AlenK

Why oh why would the MZ-X engineers implement such a silly restriction? PS. Looks like the arpeggio feature got increasingly defeatured on each new generation of models.

The MZ-X300 and MZ-X500 also support a programmable control track in user arpeggios. And there are two preset arpeggios called "Filtering" and "Panning Up" in the PX-5S, the PX-560, and the MZ-X arrangers that by their names I have to assume do something with the filter cutoff and stereo position, respectively, of whatever tones they are applied to. I am chagrined to admit I have never tried those particular arpeggios on my PX-560, so I don't know for certain what they actually do. One thing I would like to mention about the preset arpeggios is that the first keyboards whose documents identify which of them are step type and which are variation type are the MZ-X arrangers. The relevant documents for the XW synths, the PX-5S and the PX-560 do not show that information. I'm not saying anything that Mike doesn't already know, but for all of the models I named, the first 60 preset arpeggios are step type and the last 40 are variation type. And the variation-type presets are the same on all of those models. In fact, going by the documentation, the entire preset arpeggio list appears to be the same from the PX-5S on up to the MZ-X models. The XW synths have a different set of step-type arpeggios (no "Filtering" or "Panning Up") but 58 out of 60 of them are the same. I have lately been studying the preset arpeggios in my XW-P1. They are an interesting collection. I have also documented the parameters for all 100, information that does not appear in the XW-P1 Appendix and which most people wouldn't spend the time to collect. I wonder what the best way to share that information could be?

Yes, I figured there would be some in stage setting files. But I doubt user arpeggios show up in more than a few of them. Re Baba O’Reilly, I’m sure you did the Who proud. The number of user arpeggios posted for the XW synths, which are now 12 years old, is one data point that suggests rarity. That number is zero.

This is a question for anyone who has a Casio keyboard that allows programming of arpeggios. I am aware of five models that allow that: XW-P1, XW-G1, PX-5S, MZ-X300 and MZ-X500. Maybe I missed a few. In any case, here is the question: Who here has programmed their own arpeggios? If you have programmed your own, did it involve more than adding or creating a control track for a synthesis parameter (such as filter cutoff)? That’s something that Mike Martin demonstrated in a webinar for the PX-5S (below). So I would expect PX-5S users to at least do that. I ask because there are very few user arpeggios posted in the forums. I found only a handful for the PX-5S. Maybe most users of models that allow arpeggio editing are satisfied with the presets. Maybe arpeggio editing seems too difficult. Or maybe people edit when they need something different but feel no need to share their custom creations.

The last part of the next-to-last sentence doesn't make any sense either. AFAIK, count-offs as described (voice or claves) have not been added to the PX-560. (There is of course a metronome but that's not the same thing.) The comment from thompson1355 was in reference to the Boss DR drum machine. Seeing that post, I wonder if all or at least some of the posts from shaunaflynn were generated by a bot. With AI getting so good, a bot could conceivably generate replies that sort of make sense. But if so, I don't see what the end game is.

I don’t see how a reply would help. Shaunaflynn’s post was done in good faith but without realizing that Gary hasn’t been here in many years. He won’t be answering and I doubt he will even see it.

Just to let you know, Null (Gary) hasn’t posted here since 2016 and this thread is more than 8 years old. I don’t know if he even still reads the Casio Music Forums. I doubt it.

I remember that too. It was Hypnotuba: https://soundcloud.com/hypnotuba He (or she, who knows?) has some great examples there of wave sequencing, which is quite a different thing than what I'm talking about above but fascinating in its own right. There have been discussions in the forum about how to formalize wave sequencing as a technique on the XW-P1 and XW-G1. Monophonically, either XW synth can sequence the waves of up to four oscillators in the solo synth. If all four are needed in a tone, then it can do 16 waves in each of the four sequences. If no more than three oscillators are needed in a tone, then the technique presented here could extend their wave sequences to as many as 128 waves. PS. In one of the comments on the SoundCloud page at the link, Hypnotuba said he is a member of the forums here. If he still posts here, maybe he will chime in!

I’ve been experimenting with my XW-P1 again after a long absence. Yeah, I know, that’s a dangerous time sink for me. But I keep discovering things. Like how to chain the patterns of a sequence together without using the Chain feature. This is good if you don’t want to switch patterns interactively. Or if you just want patterns that are longer than 16 steps. The technique involves assigning the Step Sequencer Pattern Number Select NRPN to a knob and then sending values to that knob using a control track in the pattern. The values are unique to the pattern being played and serve to switch from the current pattern to another pattern, typically the next higher-numbered pattern or the first pattern, the latter in order to make the “mini-chain” into a loop. I always thought that this would work but for some reason, I never tried it until today. It works as I expected. For now, I will leave this as “an exercise for the student” because I don’t have the time to describe the specifics of how to do it. But anyone who really delves into my modest document here will be able to figure it out because all of the required elements are described there. Unfortunately, the technique doesn’t allow step editing across patterns. The XW-P1 ignores the Step Sequencer Pattern Number Select NRPN in step edit mode. A pity. PS. If someone here or elsewhere already posted about this capability here or elsewhere at some time since the XW synths were introduced, please let me know. I would want them to get proper credit for the technique.

