Conference napalm::commusic_v1

Re: .-1
    
    Mark - the TX7 modules do NOT - repeat, do NOT accept breath control on
    the units themselves.  TX7s have mono out, headphone out, and MIDI in,
    out, & thru. 

    Breath control is considered a part of the keyboard/modulation
    function, and is therefore not "implemented" (except thru MIDI, of
    course).  I have used the TX7 from a Yamaha keyboard controller, a DX5,
    and a DX7 - pitch bend, modulation, and breath control are all
    transmitted over MIDI and sound GREAT. 
    
    Bottom line - if you wanna use breath control, you'll have to do
    it via MIDI for TX7 (and TF) tone modules.

    Let us know what your nifty new Yamaha system consists of and sounds
    like (so we can all slobber all over ourselves  ;-)...
    
8^)

    ... and the BC-1 costs about $35.00.
    
    One other thing I found, if you have to modulate the patch when
    playing in real time, you also have to do it when it comes back
    from the sequencer. The sequencer is only sending note on/off,
    you still have to blow!
    
    Edd

    re .3 - you should be able to overdub controller functions like
    bend, breath control etc., and have the sequencer remember them.
    If you do them on a different track (but SAME channel), you can
    do it over again as many times as you need to to get it right,
    then merge the tracks afterwards.
    
    By the way, has anybody confirmed that overdubbed controller functions
    are time coherent when you record at a lower tempo than you intend
    tpo play back.  I.e., if I iverdub a bend at a slow tempo, will
    the bend be sped up when I play back at higher tempos?  I've always
    just assumed this would happen, as the bend data is actually a stream
    of messages in timeand can be timed appropriately to the tempo.
    
    len.
    

    Re: .1
    
    Yes I guess you are right that it may be a matter of tecnique to
    use the "breath controller". On the demo/instruction tape there
    is an example of a trumpet, and that really sounded great. I have
    never played a sax and dont know how to modulate the signal, but
    I love the sound. The BC-1 cost me 250,- FF.
    
    And yes indeed the prices are dropping fast. I payed 4500,- FF for
    my CZ-101 six months ago, now I have seen it down to 3090,-.
    
    For the DX100 I payed 3900,- FF, but in Paris you get it for 3200,-.
    
    By the way, the TX7 now cost 4900,-, just 400,- more than my CZ-101.
    That may be my next buy.
    
    Svein.
    

    I haven't tried it with the breath controller, but a good sequencer
    (like mine) will record the continuous controllers (pitch bend,
    etc) right along with the notes.  Any manipulation on the MIDI stream
    (e.g., change tempo) affects the controllers just like the notes.
    Controller info gives only position information, not velocity, so
    velocity scales with tempo changes.  This is different from key
    velocity, which is encoded directly in the message, so it doesn't
    change if you change tempo.
        John Sauter

    Ok Svein, here goes...
    
    Sometime during the summer, I will be in the market for either a
    DX100 or a CZ101.  My delemma is to choose one of them.  The multi-
    timbral capabilities of the CZ101 don't particularly excite me
    (this may be due to the fact that I've have just heard it in multitimbral
    mode with the cheezy presets only), but it sounds simple to program
    and relatively powerful.  There also seem to be more CZ101 owners
    in the world in comparison to DX100/27/21 owners.
    	On the other hand, I am a real fan of sound dynamics (I am actually
    a drummer), and would therefore like to have some sort of expressive
    control over the patch volume.  The breath controller capability on the
    DX100 *may* be what I am looking for.  Naturally I want the one
    that makes the "best" sounds, however "best" is defined.
    	Since I am into dynamics as stated above, I would like to know
    which synth has the more powerful envelope generation capabilities.
    I would also like to know which synth has: 
    
    		1.  the best bell or vibe (ring modulation) type of sounds
                2.  the best non-bell percussive sounds
                3.  the best string sounds
   
    I realize that these are probably difficult questions to answer
    as you own both and don't really "compare" them as much as you use them
    together.  All comments greatly appreciated...
    
    Todd
    

    
    I may well be misunderstanding your requirements, but three of the 4 points
    you mentioned are the real positive points of the KORG DW6000.
    
    	1. The envelope generator in the 6000 is six-stage - ADSR with
    two added steps, breaking point and slope.  If I can draw it properly,
    it would appear as follows:
                                  1 - ATTACK
            /\2   __5__           2 - DECAY
           /  \  /     \          3 - BREAKING POINT
        1 /    \/4      \6        4 - SLOPE
         /      3        \        5 - SUSTAIN
    	/                 \       6 - RELEASE

    	This becomes very useful in creating crescendo effects and double
    attacks.  Nice option.
    
