the casio FZ 10M sound ---> .wav inside

shake that load off Bassline, you got a lot of bitterness in you

this topic was not intended to start a new 'bit battle', just to let u hear some sonic capabilities of the FZ. the reason why i first sampled into the mpc was to have a more uniform control over the samples, like same decay, same amplitude, ... if somebody wants i can do some stuff strait of vinyl or compare strait form vinyl to first in the XL.

i bought the casio on specs/price/sound comparisons and based on that it looked like a nice rack to experiment with. now that i've worked a bit with it i must say i'm happy about its power and sound, but something i did not really thought about before buying was the 'ease of use' factor.

dont get my wrong, its a good machine, but some little things make it harder to work with like: you can not hear what your sampling and the vu meter is verry strange/slow; once you copy a sample to an other voice you cant delete unused parts anymore; and some other things.

so, now i understand what people mean by the ease of use of mpc's, damn, its a real heaven to work with one.

PS: all sources say that the casio is 16bit, but i heared that its 12bit sampling and 16bit processing, someone in here knows something more about this?

elmacaco wrote:A few people were able to tell which machine was in Max's "test", and the conditions of the recording were not ideal

I think I kind of said this here el:

BassLINE wrote:
What everyone must realize is that it's not so much the gear you're using but the sample techniques you use that will largely determine your sound. You can make almost any sampler sound "dirty" (to varying degrees) if you know what you're doing.

Although you may disagree. But if you "extrapolate" then you'll see that I did.

Uhh, check that Max1973 thread again:
http://www.mpc-forums.com/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

NOONE got it right. Read the 13th post, where Max gives the answer. Noone at that point had it right at that point. It doesn't matter what anyone says after the 13th post because the answer was already out there. If people after that say they got it right then they're bull-ishin.

But I agree that the circumstances of the testing were not optimal (you can't even get the MPC60, MPC3000 and SP1200 to sample at the same khz so what's the point of comparing them?). However I still don't believe that many would be able to tell the difference even if they were.

Bitter? Naw. Why is it when someone speaks some real sh*t they're interpreted as bitter? Did I strike a nerve or something? Damn, I don't know what you're on Detail.

And naw, I don't want to start a bit wars. He was advising against using a 16 bit machine to resample into a 12 bit machine and I don't even think he realized that the FZ was 16 bit.

If you're going to talk sh*t you should really know some sh*t. But I agree, if you want to test a sampler you really should go from the source to that sampler; not via another sampler.

But I guess you can continue to believe that 16 bit is g*y (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'm sure that there are many out there that believe that still using 12 bit is gay.

I happen to not give a damn either way. I guess I'm bi-bit-ual







....though I feel that 24 bit is pretty g*y.

****And let me just reiterate that I have NO BEEF with ANYONE here right now. I have no problem with Drumatic, Deta!l or El so don't get it twisted. This is just some dialogue. I know how kats love to fly off at the handle at the slightest hint of hostility. I just want to put that out there before the vultures come along to add fuel to the fire. If you can't handle a heated discussion then navigate that a$$ to another board or something. Might I suggest the "Off Topic" board for general, nonsensical rantings?****

multiman wrote:
PS: all sources say that the casio is 16bit, but i heared that its 12bit sampling and 16bit processing, someone in here knows something more about this?

The Casio is 16/16/16
ADC= 16-bit
INT = 16-bit
DAC=16-bit

The max 36k sample rate does affect the sound, but the quality of converters they used to make their price point plays into it also.
Doesn't make it a bad unit but it doesn't really have a 16-bit sound.

it's cool homie, I just didn't think anyone was really starting anything...I personally don't care about bits or any of that stuff, just what my ears tell me sounds good which is why I chose the equipment I did.

like when I was working with fruity all of my stuff sounded harsh(if that's a good word to use here) to my ears compared to the stuff I liked which is why equipment wise I went with what I have....

no disrespect intended and I do agree that some people get dumb about the bits...like that one pete rock thread

Yeah BL you seem a bit perturbed man.

the 16 bit geighness comments are not serious. I have a few 16 bit devices lying around.

But you rushed in and start commenting on shyt Drumatic said in other threads and we're just trying to follow cuz we were on the FZ discussion and it kinda came outta nowhere, and that's not like you at all.

Yeah, my bad.

I kinda deal with threads (in this 60/3000) assuming that everyone is up on the old threads and have them fresh in their minds. You know, kinda treating them all like they're just continuations of others or linked together somehow. I see how you'd be thrown off by my comments.

I was still thinking about comments in older threads concerning this type of stuff so I interpreted it in a different way. I still remember all the fights/disagreements so I kinda reacted on that tip. The last thing I wanted to perpetuate was that elitism that we were charged with having in this section.

I tend to be a bit reactionary sometimes but I think it's warranted in many cases. Better this than having one of those g*y, 10-page "How old are you?" threads.

Conflict advances things; neutrality leads to stagnation. Let's build.

Ok so what do you prefer? 16 or 12? not saying it's a rule but in general.
You ever mess with a casio sampler? FZ kind, the SK-1 is a different series altogether.


Yall know I like my 12 bit, but 8 bit machines have crazy character too, you just lose a lot of functionality when you go back that far.

I gotta say that I prefer 12. You can't beat the sound you get when you pitch down ridiculously on the SP or Emax 1.

You just can't really get that gritty on a 16 bit machine, regardless of the sample rate you mess with.

That FZ10 sounded damn crispy to me but I passed on it on account of it being a beyotch to program.

But, yeah, I agree. These older samplers have a certain character to them but they're so limited in many ways (guess that's what gives them part of their character).