you can program.

[@punkdiscoUK]

Fantastic video. CZ1000 was my first synth and I now have a CZ1. I also think they sound identical but, the CZ1 ability to dynamically control the waves etc via velocity, take it to another level..

[@GL-uy3fd]

The 101/1000 can’t react to velocity at all?

[@punkdiscoUK]

@@GL-uy3fd Unfortunately, none of the range can, expect the CZ1. Not even via Midi. And controlling the Wave via the DCW amount linked to velocity or after touch, really sets the CZ1 apart from the range.

[@davidmochen]

Great video, thanks for it. The difference in the "flat" lines for the square waves represent differences in bass frequencies reproduction. As it seems, the CZ-101 is less capable of reproducing lower frequencies. Mind you, these frequencies might be almost subsonic, so no real perceivable difference is caught by the ear. But definitely, the more "bass-capable", the flatter, less distorted, those lines.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thanks so much for that useful information! That's really good to know what the differences in the square waves actually mean :-)

[@Friedeggonheadchan]

Yup, came to say this as well. The more "curvy" the otherwise flat part of a square wave is, the more high pass filtering has been applied to it. But yeah in these cases we're talking about very low frequencies, less than 30 Hz most likely, possibly less than 20 Hz even. It might still indicate that in some cases the very deep low end might be slightly more lacking on the CZ-101 than on the CZ-1 in practice. From the sine wave example it's clear that they use a slightly different DAC, and possibly also a different output amplification which might change the frequency response characteristics in the analog domain. Worth to note that this is of course, in fact, the opposite of what internet commenters were claiming. (You can also visually see the same effect in other waveforms, but the effect is more subtle in most of those. Any sort of curviness or "wobblage" in place of what should be a straight horizontal line is an indication of this. A horizontal line is just DC, 0Hz, and the more deviation from it there is, the less low frequencies-or specifically very low frequencies-are present.)

[@alphabeets]

I’m guessing any differences may be due to going through the effects circuitry on the CZ-1- even though the effects are turned off.

[@davidconnelly1362]

I like this video. Weird how some of the waves are out of phase between the two and some aren't.

[@e8root]

CZ-1 looks like it has built-in low pass filter

[@neurocrash808]

In your tests, I hear and see some differences in frequency response and harmonics, even over KZbin, but they are minor. 101 strings were brighter for example, and some sounds sounded richer or had more depth on the 1. Btw, I have a CZ-1000 and a CZ-1, but never thought to compare them in this way, as I basically retired the 1000 when I got the CZ-1 due to velocity.

[@frankierandazzo1]

Such a specific channel :)

[@CasioChaosTheory]

It is specifically specific! :p

[@wilorules]

This is great! You should do the Casio Spectrum Dynamic range, like the HT-3000 and the 8-voice Analog Casio HT-6000!

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thank you! I have an HT700, HZ600 and an HT6000 and plan to do something similar at some point in the future!

[@unclebuttonz7865]

@@CasioChaosTheory As someone who recently acquired an HT-700, I look forward to this upcoming video of yours!

[@Tazmanian_Ninja]

0:26 Hah! I love that keyboard so much! Bought it some years ago on Amazon. So lo-fi in a cool way. Like an 8 (or 10?) bit sampler. Have actually played Axel F (the movie theme, by Harold Faltermeyer) on it as late as today 😎 PS: this video is so... Asperger's 😂 ... at least seen from the perspective of someone with Asperger's 😅 Good content!

[@SynthsandSounds]

Yes CCT, finally You get to the real good Casio Stuff, very interesting! Love the video. I start hearing the 101 being fuller at the double sine part around 15:15. While they're very similar, the 101 seems to sound just a tiny bit fuller for whatever reason. There's little difference, but there surely is some! I totally agree with Your conclusion. I definitely need to get back at my CZ-5000 Until today I am not sure whether the CZ series can really be considered fully digital synths. While I found conflicting information on the Internet, the filter is in my understanding an analog filter which is just heavily digitally controlled. Having a filter is generally a big difference to truly digital synths like the dx7, newer digital synths use analog modelling to create classic filter sound similar to analog synths. Considering the sound signal path (osc->filter->amp), the CZ shares its design with all analog synths, it just lacks real time control opposed to digitally controlled analog synths like roland's Juno or JX series. Which finally leads to my point: In my opinion the CZ series are digital analog hybrid synths - same as for example the FZ-1, which also uses digital oscillators and a digitally controlled analog filter, making it a hybrid synth

[@davidmochen]

Hi, there is no filter as such in the CZ series, everything is digital (Phase Distorion).