    	2. Bell and vibe tones are superb, and without the need of a
    ring modulator.  One of the 'psuedo-sampled' wave forms in the
    wave-form table is perfect for clangorous tones.  I have yet to
    hear a better tower bell in any other non-sampling instrument.
    
    	3. While some disagree, many feel that strings are one of the
    high-lights of Korg synthesizers.  I have used the factory string
    patch in the studio to the satisfaction of all present.
    
    
    	Incedently (ahem) I, uh, happen to have one, (gulp) for sale.
    
    	Dan Eaton

    Here's twopennyworth from the U.K. I have a CX5 which is fairly
    similar to a DX100 i.e. 4 operators 8 algorhithms etc and the sounds
    produced are similar. I also have a CZ1000. Rather than one being
    better than the other I find the 2 are complementary. Whenever I
    think of a sound I want if I can't get it with the Yamaha then the
    CZ will do it. I find the Yamaha voices more clinical and more like
    the instrument they are imitating. The CZ sounds more like the
    traditional Synth. If you are thinking of sequencing at all then
    the multi-tymbrality ? of the CZ must be a factor. Have you thought
    of getting a CX5 as this would give you all of the above as well
    as a sequencer. Not to good for stage use however. I'll have to stop
    trying to sell these things.
    
    				PK.
    

    Do you two CX5 users out there really feel that lonely. For me
    I looked at the CX5 when I wanted to buy my MIDI computer, but
    since I at that time only had the CZ101, and the CX5 is Yamaha
    I was a bit afraid that there would be no suppert for the CZ on
    the CX5. I therefor ended up with the Atari 520ST, and hope it 
    will be a good choise. Have not had any pleasure from it yet because
    just after two weeks the screen went blank, and also I am waiting
    for the Hybrid Arts software.
    
    Back to the DX100/CZ101 question. I agree very much with Paul
    that the two are filling each other out. To take your three
    points 1. I think the DX100 gives the best sound of bells and
    vibes, but the CZ101 is not far away. 2. Here I will vote for
    the CZ101, the DX100 does not give the "big bang", there are
    all sorts of harmonics flying around in the sounds. And then
    3. The DX100 gives you as Paul also said the most natural
    (closer to real instrument) sounds. Specially I like the piano
    patches, on the CZ101 I have not even been able to get close to
    it.
    
    Some other things I would say about the two is that the keyboard
    on the DX feels better than the CZ, you dont feel that the keys
    get hung up in each other like on the CZ. I also feel that the eight
    tone polyphone is a great advantage to the four on the CZ. So as
    an "expander" I think the CZ is great with its multi timber possibility
    but I think that as the first keyboard of the two I would today
    have choosen the DX100. For multi timber use I can hardly wait to
    see what the FB01 can do, and at what price it will be sold.
    
    The breath control can be great, I know because it was demonstrated
    on the cassette, but I have not been able to find a good technique
    to use it. My "music career" (spelling (goes for all of it)) started
    with piano lessons at the age of five and up to seven, then I started
    with a trumpet and played that for 7 years also in a "big band".
    I therefor have some experience with using my mouth to make sound,
    but somehow I can not figure out if the tiny hole in the BC-1 shall
    be covered or open or both. If it is supposed to be open I think
    I have to stop smoking and start jogging to have enough breath to
    use it for more than some seconds.
    
    I dont think you will regret buying either of the two, but because
    of the keyboard I would put the DX100 one inch before CZ101.
    
    Good luck with your choise.
    
    Svein.
    
    ( Jean-Michel Jarre uses the DX100 on his last album Rendez-vous)
    

    Thanks for all of the informative replies.  Still have a couple
    questions:
    
    RE: .8  
    	Could you briefly describe the architecture of the DW6000? The
    	only Korg that I am familiar with is the POLY-800.  I have looked
    	for this info elsewhere in this file, but have not found it.
    
    RE: .9
    	How much do those CX5's go for these days?  I have a feeling
    	that it would cost more than a DX100 *and* a CZ101.  Is this
    	true?  I already have a C-64.
    
    RE: .10
    	It is stated that the CZ is only four voice poly.  It was my
    	impression that they were both 8 voice, and that the CZ could be 
    	reduced to 4 voice to fatten up the sound.  Is this not the
    	case?
    
    Thanks for the input...
    
    TR
    

    	Not being a technically minded person, I'm not really sure I
    can explain the ins-and-outs of the DW6000, but I'll tell you what
    I do know:
    
    	The DW6000 is a six-voice polyphonic instrument which uses two
   digital oscillators.  Each oscillator can select one of eight waveforms
    selected  from two 256Kbit ROM chips.  These waveforms are digitally
    encoded recordings of actual instruments.  The remainder of the
    sound modifying features are analog - VCA, VCF and MG.  The EG is,
    as I said, 6-stage: - ADBSSR.  It is implemented with MIDI IN,
    OUT and THRU.  Patches can be down loaded to tape, and back again.
    It sends both stereo and Mono outputs.  Other features include white
    noise (which can be added to any sound), damper jack for a sustain
    pedal, jack for PROGRAM UP (by using a foot switch you can sequentially
    work your way through the internal memory), joystick for note-bending
    and MG intensity (to both OSC and VCF).  There are more features,
    but you get the idea.
    
