Quinthius

Oh I really like this idea and would not have thought of it on my own. Even if using it for the sole purpose of laying out a longer drum & bass beat, that is really great. Thanks for sharing Jokeyman!

You mean like a "mass assign" to set a different default note to all the steps at once? Going out on a limb here since I don't know FOR SURE, but I'd say "probably not." In my explorations I haven't seen anything like that, anyway. Although maybe you could record your sequence "live" and just hit the same note repeatedly really fast, should only take a few seconds to fill up all the steps

Gotcha and that's how I thought it was, I was just misunderstanding your earlier post then thanks!!

Bobby, do you mean in step edit mode you can "overdub" or allow it to trigger multiple notes (i.e. drum + snare) on the SAME step, on the SAME track? Or do you have to change to track 2 for the snare, track 3 for hats, etc.? I know obviously you can have multiple sounds layered on the same STEP but must use different TRACKS.... Supposedly each track (except the one "chord" track) is monophonic which would mean only able to trigger ONE note/drumsound on each step, so if you want multiple sounds on the same step you have to use multiple tracks. However, I have noticed in the past the step edit mode does offer more flexibility than using the buttons & sliders "live" method, so would not be surprised if what you're saying is correct (if I am reading it correctly, that is!) Gonna have to play around with this......... Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but if indeed you can layer multiple sounds on a single step, on a single track, that will be very awesome...

haha, nice

Wow, thank you for posting this. I too have a Monotron Delay and find the abundant noise/hiss a little detracting. Will give this a try.

Hey lucabbrasi, well I'm not trying to "defend" the Casio and I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world... just pointing out the fact that some things you are asking for really can't be changed, or if they can be changed in firmware, the limitations of the hardware would not be able to handle those changes. I understand if certain limitations are disappointing for you, but that is just how the instrument was designed... maybe in your opinion those were bad design decisions, but at this point nothing can be done about it. It is already "set in stone", it's how the machine was designed and manufactured... If you buy a 600 MHz computer, and there is a certain program written to run PRECISELY on that computer, and it runs great on 600 MHz, but then you ask for more features that were originally not included. Well, if the developers go back and add those features, it still has to run on that 600 MHz processor, because that CAN'T be changed, it's the hardware limitation on the computer, then you try to run that new improved program, and everything goes slow and just becomes completely unusable. That is similar to what Mike and others are saying about hardware limitations. Sure, maybe some features could be changed to allow "more" to happen at one time, BUT the machine itself probably will not be able to handle that, because the processor that is physically on the instrument cannot handle "more", and that's not something Casio can fix through firmware, it would require the physical replacement of certain hardware in the machine. Again I'm not trying to "defend" the Casio, and I don't think anyone else here is either.... but, the facts are facts I'm sure if I sat down with a Juno DI, maybe it has some features that are very nice, but I can guarantee you there will be other features I wished it had... but that would be tough luck for me, because Roland most likely isn't going to add those features (or just plain CAN'T add them), for exactly the same reasons the Casio can't add certain things. There are features on the Casio that probably many people enjoy, that I'm sure are not on the Juno DI or a lot of other synths in this price bracket, but maybe you don't care about those features at all and maybe will never use. So again it really comes down to making sure you evaluate an instrument well enough before you buy it, simply to make sure it is going to meet your needs. Unfortunately it sounds like the Casio is probably not the best instrument for you, if you need more performance parts and if you rely heavily on preset sounds but are not happy with the presets in the Casio. It sounds like maybe you bought your XW-P1 without fully understanding the features and limitations compared to what YOU need in an instrument like this... And since a lot of that simply cannot be changed, really your only options are A) accept it as it is, or sell it and find something that does have the features you need There are $2000-3000 synths that I'm sure you would not be happy with... Sure they might have great features for some things, but might be very limiting in other things... it just really depends on what features are important for you, and finding the right instrument that meets those needs.

