CT-X3000/5000 vs MZ-X300/500 - I did some practical comparison.

[Just Alex]

Thanks to a fellow musical store owner, I had about two hours today, when I was able to use all of these 4 keyboards at same time. Since all these were store display units, I performed full factory reset on all four, and tested only after that. 

 

I decided to divide information into 3 sections, what you will lose, what will remain and what you will gain, when upgrading from CT-X to MZ-X. I will not be mentioning "datasheet" specs, like number of voices, polyphony and so on. I will be providing practical data, which is hard to find from datasheets or reviews.

 

What will be the same?

 

Sounds. I can safely say that 90% of sounds that you have on CT-X, are exactly the same (you can't distinguish them with closed eyes at all!) on MZ-X. Not only names are the same, but they also sound the same. This is true to non DSP sounds. Only few are different - BUT NOT BETTER(!) (Piano, strings, some others), but all synths, reeds, brass, woodwinds - are exactly the same as on CT-X.

 

What you will lose?

 

DSP and sounds based on it. AIX engine is quite capable in that field, so all this phaser, flanger, wah-wah and other panning effects will be gone. Interestingly, some guitar and other sounds seem to have these effects pre-applied, for better sounding, but there will be no DSP like you used on CT-X.

 

What you will gain?

 

Besides all that pads, sampling, drawbars, loadable sounds and so on, there are a few things that will be better.

 

1. Mechanics. Mechanical feel and touch response of MZ-X series are far better than on CT-X. Despite that these were display units, with a lot of tear and wear, they were much more nicer to feel than CT-X, and there was no key rattling at all.

 

2. Sound quality via built-in speakers. Users of CT-X5000 will get exactly same volume and bass, but better (clear and more defined) highs. CT-X3000 users will gain a lot of course.

 

3. Easier to navigate menu system with touch screen, which is quite responsive, but it has strange issue - before updating the screen (going from one menu to another) it momentarily gets black and then displays normal image again. This is feature, not an issue - same on 300 and 500 models and it is quite annoying.

 

4. Far better expansion capabilities in terms of sounds and styles. In case of MZ-X500 you will be getting pads too.

 

Main practical differences between MZ-X300 and X500.

 

1. More sound memory (128mb vs 256mb)

2. Pads on X500

3. HexLayer (This is when different sounds can be used for different velocities being played - simply saying, you can make a sound, which on generic play sounds like piano, but if you play energetically, it will have say, flute sound). This feature is of course cool, but considering limited sound quality of built-in samples, I see a little use of this feature.

 

Conclusion:

 

Both CT-X and MZ-X use same lo-fi samples from early 90s or even 80s, and person who created these sounds, had definite issues with hearing of high frequencies. This may sound absurd, but say, Roland D50 from 80s has far better strings sound, compared to CT/MZ-X series! And you won't have DSP on MZ-X, so all these cool flanger/wahwah/stereo pan effects will be gone.

 

What to buy if you haven't bought yet?

 

This is hard to say, due to price differences. Currently X3000 is about $350 here, X5000 is about $500, MZ-X300 is $650 and MZ-X500 is about $780.

 

If you already have CT-X series, I personally don't see any reasons why you upgrade to MZ-X series. However, if you're just buying the keyboard, MZ-X300 seems to be not a bad choice for that price range.

 

 

[Just Alex]

Oh and a little correction -due to my poor English, regarding the sound similarity. Of course there is a DSP in MZ-X, just a pre-set sounds with DSP are not the same as in CT-X series. That was what I wanted to say.

[Rudolph R-N R]

Hmm….. are you sure the mz-x is still available?

 

I had the mz-x before it was stolen, and have the ct-x5000.   Was disappointed with the implementation of the hex layers, brilliant concept but building your own layers were unnecessarily onerous.  Enjoyed the tilted panel for the speakers pointing towards you and the sound quality of the speakers was great.  

 

Given my current needs, I wouldn’t buy either of them again.  

 

I remember you being one of the first reviewers of the mz-x, helped a lot in deciding to buy it!

[Just Alex]

Yes sure. That particular store has 1 in showroom and 2 in the warehouse. But as they say, they won't import any more, because these sells very poorly. They got them 5 years ago, 5 pieces, and only were able to sell 2 of them during the 5 years!

[Jokeyman123]

There are no MZ's in the US new-all the major retailers saY SOLD OUT for either 300 OR 500 MZ series. Only chance is picking up a used one somewhere-and apparently this doesn't appear too often and when someone does, they list it ridiculously high in price. The PX560 is close enough for me to the 500, minus the pads (I have other pad controllers) and minus the sampling (I have a few samplers already, don't need. and it pretty much has the same arranger features, bu tnot as good as the editor features for the 17-track sequencer that are part of the MZ-X500. the 560 only allows for copying entire tracks, no cut-and paste of sections although punch-in/out helps. and at the time, the price was not much higher for the PX560 than for the MZ-X500. I was still looking it over though. the MZ-X500 almost looked a little like the old Roland EG-101 with its vertical speakers and controls. Not a bad idea, but Casio seems to like a certain design, and then let's that design hang in the air for awhile, or forever.

[Just Alex]

Not all members of this forum reside in US....

[Just Alex]

Today I went to shop to buy myself a xmas gift

I was hoping for Korg Kross 2, but it was out of stock, so I ended up with MZ-X500 instead.

By the way, there were also much more expensive Korg PA-600 and PA-700. 

I had chance to compare MZ-X500 vs Korg PA-600 side by side.

Sound wise, I should say, they are on par. Some sounds are better there, some sounds - here.

However, there were two distinct differences, which definitely need considering.

 

1. Screen quality. Korg has much bigger screen, but it is worse! The displayed data is low resolution, and it is upscaled to screen resolution, causing blurry fonts and blurry graphics. I took some photos, can post, if someone interested. On the positive note, it is much more fluid, than screen on MZ-X500.

2. Keyboard quality. Korg's keys have very short travel, almost like toy piano, and they feel too light. Contrary to that, MZ-X500 keys are much more solid, have nice travel and pleasant to play. It should be noted that dynamics are quite different, compared to CT-X series. For example, the guitar slides require much less force on MZ-X, than on CT-X, so you have to change your playing manner...

 

And regarding the menu system, Korg is much less intuitive, compared to Casio. Believe or not, I was not able to change the playing sound! Had to call store assistant