    	Incedently, the programming is done thru a digital parameter
    access, similar to the POLY 800.  Any user programmed patches may
    be written/over-written to the 64 program memory.  It is non-velocity
    sensitive.
    
    	I guess that about covers it!

    Yes the CZ101 can be 8 voice poly, but at least on the preprogrammed
    voices I think it is only one that is like that. That is the flute
    patch, the rest will only give you 4 voice poly.
    
    Svein.
    

    Again, thanks for the input.  I was just down at Kurlin's in Worcester
    and briefly played the DX100.  I was impressed with most of the
    sounds, especially the rich upper harmonics of the bell type sounds.
    I was disappointed by the string sounds though.  The thing is very
    "sine wavey" for obvious reasons.  It doesn't seem to like to make
    sounds that are traditionally created via square and sawtooth
    waveforms.  My friend with a DX7 confirms this.
    
    Overall, I must say I was impressed with the majority of its 192
    presets.  Seems to be well worth the money.
    
    RE: .12
    	What 8 instruments were sampled to create the DW6000 waveforms?
    
    Todd.
    

    On the CZ-101, any setting that uses only 1 of the 2 sets of
    oscillators will be 8 note polyphonic.  When you use both sets by
    selecting 1 and 1' or 1 and 2' (detuning), then you only get 4 note
    polyphonic.  Also, the envelopes on the CZ-101 are very flexible,
    having up to 8 components each.  One lacking thing which I would
    like is ability to split the keyboard (although, of course, it's
    already too short).
    
    Mark Herdeg
    

    
    How many parts of the DX100 amplitude envelope are variable ?
    
    
    Steve
    Ireland
    

    This is one of my gripes with the DX100.  There are 5 parameters.
    Although this isn't bad for the price range, I feel that they could
    have easily added more envelope stages by just adding a small amount 
    of software and of course, a few more buttons.  (I wish it had the
    CZ's envelope generators)
    
    A DX100/21/27 envelope looks like this:
    
       OUTPUT LEVEL
           /\
          /  \ D1R
         /    \
     AR /   D1L\......
       /              ...... D2R
      /                     ......
     /                           ^\ RR
    /                            | \
   /                             |  \
   ^key down           Key release    
    
    
    Where:
        AR is the attack rate parameter that governs how fast the envelope
    		reaches its specified OUTPUT LEVEL.
    
        D1R is the first decay rate parameter that governs the rate
    		at which the envelope reaches the specified decay 
    		level (D1L).
          
    	D2R is the second decay rate parameter that governs how fast
    		the envelope reaches an output level of zero if the
    		key is held down for all time.  If the key is not held
    		down, the release cycle is exercised with the RR parameter
    		determining the rate at which the output level reaches
    		zero.
    
    It should be noted that there is one of these envelope generators for
    each operator.
    
    Hope this helps Steve.
    
    Todd.
    

    
    
    Do any of you know what the DC supply current is spec'ed for on
    the DX100 ? Or can some one tell me what is the output current
    rating for the optional mains adapter ?
    
    I bought a DX100 last week but didn't buy the optional mains adapter.
    I intend to get a non-Yamaha mains adapter and would feel more
    comfortable if I new the correct rating.
    
    BTW I agree with all the praise of the DX100 I've read in this file
    I'm very pleased with it ....
    

Well, it runs off batteries, so I assume the current draw is pretty low.
I don't know what the voltage tolerence requirement is for the DX100 tho,
and that may end up being the driving factor.  I'll try and remember to 
look up the current rating in the manual.  I'm not sure whether or not it'll
be in there tho...

Todd.

    I just looked at the Yamaha PA-1 (thats the 100VAC to 12VDC converter)
    that I bought with my DX-100. The output rating is 12VDC at 300ma.
    
    I assume you should be able to find something in 220VAC to 12VDC
    in that current range. It seems to me that Yamaha should also make
    a converted for 220VAC, since they do a large business in Europe.
    
    My US (110VAC) version only cost $14.95 (US dollars) and I'm sure
    if I spent the time searching through surplus catalogs, etc. I would
    have found one a few dollars cheaper.

    Worse case... You could build one if desperate enough.
    
    -TomR-
    

    
    In Boston:
    
    LaSalle closing out DX-100s at $199