I am pretty sure you can use one Solo OR Hex sound in ONE of the 4 zones, right? Just cannot use more than one, and the other 3 zones have to be PCM sounds. But anyway, to both aspects of the question, "only 4 parts (zones)" and "only 1 solo or hex" - again it's just the limitations of the hardware i.e. you cannot make a 2GHz computer processor do "more" than it is capable of, which would require a 4GHz processor. And of course if it was designed to do more, and had to use that faster processor, then of course the price would be higher also.

Hello lucabbrasi, A lot of things you are asking for, as Mike and others have already confirmed, really cannot be "fixed" by firmware update as easily as you think. I would bet a lot of things are hardcoded in various chips on the machine, especially the waveforms and PCM sounds, probably the effects processes too, and probably cannot be easily altered (if at all!) via software update... and if able to be altered at all, would probably have to be done via special hardware tools to reprogram the chips. Certain functionality in the synth can be tweaked with firmware updates, but it's really going to depend on the architecture of the synth and what things are programmed into the hardware itself (i.e. various chips, processor, etc.), versus what is in the firmware that can be reprogrammed via updates. Think of it like this: The firmware is the operating system. That's like Windows, Mac OS, Linux. But the hardware is like your actual soundcard, video card, RAM, hard drive, etc. in your computer. You can update the "operating system", but the functionality of the hardware is pretty much going to be limited to how it was designed and manufactured. There's just no way around that. I think Mike's statement is important to think about: "synths never used to have firmware updates" I think his point (without saying it outright) is that "you get what you get" when you buy something like this. When you buy a synth you really need to understand what kind of sounds it's going to make and what features it is capable of. I'm pretty sure no XW-P1 had a sticker on it promising a healthy stream of "new sounds". What you get in the box is the only thing you can depend on for sure, so it really is up to the buyer to evaluate that and determine if it is going to meet their needs or not. Also even with the release of new sounds, there's no guarantee those will be to your liking either, since they will still be using all the same basic waveforms and PCM samples on the machine, just layered and programmed in different ways. The actual PCM samples and waveforms will NEVER be different from what they are right now. I agree some of the PCM sounds are not the best but they certainly are not the worst either, and some I think are pretty good. You really have to remember the "big picture" with an instrument like this, AND the price range, AND the competition (which in my opinion the only competition is stuff like the Yamaha MM6 and similar). It is a jack of all trades and not going to do any one thing exceptionally well, but rather provide a range of versatile tools. Also considering this is an ENTRY-LEVEL "pseudo-workstation"/performance synth, and in comparison to everything else in its league, it really goes above and beyond what anyone should expect! As always, "you get what you pay for" - not to say the XW-P1 is "cheap", but for its price bracket you really cannot expect more than what it already gives, especially considering it already gives SO much! Also consider that some of the individual sounds and effects might not sound great "by themselves", BUT once you start mixing stuff together, layering, sequencing, etc. I think any deficiencies quickly become overshadowed by the "bigger picture", i.e. the sum of all parts becomes greater than any of the individual parts alone.

Hello, those are references to the origins of those waveforms. I don't know if they are direct samples from those synths, or "imitations"... but I guess one way or another they are supposed to resemble/imitate/mimic/sample those original synths I'm not a synth guru/historian, but I assume: CZ = Casio CZ series OB = Oberheim P5 = Prophet 5 ND = Nord JP = Jupiter (8 ?) TB = Roland TB (303?) SH = Roland SH (101?) MG I assume is Moog.... MM = Minimoog maybe? But why 2 Moogs? Or possibly Yamaha MM ??? AP = maybe ARP (2600?) Having said all that, to be honest I cannot detect much difference in most of the "brand" variations of the different waveforms. For example, take the XW-P1's plain "Saw" wave, and compare to the various other Saws (JP, CZ, etc) ... they all sound pretty much the same to me, so not sure why so many had to be included, if there is such minimal difference. On the other hand (and just going by memory here) I think the "numbered" variations did have more of a noticeable difference (like ND Saw 2, or something like that). Think I'm gonna hook this thing up to a frequency analyzer and see if I can tell more specifically what the differences are. They are probably there I'm sure... just did not seem noticeable to me when flipping through them all. Again, just going by memory here... I know some DO have significant audible differences, but many did not seem to.