• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AlenK last won the day on June 18

AlenK had the most liked content!


About AlenK

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    : Planet Remulac
  • Interests
    Music and synthesizers (duh!), astronomy, astrophotography, writing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,682 profile views
  1. Good point and one I have made before in other threads. But allow ME to point out that Casio does not call the MZ-X500's monophonic mode for its Hex Layer engine nor the monophonic bass synth, a solo synth mode. That's likely simply to avoid confusion with the solo-synth mode of the XW synths. The differences between the MZ-X500's monophonic modes and the XW's solo synth mode are significant. Wouldn't it be nice to have both? In a true XW successor there's no reason there couldn't be.
  2. In honour of CairnsFella here is someone else's attempt at a Depeche Mode song, something from their early days. It's certainly not perfect and he seems to hit one particular note consistently wrong but it's not bad. Not as good as CairnsFella's efforts, of course, but not bad.
  3. Unfortunately, I know of no way to trigger the arpeggiator other than by actually playing keys on the keyboard. And indeed, the phrase recorder will not record an arpeggio, only the keys you hold down to generate it. On the upside it is possible to arpeggiate phrases. You can get some really weird and wonderful things to happen when you combine arpeggios and phrases in this way.
  4. No apology necessary! (PS. As you can see below it's easy to make a quote but apparently impossible to undo one!)
  5. Wow, I appreciate the extra effort! Indeed, Depeche Mode used sampling heavily. It was, after all, the "new thing" back then. No, that was interesting.
  6. You might try Brad's carpet idea first using an inexpensive remnant from a discount carpet store. They might even give you a piece for free if you ask nicely. If that is not sufficient for the neighbors then spend the bucks on the isolation pads. If you go for the pads you'll also, as you say, need to elevate the area near the pedals by a similar amount to avoid straining your ankles (I did not think of that!).
  7. Thanks for sharing. (Usually that's meant as a somewhat sarcastic put-down but not this time!) Before I can audtion these on an XW-P1 I may have to map or convert some of the tones (since some PCM tones and waves in the G1 are not available in the P1).
  8. Changed the title. It seems far more appropriate now.
  9. Something like this along the floor contact areas of the AP-650 might work while still providing distributed support. Of course, it's not a particularly attractive solution and you'll have to raise your bench by a similar amount: 7/8". (Hopefully your bench is adjustable.)
  10. CairnsFella, you have a WSA1! I have never heard one (other than, IIRC, some online demos) but it always seemed like an intriguing synthesizer. Too bad Technics got cold feet after that. Re music scorer (as in movies and games) they all use virtual instruments and orchestral libraries now. But personally I would be apt to try that with an Integra 7 if I had one just because I like using hardware more than I do software. I WILL eventually get one of those.
  11. Chas, did you get your XW back?
  12. I hear crickets. With no answer, for the record if a chain of sequences (which doesn't need to have more than one sequence in it) is saved as a standard MIDI file (SMF), you can use that with other software. AFAIK none of the other file types an XW synth can save can be used by anything aside from Casio's own XW data editors.
  13. In my opinion (and what else could it be) there should never have been two models of the XW. If all the features of both synths had been initially rolled into only one product, your (our) synthesis options would have been much improved. Sure, this all-in-one model would have been more expensive and with even more features than either of the models we got, potentially more confusing to users. (Even Mike Martin has stated that the sheer number of features makes it difficult to explain the value of an XW to potential customers.) There have been many times in my synthesis explorations on the XW-P1 (more or less documented in The XW-P1 Companion!) when I realized that something I was trying to do would have been easy if the P1 had one or another feature found only on the G1. To some extent the MZ-X500 answers some of that integration, as it has sampling and most of the XW's synthesis modes all together. But since it lacks the solo synth and the step sequencer - the two defining features of the XW synths, common to both - it's not really a true successor. The fact that the XW line lacks what all other current polyphonic synthesizers provide - individually modulated filters for all simultaneous notes - is its Achilles heel. I knew about that limitation going in so I'm not complaining about it. But it's one of the reasons many people passed on buying one of the XW models. Notice how quickly Casio rectified that limitation in their next pro product: the PX-5S. Casio could have used another winning strategy for their return to the synth world: emulate the Phase Distortion synthesis of their old CZ line of synths. Why they did not and still do not do that is beyond me. It seems abundantly clear that the CZ synths were Casio's shining synth moment. People still love that sound and many have professed they would buy a synth that included that synthesis method. Just imagine if it had been one of the synthesis modes of an XW synth. Your post above would have sounded quite different! At the end of the day we either accept and use what we have in whatever way we can or we move on. But what do we really have? I think I have demonstrated in my own explorations that we have somewhat more than we think we do. Yes, fundamental limitations still apply but combining existing features can get us to places we thought we couldn't go. If I had a G1 rather than a P1 who knows what capabilities I could unlock from it? (Given enough time!!)
  14. I haven't checked but I suspect that while you are in the Mixer the knobs will reflect either (a) the assignments the XW gives them in Tone mode for whatever tone is assigned to Part 1 with the knobs only affecting Part 1 or (b) whatever assignments are given to them in the currently active Performance with the knobs affecting those of Parts 1 to 4 as per the settings for each knob in the Performance (there is always a currently active Performance even if you aren't in Performance mode). It may depend on whether you were in Performance or Tone mode before pressing MIXER. All just conjecture as I probably won't have time for a while to check.
  15. Assuming this is just a volume pedal (not a lot of info about it online - Soundx doesn't even appear to offer it anymore) the assignable pedal input won't do you any good (if you intend to stick with this pedal - see below). That input is intended for an expression pedal (or a switch type pedal - your choice). AFAIK there is no way to send some "zones" (as I will call upper and lower tones for convenience) but not others out the audio outputs of the PX-560. They normally output the mixed sum of all voices in the PX-560 as well as whatever is sent to the left and right LINE IN inputs and the stereo AUDIO IN input. However, if you can accept monophonic output to your keyboard amp you could pan the tones you want to hear from the keyboard amp all the way to, say, the left and then connect only the left output of the PX-560 to the keyboard amp through the volume pedal. All the other tones must then be panned all the way to the right. BTW, AFAIK connecting something to the PX-560's audio outputs should not disable the onboard speakers. There is another strategy if you are willing to buy an actual expression pedal to use with the expression pedal input. You can program the pedal to control the volume of one or two of the "zones" independently of any others. This way you could actually limit volume control to Upper 2 only without affecting anything else.