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Cheers Synths and Sounds, glad that you enjoyed the video :-) It was a lot of work to put together, but very rewarding. As for it being the real good Casio stuff, I love them all, from the humble little "toys" right up to the big and pro models! Ironically for my next video I might go completely the other way and cover some feature of the the little VL-1. Mostly because I need to find a way of making shorter videos that are easier and quicker to make to complement the bigger/ longer to put together video projects. Saying that, I thought my M10 test and review would be quick and simple and that turned into anything but...! Regarding the "filters" in the CZ series, David Mochen is right in that there are no filters and everything is digital (asides from the line out/ headphone amp circuit and the stereo chorus in the bigger models). Note also that you can't adjust the "resonance", you can only select one of the "resonant" wave forms and then change the value of the DCW to simulate a resonant sweep. As for the programming signal flow, it was a masterstroke by Casio to model it on subtractive analogue style synthesis, as Yamaha's DX line was generally regarded as a total nightmare to program with their "operators" and "carriers", unless owners really understood how to program FM synthesis. Saying that, Casios later VZ series using an advanced form of Phase Distortion resorted to a more DX style of programming, which is most likely why it was nowhere near as popular or as successful as the CZ line. Plus there was nowhere near as many patches created for it as many users simply could not understand how to program it well. It is a shame that the CZs don't have genuine analogue filters hidden away like the HT/HZ Spectrum Dynamics Casios (and the FZ samplers). Imagine having fully polyphonic analogue resonant VCF filters in a CZ, especially if they could be pushed into self oscillation. If only Casio would re-issue such a hardware beast, with real time parameter controls too. It would be absolutely epic and I'd be first in line to buy one!

[@GL-uy3fd]

They sometimes sound just about the same, but to me is quite clear that in general the 101 is brighter and the CZ-1 has a gentle roll off in the high end.

[@richardsmith4992]

I have a CT-6500, it is without doubt one of the greatest sounding synths I own - and have a CZ5000! The CT-6500 is presets only, but you can sysex into it with VZV CZ editor from a PC and load any patch that a regular CZ can play. It has accompaniment which adds to the fun and a portamento which is just nuts. I don't think they sold very well and don't come up on the secondhand market very often - they also are huge and weigh a ton.

[@45rpm.]

The sound is so close that I think there must have been different setting between those string sounds near the beginning where we heard a difference.

[@j.lietka9406]

Is there a PC program to help create sounds on the 101? Is CZed still available or is it just a PC program that is the computer version? Thank you 🤓 also is there a plug in cartridge that can accept a regular USB thumb drive? Is the CZ 101 a smaller version of the CZ 1?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Yes, there is a PC program called "VZV CZ Patch Editor" that is available for free in the Microsoft Store. I have not yet used this but I plan to try it in the near future. Plug-In Boutique's VirtualCZ is still available as both a standalone program (PC) and a VSTi plug-in for use within a DAW. The link to it is in the video description box. To my knowledge, there is no plug in cartridge for the CZs that can accept a USB thumb drive. The CZ101 uses the exact same synthesis (Phase Distortion) as the CZ-1 and can use the same fundamental patch data. However, it is not simply a smaller version of the CZ-1. The CZ-1 has the following extra features over the CZ101 - Double the polyphony (16 in single DCO mode, 8 in dual DCO mode), a velocity sensitive keyboard with after touch (only CZ model with this feature), modulation wheel, split-able keyboard, envelopes can be set to respond to velocity/ after touch (CZ-1 only feature), much bigger user patch memory (and preset memory), stereo chorus, 5 octave keyboard, and a back lit display with the ability to name user patches (the only CZ model that can do this). But even with all the differences, the CZ101 can still sound fantastic, as do all CZs :-) Hope this helps!

[@timw594]

Really great content... Might have already been pointed out but when you first started doing the side by side osciliscope compare there were indeed differences at the base of the peaks.. the 101 had more going on clearly if you re-watch that.. It looked similar if you focused on the peaks but after peaking the foothills of the peaks were much more densely populated... more rumble for sure... And that was just visually... So assuming all things were equal there was definitely a visual difference that obviously leads to audio difference.

