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

a couple of weeks ago i bought a casio FZ 10M (its the rack version of the casio FZ 1) and i must say: i like it! the sound is verry nice and there are alot of posibilities. the machine itself is a bit hard to work with but i gues i'll get used to it.

i dont think alot of people know this machine nor its sound so i made a small recording to demonstrate some of its sonic capabilities. now i know its not i 60 or a 3k but i strongly feel it belongs in this forum .

some people say its sounds closer to an SP1200 than an emax but i cant judge on that because i do not own an SP, but i do know its a crispy sound.

the file is 10MB and is in .wav, first of you hear the drumbreak where i got the sounds from: 'kim weston; take me in your arms...'
then the chopped drums in the following order:

KICK: 36kHZ 33RPM - 36kHz 45RPM - 18kHz 33RPM - 18kHz 45RPM
SNARE: 36kHZ 33RPM - 36kHz 45RPM - 18kHz 33RPM - 18kHz 45RPM
HIGH HAT: 36kHZ 33RPM - 36kHz 45RPM - 18kHz 33RPM - 18kHz 45RPM

then a verry simple 2bar drum pattern in the same order: 36kHZ 33RPM - 36kHz 45RPM - 18kHz 33RPM - 18kHz 45RPM

to do this i first sampled the break in my MPC 2000XL, chopped it and sampled the single hits in my casio. then i 'sequenced' it in the XL and recorded on a cassette deck with dolby S (yes, a cassette deck with dolby S ) then into the comp and onto the net...

you can hear the casio's filter on all hits, the settings are cutoff115 and res127 where 127 is max

here is a pic of the casio:
http://www.sequencer.de/pix/casio/fz10m.jpg

and here is the file:
http://s24.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0L1B ... KTNT87PT13

enjoy!

you should do this without usin your 2k. it colors the sound.

dfacedxa wrote:you should do this without usin your 2k. it colors the sound.

word

Back in the day, I heard very good thangs about the FZ1 & FZ10M.
Casio's synths were good too. The CZ101 is still used by a lot of folks and the VZ1,CZ101 and company have some powerful bass sounds. They are perfect for Hiphop and R&B tracks.

Do a search on the Casio pages at www.synthzone.com to see if you can hook up with other Casio users and find other resources.


Peace.

For many reasons that I cannot mention, I would not recommend sampling into a 16-bit 2000xl if you're planning to work within a 12-bit medium. Take the advice....Bypass the 2000 process, sample directly into the FMZ and you will surely hear the difference.

the fz is 16 bit.

I dunno, those sounds have a high pitch element that I'm not diggin

good post though!

elmacaco wrote:the fz is 16 bit.

Word and samples at like what? 33 Khz tops? Nice and lofi.

Hey Drumatic, how are you sh*tting on 16 bit samplers yet big up the ASR10?

....ah, don't mind me, I'm just drunk and feel like busting some balls.

you werent talkin to me but the asr sounds better than most 16 bit samplers. n them filters. daaamn. i think its hard to hate on a asr.

elmacaco wrote:the fz is 16 bit.

Infact ... it was the first "affordable" 16 bit sampler.

Still have my FZ10M ... like it

Rohan.

I don't think anyone was "hating" per se

it just didn't sound that dope to me, I've heard stuff from the FZ's that's great though

I've got an ASR too

Deta!L wrote:I don't think anyone was "hating" per se

it just didn't sound that dope to me, I've heard stuff from the FZ's that's great though

I've got an ASR too

First of all I was referring to Drumatic.

Secondly, I was alluding to previous posts in which he indicated that 16-bit was g*y.

Thirdly, I am now sober and remember that some of you guys take yourselves too seriously.

Fourthly(?) I'm out...

hey man you brought it up

Word man. It's all good though.

But I think that it had to be said regardless. Too many people put too much into this whole "bit war" thing. There's too much mysticism and too many misconceptions.

I think Max1973's test put all that nonesense to rest on this board though. Noone (myself included) was able to determine which machine was which.

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.

Sure, certain samplers have sound characteristics that make them difficult to duplicate but any producer will tell you that that's just the beginning. What you do post-sampling, sequencing will have the greatest weight in determining what the final product will sound like.

I'm sure this board had a lot of kids buying 60's, s950's, sp's and the like because they thought that those machines would automatically give them that "early 90's" sound. I'm also sure that they were all disappointed when their stuff sounded nothing like Primo, Large Professor, Beatminerz, Showbiz, Buckwild, DR Period, Marley Marl, Pete Rock, etc.

...awww, sheeit, how could I forget Dre? How many times have y'all read things like "How can I get my beats to sound like Dr Dre?"

Get some talent and some good engineers suckas!

OK, but a few points.

A few people were able to tell which machine was in Max's "test", and the conditions of the recording were not ideal at all to try an extrapolate the conclusion you are stating.

That's all well and good but we are talking about the FZ, not about bit wars or anything of the sort. Drumatic's only comment was to sample directly and not from the 2000 which is valid. If you want to start a bit wars discussion wity Drumatic, start a new topic. Although I wouldn;t recommend it, 16 bit is pretty geigh