AlenK

“The StudioLogic VMK161 Plus Weighted Key Controller Keyboard provides 61 hammer action keys to purist musicians that refuse to sacrifice the feel of a piano, but require the control and flexibility of synth controller.” Personally, it’s not for me. For synth and organ sounds, I prefer a much lighter action that a simulated hammer-action keyboard. Something like the semi-weighted 76-key keyboard that was on the Rhodes Chroma and later the NED Synclavier would be great as a middle ground between a light synth action and a weighted hammer action. Alas, I don’t think a comparable action has appeared on anything released since those instruments came out. Or if it has, it appeared on an instrument I can’t afford.

Is there a counter argument? How about the fact that a 61-, 73- or 76-key digital piano can’t accurately reproduce the feel of playing an 88-note graded hammer action piano. You either restrict yourself to playing the “natural” note range of the shorter keyboard or you use some octave-shift buttons to shift the range up or down as required. The former restricts what music you can play and the latter would feel unnatural, partly because you would need a third hand to shift octaves and partly because the weight of the keys won’t feel right for pitches accessed via the octave-shift buttons.

First, the PX-560 was NOT intended to replace the PX-5s. They have been (still are?) available at the same time. Different products for different users. Second, half the knobs and buttons did not go away. The PX-5s has 39 buttons and five knobs (including the volume knob but not counting the pitch-bend and modulation wheels). The PX-560 has 27 buttons (not counting the three dedicated areas of the touchscreen that function as buttons) and four knobs (not counting the data wheel). Hence, the PX-560 has 69 percent of the buttons and 80 percent of the knobs. (If you only count user-programmable knobs, then it is 75 percent of the knobs.) Resorting to hyperbole does not improve your argument.

Re PX-5s with a touchscreen, that would have been good. But there are aspects of the PX-560 that are valuable beyond its touchscreen. The 17-track sequencer for one. The fact that it uses encoders instead of pots (albeit only three) for another. (The former are much better for live adjustment of parameters.) So, although the PX-560 was not a replacement for the PX-5s, my ideal stage piano would have combined the best of both instruments. Personally, I was at one time hoping for an XW-P1 successor that would have been sort of a cross between the XW-P1 and the MZ-X500 with 76 keys but without speakers. And including the return of phase distortion synthesis. Re computers vs hardware workstation keyboards, the popularity of the former has not dissuaded keyboard manufacturers like Yamaha, Roland and Korg from releasing new versions of the latter. They differ somewhat from the workstations of the past but still appeal to live musicians and to studio musicians who prefer doing as much as they can on hardware. Some even claim they are more creative on hardware.

I stand corrected on the WK-1800. I assumed wrongly about its use of ZPI. I know hardly anything about ZPI and even less about A2. All I can find about ZPI is some marketing fluff from Casio. Is there anything technical about ZPI or A2 out there? For instance, how did you learn that the keyboards you mentioned do waveshaping?

The WK-3800 and WK-1800 keyboards based on ZPI could do waveshaping (which is a very specific form of synthesis)? That’s news to me. Tell me more. I agree about the MZ-X keyboards having the best version of Hex Layers, if only because that implementation can produce monophonic sounds. Previous incarnations of the Hex Layer engine were strictly polyphonic. I wish the PX-560 could do true monophonic sounds but alas.

Yes. True of the PX-560 as well. The PX-560 MIDI Implementation document describes the controllable parameters. Unfortunately, the PX-560 does not provide complete MIDI control of all parameters in the Hex Layer synth engine. That is unlike the XW synths, the PX-5s and the MZ-X keyboards, whose MIDI implementation is far more complete. However, on those instruments complete control of the Hex Layer synthesis engine requires using Sysex, which is beyond most people. (Note that the XW synths allow complete control of the Solo Synth engine in those keyboards through NRPN commands, which enabled Mike Martin to create an iPad editor for the solo synth engine on those keyboards. This is in addition to the PC and Mac editing program that Casio provides for the XW synths, which can edit all of the instruments’ synthesis modes as well as other parameters in the instruments. There is a similar editor for the PX-5s.)

Then the plastic itself is the spring mechanism. In this case it’s not a separate part but the function of a spring is still there. Unless there is some sort of mechanism to emulate a hammer action, which of course you get on most digital pianos, a spring _function_ must be there to return the key to its rest position.

Aren’t most keyboards, other than those on a real piano (and some digital pianos), spring loaded in some way? If not, how does key return happen? The keys on my XW-P1 have a different feel than the keys on my Roland D-10 immediately above it on my keyboard stand. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other; they’re just different. But two differences between a typical synth keyboard and an organ waterfall keyboard may make a difference when playing organ sounds. First, the edges of the organ’s keys are slightly rounded. Those on the XW have a slight lip, even though the shape of each key is otherwise similar. The keys on my D-10, like most synth keyboards, are even less like organ keys. They have narrow front faces, so are even worse for doing things like palm slides. The other difference that may affect playing of organ tones is where the trigger point is. On organ keyboards, the key contacts close with only a modest amount of key depression. On a typical synth keyboard, which needs to measure velocity (not a requirement back in the earliest days of synths), the triggering happens much later during depression of the key. The difference in timing is mere milliseconds but I have read that it affects how responsive the keyboard feels.

I suspect that this particular download discussion predates the automatic creation you describe. The text isn’t surrounded by the grey rectangle I see around others including those I submitted.