Although it’s reasonable to say that it’s not over yet because some sources still have stock of the PX-5S, I’m pretty sure Casio has stopped making them. Most sites I visit claim it has been discontinued. In any case, it’s clear that Casio completely gave up on the pro (stage) keyboard market years ago. I think that was a real shame. Unless senior management decides on another course correction, I don’t think we’ll ever see from Casio another pro keyboard meant for stage use again.

Great influences and it sounds like we have similar musical tastes. Ultravox (Midge Ure era) is one of my favorite bands. I used to buy all their albums in the eighties (on vinyl, of course). Rage in Eden is one of their best. “The Voice” is a classic song from it. And of course, Numan and Jarre were great in their day too, although I was a little more selective with them when it came to spending money on albums. Numan is still going strong and seems like a hell of a nice guy to boot, as well as disarmingly modest for a musician with his discography. Re your composition, I was recently trawling through SoundCloud to see what XW-P1/G1 material I could find. Your song stood out as one of the best tracks, and certainly in my mind the best original composition I could find using the XW synths.

Also, the filters in Hex Layer mode are multi-mode. Choosing a high-pass filter for a wave on one layer and a low-pass filter or no filter at all for the same wave on another layer and adjusting their relative volume levels, can act like an equalizer to accentuate high frequencies to your taste. You can also adjust the “key follow” if the resulting sound gets too bright at the top end. There is a lot of flexibility in the Hex Layer engine on the PX-560 and the filters sound really smooth.

I haven’t tried it yet but MAJOR kudos to Vcombo for writing it!

Great times, right? It’s been almost 12 years since the P1 and G1 were released and more than 10 years since I got my own P1. I can’t say I have done a lot with it beyond research and write a certain infamous document related to it. And of late, I haven’t had a lot of time to spend with it. But every time I sit down at it, I am reminded of how much it can do that I really like and how well I think it still holds up to more recent offerings I have seen. I sometimes get GAS about newer synths but then I realize I haven’t even really tapped the potential of the few synths I already own (P1, PX-560, Roland D-10). I will grant that It can take a lot of work to drag decent tones out of the P1, depending on what “decent” means to you, but “decent” it most certainly can do.

I didn’t know there was a data editor for the XW-PD1. The sequencer editor looks good. Too bad there isn’t a similar visual sequence editor for the XW-P1 (and XW-G1, since it has the same sequencer). I’ll bet it wouldn’t have taken all that much work for Casio to get the code for the sequence editor in the XW-PD1 data editor to work with the P1 and G1 models. But I understand why they didn’t do such a major upgrade to data editors that only support a couple of somewhat older models. Would have been nice, though.

Okay, I don’t usually necropost, but I gotta ask Chas a question about the pad sound in this _great_ track, which somehow I missed back in 2016. Did the Hex Layer tone use a DSP effect and if so, was it the phaser or a flanger? Whatever was used, it sounds really good.

Hi Jason, I just tried and I was able to download the document. Maybe it was a temporary glitch or a problem on your end. Anyways, here is a link to the latest version (rev 5):

More XW-P1 patches from Mike Martin? Inspired by Genesis songs? I could go for that! Hey, I Know What I Like and with respect to my XW-P1, they would give me a reason to Turn It On Again.

Glad you discovered that you had to hold a key down to hear the external oscillator audio in a solo synth tone. As for applying the XW-P1’s effects to an external input: Of course you can. If you want to do it through the solo synth as you have been trying so far, then please reference pages 43 and 44 of the latest version (Rev 5) of “The XW-P1 Companion” where how to do that is described better than I could do it here (without merely repeating myself). With respect to reverb, you will get whatever level of that you have programmed for that tone. Note that the available DSP effects are limited to those available for the solo synth (of course). However, you don’t have to use the solo synth to process an external input unless you want or need to apply pitch shifting or apply the solo synth’s filtering and envelopes. If all you need is to apply a DSP effect or the system chorus (it’s always one or the other if you aren’t playing a solo synth tone in Zone/Part 1, in which case you get a solo-synth DSP effect) and/or reverb, then you can apply those directly. I will again direct you to “The XW-P1 Companion”, this time to section 4 (pages 45 to 49). A big advantage is that you won’t have to hold a key down to hear the external input audio. Unfortunately, the XW-P1’s effects system can be a little complicated because of the XW-P1’s many modes and synthesis methods. I have done my best to try to decode it all but you may have to read section 4 in particular several times and try some of what I describe there before it starts to make sense.