[@timw594]

Further in places where you said they sound the same... to me it was very clear the 1 was thinner/tinny... And if you look closely at the osciliscope it make sense... but again not on the peaks... 101

[@housebandthexenos2569]

Thumbs up before I even clicked play. What an obscure and wonderful thing make a video of lol. I have the CZ-1 but had the 101 for years. The big deal about the CZ-1 is that it responds to velocity. That lets you do the depeche mode style changing cutoff per note thing. There is no real time filter control on the CZs or filters for that matter, but the Pseudo filter DCW amount at note on can be modulated. That allows way more expression in the sound. It also doesnt have to be played on its own keys to have the effect, it responds to vel over midi too. The CZ1 also has a nice chorus too. - Is there any way you would be so kind to post a link to that giant CZ patch collection?

[@zerstaerker]

The difference in squarewave oscilloscope looks might be due to a smaller output capacitor which is a highpass filter.

[@SLPGroundSoundMusic]

when it came to the presets the 101 sounded a bit brighter then the cz 1, it was like the cz 1 had a little more hi end cut off on the preset setup

[@SLPGroundSoundMusic]

and by the way i was using my status cb1 headphones which are 20 20 and close to flat, so i guess that is why i was able to hear the differences

[@Gezira]

@@SLPGroundSoundMusic I'm on poor pc speakers, there are differences for sure.

[@paulcharlesworth9114]

Great comparison. Subbed. I really should get the display fixed on my 101.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Thank you! Lots of modern options for the CZ displays, backlit LCD and also OLED options available. They're really great synths and definitely worth fixing up.

[@EmilioNorrmann]

23:11 again, much brighter on the 101

[@synthesizernews]

Great video. CZ-1 to me is just a CZ-3000 with velocity and doubled patch memory and blue buttons. Had bought my CZ-3000 in january 86 and really missed the velocity feature of the CZ-1.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

The CZ-1 is for sure an evolution of the CZ3000/ 5000, but don't forget that it has after touch as well as velocity. And the CZ-1's envelopes can respond to and vary with velocity and after touch making it able to perform in a way that no other CZ can. Saying that, the basic PD sound is the same for all CZ's, so they all sound great :-)

[@Farold_Haltermeyer]

Intersting. My ear is picking up a definite difference...really liking the 101 more, seems richer in the upper mids, the harmonic interplay is more fun

[@fortheloveofnoise]

101 sounds more gritty....why, unsure....but it does, I have a 1 and a 1000, although my 1000 has never worked.

[@emmerikito]

There's much content in the upper harmonics in the cz101 , sounds a little brighter. I love my cz 1 . Btw that crispy bass sounds cool!...

[@andyhudsonsynthpop]

My first synth was a CZ101 followed by a CZ1

[@jsaleh415]

which should i get as my first please help

[@andyhudsonsynthpop]

@@jsaleh415 If you are looking for a first synth, there really are a lot of better choices in 2022 than there were in 1985. If you are looking to pick one of these up then I would be thinking about size and budget. A CZ1 is the better overall synth, but if its just the sound then either

[@dennisbartello7682]

The waves are flipped! That explains the sawtooth PWM effect.

[@shemleer]

en teoria, si usan los mismos osciladores y parámetros para generar los sonidos, deberian sonar igual... no?

[@larslevinberget9558]

Who played them? I can remember Brett Tuggle and Anna LaCasio :)

[@tavinhogomes]

Where I can find those patches? Wonderful!

[@CasioChaosTheory]

They came from a variety of sources collected over many years, and one source is linked to in the description (The Patchbay). I probably also had some from some patch banks I bought from Plugin Boutique. The rest came from collections I purchased on ebay, that came with a "CZ Rescue Kit". There's also lots available online via various forums (CZ Facebook group is a good resource of patches as well as a wealth of information and documentation).

[@MrTamiya89]

Great Video Dude. 😃👍.

[@NachoMartyMeyer]

Very nice video ❤ love CZ!

[@frankstetka7206]

Those PADS !!! OMG 😱

[@mathumphreys]

I wish I could find a CZ-101 - the little keyboard that could. BTW, you could do a null test on the recorded audio from each, that would show you the difference.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Excellent suggestion regarding doing a null test! I'll certainly consider doing that with any future comparison videos :-)

[@X-101]

hmm I can clearly hear the 101 being brighter than the cz-1 when you played the big string

[@cooksoni.a]

im not even watching the video, only listening, and i picked up on the difference in the string sound around 20min right away. maybe its my younger ears 😝

[@DavidSusiloUnscripted]

I’m 50 years old and I immediately can tell the difference. They are not even subtle differences.

[@cooksoni.a]

​@@DavidSusiloUnscripted I am only 5 years old and I can tell the difference long before the sound was even played. I could tell the difference immediately and I can tell that it is different, because it is not the same. It is not even subtle difference, it is extremely different. And I could tell it was different the day before I listened to the video.

[@Titodublot]

At 20:00 the sounds are very different, not the same like you mentioned ;)

[@anonymous_friend]

I want a synth, but also need a midi controlller for my ipad synths. If I get a cz-1, will it make a decent controller or will it have some limitations vs modern controllers?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

You could use a CZ-1 as a controller, and it does have a nice synth action keyboard with both velocity and after touch. However, checking the Owners Manual (page 52), the only other MIDI control messages that it can send as a midi controller are pitch bend, modulation, portamento on/ off, sustain pedal on/ off and Tone Number (Program Change). This would limit its usefulness if you wanted to control a more complex VST synth or another MIDI synth with many more parameters. Also bear in mind that all CZs are are approx. 35 years old, and though they are built well, with age plus wear and tear, the velocity and after touch can start to play up/ become inconsistent along with the buttons. Sometimes cleaning the contacts can help, but as with any vintage synth they are likely to suffer age related issues at some point. The last things to bear in mind are that the CZ-1 (along with all other CZs) has 5 pin DIN MIDI only (no USB MIDI), so you would need to use a MIDI adapter/ USB host to connect to an ipad or modern smart device, plus the CZ-1 is a physically large and heavy synth. One of the reasons that the CZ101 is so popular is because of its smaller footprint, but though its keyboard is functional for what it is, it has no velocity or after touch and it only has 4 octaves of keys compared with the 5 octaves of the bigger CZs. So yes, a CZ-1 will have a number of limitations compared with a modern controller, especially if you need USB connectivity. Hope this helps!

[@sequentialbeat]

Excelente video!!

[@vsjeieb1628]

Love these synths!! Happy CZ-1 owner and really want to get a CZ-101. They sound the same I think. Some of the compared patches sound as if there are differences in programming. Maybe different data in the patches, something going on with CZ-1 aftertouch or velocity going through the DCW, or maybe even different envelopes between the synths. I enjoyed your video but would have loved to see both of them synced up running midi sequences. 😁

[@baddriddimworkshop]

Hey man, i'm looking after recruiting serious people for a very noble quest; i'm looking after creating a "BRING BACK TH CZ" movement, and i need motivated memebers, this vid is a proof you could be a valuable soldier for the cause, the idea is to comment, troll and influence, to force casio to get back to work on pd synthesis. Anyboby reading, wanting some fun, and to see if it is possible to unite online and get a cool results, please get in touch...

[@baddriddimworkshop]

yeah ut there's a bunch of reasons why analyses can not look a like. that difference in waveshapes i allways the same reaction; could it be comming from cables or audio chain? maybe 101 is slightly brighter. any way, i love my cz1000, they are very under rated imo. teck snobisme and mysticism is a big thing in nowadays, audio gossip lol. Nevertheless converters matter too, so, maybe dif comes from these. i could understand if the expensive ones had better dacs... there's a difference in time evolution too, those two envelope might not be exactly set same.

[@xisotopex]

do they have any onboard effects? which one is easier to program?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

The big CZs have an onboard stereo chorus (analogue bucket brigade), the smaller CZs (101 and 1000, and I think also the 230S) do not. One powerful feature of the Phase Distortion synthesis is the 8 Stage envelopes. Even though there is no onboard delay/ reverb effect, you can simulate delay by using the envelopes. When it comes to programming the Phase Distortion patches, they have the same programming layout and use the same patch data. The bigger CZs have some additional features such as keyboard splitting and double the polyphony, and the CZ-1 adds velocity and after touch.

[@Analoque444]

21:52 cz-1 is much brighter/crisper than cz-101. The 101 sounds muddy compared to the cz-1

[@juno6]

Great video! I have both but never compared them...

[@BenjaminDehli]

2:36 That's what CZ

[@xisotopex]

what generates the basic waveforms? is it a sample or just a digital oscillator generating it?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

No samples, it's all done digitally via Phase Distortion synthesis algorithms. The CZ series is a fully digital synth, other than the DAC and audio amplifier output stage.

[@xisotopex]

@@CasioChaosTheory even from youtube vids I think I like the sound... I might have to get one. i dont really think it sounds like dx7 fm, but then again, some fm synths seem to be able to sound pretty different from one another...