Methinks Casio should have disabled the modulation wheel by default for piano and other traditional keyboard tones (clavichord, harpsichord, organ, etc.). It isn’t required by 99.999% of players and just causes confusion. The 0.001% of players that need modulation for such tones can always turn it back on. Split milk now…

You can mix the sounds of both external instruments and voice into the XW-P1’s output by plugging instruments into the “INST IN” input (mono only) or into the “AUDIO IN (STEREO)” input while plugging a microphone into the “MIC IN” input. However, the XW-P1 can’t record the audio in any way. [In fact, it can’t even play back mp3 files, although it will play back MIDI files (.smf) and WAV files converted with the XW-P1 data editor that are stored on an SD card inserted into the rear SD card slot.] But you can send the XW-P1’s audio to a computer with a stereo audio input and easily record it to a WAV file (try the free program Audacity) from which another program can be used to make an mp3. Audio from whatever you plug into the “INST IN” and “MIC IN” inputs can be processed as another oscillator in the solo synth or simply be passed through the XW-P1’s effects. Audio input to the “AUDIO IN (STEREO)” jack, on the other hand, will just be summed with the XW-P1’s own sound and sent out the LEFT and RIGHT line-out jacks. Some caveats about the types of signals those XW-P1 inputs can take. The “INST IN” and “AUDIO IN (STEREO)” inputs expect line-level audio signals. The “INST IN” input, being a 1/4-inch jack, looks like it could take the output from an electric guitar. But if you try, I believe the guitar’s audio will be very low in volume and sound poor. However, I admit I have never tried it (despite also having an electric guitar) so I could be wrong! If you try it, let us know how it goes. A device called a “direct box” is usually required to plug a guitar into anything other than a guitar amplifier. The other caveat is for the microphone input. You should use only dynamic microphones or microphones that contain their own power source. You can’t use a condenser mic that requires so-called phantom power from whatever it is plugged into. Lastly, what you are asking here is a general XW-P1 question. It doesn’t have anything in particular to do with my document. It would have been better had you posted it as a new question with its own title in the XW-P1 forum. That way, it would also have been easier to find by other XW-P1 users that may have similar questions.

No one has listened to the PX-560’s rotary speaker effect or cares about its authenticity?

Speaking of the rotary speaker effect in the PX-560, I finally gave it a critical listen. It _seems_ to have separate rotation of bass and treble, like most Leslie speakers and unlike the rotary speaker emulation on the XW-P1. Am I just imagining that or do others hear it the same way?

Well, now that Mike Martin has weighed in, perhaps we should address one of those two differences that Glynn apparently believed were the only important ones between the PX-560 and the PX-5s, namely the LCD touchscreen. What bliss when I saw such a thing appear on several models of Casio keyboards, first the PX-560, the PX-360 and the CGP-700 (all based on the same “chassis”) and then the MZ-X500 and MZ-X300 (both of the latter based on another common “chassis”). How disappointing to NOT see it on another Casio keyboard released since. Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with the non-LCD-touchscreen user interfaces of Casio’s current and recently retired keyboards. (For example, I bought an LK-S250 last year for my then 7-year old granddaughter and thought the interface very well designed and easy to use.) But an LCD touch-screen integrated into a keyboard brings ease-of-use to a whole other level and is especially well suited to keyboard beginners. Please, Casio, bring the LCD touchscreen back! I won’t personally ask for another professional stage-and-studio instrument for it to appear on (that ship has already sailed). But surely there is room in the model line up for a new home instrument that has one, at least at the top end. No, I won’t be personally buying such an instrument but I am sure that there are many other potential customers.

I was motivated to start this topic by a review of the PX-560 I recently watched on YouTube. The review was posted by Glynn Masterman, who runs a YouTube channel called Gearfacts. Since Glynn has apparently posted more than 1,600 reviews of music products on the Gearfacts YouTube channel, chances are good that you have watched at least one of them. Although Glynn reviews many brands and more than just keyboards, over the years he has reviewed many Casio keyboards. AFAIK, his review of the PX-560 (here) is his latest Casio review. It was posted relatively recently, on December 30, 2022, despite the instrument being released way back in late 2015. Glynn has also reviewed the PX-5s; the first time five years ago and again three years ago. According to his statements in those videos, he was very impressed by the instrument at the time. In his review of the PX-560, Glynn is not nearly as glowing. To quote from the video’s description, “Every specification of this workstation piano is excellent. Its capabilities are immense, yet every sound seems bland and familiar. Where is the magic of the PX-5S?” In the video itself he furthermore complains of the “clunky” keys and essentially dismisses the arpeggios, which in a reply to me in the comments section he further describes as “linear” and “uninspiring.” This critique was mystifying to me since the PX-5s and the PX-560 share the same synthesis engine, most of the same samples and tones (the PX-560 has additional ones), a similar effects engine (differing only in the number of tones that can simultaneously use effects) and the same physical keyboard. The PX-560’s arpeggiator features exactly the same preset arpeggios but of course can’t be programmed, can't control parameters (like filter cutoff) and there is only one rather than four. Not to minimize those differences, which can be important depending on your needs, but they shouldn't in my opinion cause the PX-560 to get a poorer "score" on a review that fairly considers the target market for the product. (Not that Glynn gives out scores or actually rates products.) I believe the main reason that Glynn was not impressed with the PX-560 is that he was actually expecting a PX-5s with a touchscreen and speakers. He says almost as much at the end of the review (mentioning the speakers but not the touchscreen). However, Casio from the beginning has been quite clear that these are very different instruments. Most reviewers and owners of the PX-560 understand this.