[@chinossynthesizer705]

​@@xisotopex. The dx7 is harder to program it has more steps and envelopes.

[@alphabeets]

Something is very wrong… at 11:54 playing a sine wave should show ONLY the fundamental and NO harmonics. None. You might have a ton of noise in your system…

[@respawnedfluff5942]

The CZ-1 uses a BA9221, which is a 12-bit DAC. The one in the CZ-101 likely isn't any better. So the noise floor is going to be one for that generation/class.

[@zyxyuv1650]

I am curious how did you become obsessed with Casio?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

I actually have a large collection of guitars, basses and other manufacturer's keyboards as well, but this is how I got into Casios: I got my first Casio, a VL-1, in 1982, then in 1990 I got hold of a CZ101. These were my first electronic keyboards/ synthesizers, and Casio was with me right from the start. I actually spent most of my musical life as a bass guitar player, but I was always interested in synth/ electronic music having grown up with New Wave/ Synthpop in the early 1980s. However, synths were very expensive back in the 80s, so I ended up taking up electric bass as that was a more affordable instrument in comparison. Fast forward a couple of decades and I rekindled my interest in electronic music in the mid 2000s, and though vintage analogue synths were more affordable compared with the 80s and also with today, they were still somewhat pricey. I'd also been browsing many keyboard/ synth forums and found a lot of interest in vintage Casios/ Casiotones, especially among circuit benders, and started finding out about all these weird and wonderful models that Casio had released over the years. They were also very, very affordable as they hadn't yet reached collectable status, so I started buying them at bargain prices when they came up for sale on places such as Ebay and Gumtree (sort of a UK Craigslist). My main intention was just to enjoy them as they were and to write and record music with them, and to see how far you could take instruments that many musicians looked down upon. Fast forward about another decade, and inspired by a number of KZbin channels that I regularly watch I decided to set up my own channel. But what would my channel's main focus be? I looked at a number of my main interests, mostly music and vintage technology related, but then I thought that with a large collection of Casios, why not make them the main focus and also give my channel a unique angle? Thus Casio Chaos Theory was born, with the objective of sharing a lot of the knowledge and experience I have gained from collecting Casio keyboards over the years. I hope that answers your question :)

[@jsaleh415]

So the 1 or 101 might as well get the CZ-1 Right?

[@CasioChaosTheory]

For many, the 101 has all they require. For others, they need the extra features of the the 1. The CZ-1 is quite a large keyboard, and some don't have enough space in their studio so prefer the 101's smaller footprint. Also it's easier to find a CZ101 for sale than a CZ-1 as far more 101's were made. It's all dependent on the individual. The best option is to get both!

[@xaelgolden7134]

CZ 1 is DARKER ..CZ101 which I had many years ago.. still sound....very very digital compared to the CZ1. Years ago I get a CZ 5000 and sounds Bigger than CZ101. Arturia and Boutique are great for sonic explorations beyond hardw limits....Sound debates never ends. Great Video and thanks for hard work. Suggestion to all...use HEADPHONES for this extented video. YUK01

[@xisotopex]

I think this thing sounds pretty cool, even over youtube and computer speakers....

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Phase Distortion is still a very powerful and good sounding synthesis, even all these years later!

[@ugufru]

Great video I'll have to try this myself! Does a steeper slope on the square wave indicate a stronger fundamental frequency? A.k.a. more bass

[@davidmochen]

Quite the opposite in fact

[@CasioChaosTheory]

As per David Mochen's post, a steeper slope on the square wave apparently means less bass, though I've been told this is mostly in the sub-sonic region.

[@Gezira]

@@CasioChaosTheory the slope is not related to the bass or the fundamental it means less harmonics if it is rounder more if it's steeper. Or in different terms, starting from a sine wave ( the fundamental, that is the lower freq. of the sound) by adding harmonics you move towards a square wave. For better explanation see Fourier analysis.

[@mykdubz128]

Very obvious that the 101 sounds much brighter than the 1, not just "kinda" or "perhaps". Maybe it is your bookshelf speakers that won't make that as clear as professional speakers.

[@yorkhawk]

I wonder if the difference in timbre is because the CZ1 is touch sensitive and so the sounds are a little duller unless you really hammer the keys.

[@xisotopex]

casio could probably make some good money by revisiting these instruments.... updated of course

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Myself and many others have been crying out for years for Casio to do this. A modern day and updated CZ with real time control over the parameters, with extra features, would be wonderful to have and would most likely sell by the bucket load.

[@rich8715]

Thanks - good video. I do not hear any real difference and agree it is mythology. I would believe someone who differs if I had both, and did a blind patch test where they picked their favorite for 20 patches. My guess is it would be all over the map ie. very doubtful they pick the 101 OR the CZ1 100% of the time. That would answer the question (again) on an individual basis. That said, if you like the 101, well, get one. Sill relatively cheap on ebay and a great value. If you want the same sounds, but more functionality and a better keyboard, get the CZ1 - also a bargain..

[@DetroitMicroSound]

I'll never sell my CZ-101.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Me neither! Nor my CZ-1!

[@DetroitMicroSound]

👍👍@@CasioChaosTheory

[@zdave6083]

Nothing happens until 12 minutes in.

[@CasioChaosTheory]

Apart from the video teaser, video welcome and introduction, background & history of the Phase Distortion synthesizers, the rationale for comparing a CZ-101 with a CZ-1, highlighting the differences between the two models, plus explaining/ showing for the sake of clarity and transparency, how the tests were to be carried out. Then from approx. 10:00 onwards demonstrating & comparing the fundamental Phase Distortion waveforms between the two models. I also included chapter markers for every video segment so that viewers could jump to whatever part they wanted to watch.

[@EmilioNorrmann]

21:10 not the same at all ! 101 sound a lot brighter, at least post youtube encoding

[@CasioChaosTheory]

It's all very subjective isn't it? Yes, KZbin encoding/ audio compression may affect the final audio, and also bear in mind that I was carrying out the comparison live and was using some old headphones. I had to use headphones instead of speakers otherwise I would get feedback from my lavalier mic that was also live. That's also why I used the oscilloscope and spectrum analyzers to give a visual as well as audio representation of the sounds. Using this combination helped to give an overall verdict, and I believe that fundamentally, and in *most* cases, all CZs sound very similar to each other (there are some nuances and differences depending on the patch), and all have the characteristics of Phase Distortion. Most of all, they all sound damn good all these years later!

[@Simbor-rh1dj]

Why can’t Casio reissue these? With more poly maybe.

[@vhm14u2c]

I had a cz101, once I got a cz3000, sold off the 101.

[@ironsoul80]

Sonically nearly identical with minor differences 101 slightly fuller and brighter on some patches but lacking some of the 1's features both seem to be solid kit

[@kierenmoore3236]

12:00 et seq … “identical” … “the same” … Me: WTF?!

[@mrz80]

Dear LORD that TV ad was horrific! :D

[@CasioChaosTheory]

* Giggle! * (WHAT were they thinking when they came up with THAT!)

[@Tripwelleverday]

The only difference is use they are exactly the same inside use the same chip and wiring but the 1 has more distance which can add the itty bittist sound difference but those chips are notoriously different in manufacturing not the best qc after years of twerking on the same chips

[@blakecarpenter9157]

There are slight differences....but the big difference is the fact that they are not in tune with each other, the 101 is a hair flat. Tune them and there might not be a difference or the difference could be bigger...but we won't know unless you tune them.

[@Gezira]

"...but the big difference is the fact that they are not in tune with each other" not really.

[@amonster8mymother]

I have several casinos.

[@timothyverbist5795]

I hardly hear any difference.

[@paulsarodh5460]

rockin 🎼🎶🎶🎸🎸🎸🎸

[@lovemadeinjapan]

They don't LOOK the same.... The CZ101 is a staple in Japanese synth design..... The CZ1 is a very good sounding door stopper.

[@marcusholder495]

May Yahweh bless you and thanks for the cool video I'm getting the casio cz1 used from guitar center

[@CasioChaosTheory]

You will enjoy your CZ-1 - they are still incredibly powerful and flexible synthesizers all these years later!

[@jonnyhead]

Love the videos but what's wrong with your voice? Is that really bad voice Fry or maybe you have a cold if so I apologise, but really? 🙈

[@anonymous_friend]

When you finish saying the alphabet, do you end on Z or zed? Drives me nuts

[@CasioChaosTheory]

In British English, and most other English speaking countries except the USA, the letter 'Z' is pronounced "Zed". As I am born British, and British English is my mother tongue, that's how I pronounce it.

[@jacobbrown1690]

Just buy a vz1 and call it a day

[@CasioChaosTheory]

I already have a VZ-1 ;-) It has a different sonic character to the CZ Phase Distortion synths, as well as a totally different (and less intuitive) programing architecture. One day I'll try to learn it better and make a video.