I miss Phase Distortion (PD) synthesis, last seen in hardware form on the CZ series synthesizers. I really don't know why Casio has resisted including that synthesis mode on any of their keyboards since the CZ series. I suspect that when they subsequently came out with interactive Phase Distortion (iPD) in the VZ-1 keyboard synth, the VZ-10M rack-mount synth and the PG-310 & PG-380 guitar synths back in 1987 (and 1988?), Yamaha may have slapped them pretty hard with a lawsuit. Because iPD was just a thinly disguised (and less capable) version of Yamaha's FM synthesis with ring-modulation added to it. (The original PD is related to FM synthesis but not closely enough to be covered by Yamaha patents at the time.) It may be that Casio agreed or signed something that in effect promised they would never release another product with PD or iPD synthesis in it. That would stop them from doing so today, even though Yamaha's original FM patents have long since lapsed and the original PD never violated them. Pure conjecture with not a shred of evidence, but I have no other way to explain why PD has not made a reappearance in Casio keyboards. It sounds really good, it takes very little hardware or software muscle to do it and there are MANY people who have told Casio they want to see it.

So Chas is Casio Chaos Theory TV? I never knew. (But the clue was there all along: The letters of his first name, in order, are right there in the word "Chaos.") When the CZ series was listed at number 2, I couldn't imagine what would top it. But then the answer was revealed and I can't argue with it! Amazing how many Casio keyboards often derided as mere toys have been used to make hit songs. Goes to show that if the sound you need is in there, use it! PS. Nice to see that the XW synths get an honourable mention.

The PX-560 does support MIDI control of the levels of the layers in a Hex Layer tone by way of NRPN commands. The problem is, I know of no way to program the XW-P1's sliders to issue the required NRPN commands. OTOH, when playing a drawbar-organ tone on the XW-P1 using the Drawbar-Organ engine, the sliders do apparently send out unique CC commands with values in nine steps through the range of the drawbars. But alas, the PX-560 won't respond properly to those. You would have to have something in-between that can translate those CC commands into the appropriate NRPN commands. IDK if something with that capability exists but even if it did, it's probably not worth the trouble.

This is where the Casio Music Forums can be confusing. There is an "XW Downloads" forum (this one) and there is a _separate_ location on the site that hosts the actual files. AFAIK, all links to uploaded files here are actually linking to where the files were actually uploaded. In this case, the author didn't include a link. But the file is there.

Late reply and it won't help the OP, but many of the layer settings in a Hex Layer tone are controllable via NRPN commands, as described on page 14 of the PX-560 Midi Implementation document. Layer-specific parameters other than volume are also controllable (e.g., pan position and LFO depth parameters), but none other than volume would be required in this specific application. I suspect this kind of control is provided on all Casio keyboards that support Hex Layer tones, right back to the XW-P1 (although on the XW-P1, there are far less layer-specific parameters that are controllable). However, such control of a Hex Layer tone can only emulate six of nine drawbars, at least for independent control of the overtones. It's the same kind of control you have on the PX-5s using its six built-in sliders. And then there is the issue of the rotary-speaker effect that emulates a typical Leslie. Is that effect better on the PX-560 than it is on the XW-P1 and on the PX-5s (the latter two sounding identical in that regard AFAIK)? I confess that in all the time I have had the PX-560, I have not auditioned that effect to ascertain if its emulation of a real Leslie is better than the one on the XW-P1. If it's not, you would still need an outboard rotary-speaker effects unit (such as a Burn or a Ventilator) to get something more authentic. Seems like the B4000+ would be a better use of that money because it provides everything you need except for keys (assuming its own rotary-speaker effect is up-to-snuff). Speaking of keys, the differences between playing organ on a piano-weighted keyboard, a typical synth keyboard, a Casio synth keyboard (such as on the XW-P1) and the waterfall keyboard on a "proper" B3 clone or a real B3 is something that should be considered. The playing experience improves as you go through that list. (Or so I am told. I have never played a B3 or a B3 clone and it's a stretch to call what I do on any keyboard "playing." 😄)

I agree with Brad. No. You can see the trajectory of Casio keyboard releases since the PX-560 (and PX-360 and CGP-700) and MZ-X keyboards. There have been none with graphical touch screens. There have been none (IMO) with truly professional features. For some reason, Casio did a 180 degree turn and backed away from the professional keyboard market. They claimed with the release of the XW synths to be back in that market “with a vengeance.” That lasted only a few years. I’m not dissing Casio. They make excellent keyboards with high value for money and they are still innovating. But they haven’t gone in the direction I had hoped they would.

All correct. In this case, however, the synth in question is the PX-560 and Casio has not to my knowledge released such an editor. Given the touch-screen graphical user interface on the keyboard itself, there likely wasn’t much of a projected need for such. Unlike, for example, the XW synths (P1 and G1), which have a primarily text-based user interface (in addition to the real-time controls, of course).

If you are only using the XW-P1 in a studio or casually at home, this aspect of the machine’s behavior shouldn’t be much of a problem. If, on the other hand, you are playing live in front of an audience, Casio is really expecting you to switch between Performances, not in and out of Tone mode.

When you say “select again that performance,” how are you doing that? If you are just pressing the Performance button, that only returns to Performance mode. It will not restore the Performance’s original Zone 1 tone setting, which was changed when you selected a different tone in Tone mode. Tones played in Tone mode are actually changing the tone in Zone 1. To restore your original tone in Zone 1 after switching from Tone mode to Performance mode, you must re-select the Performance, either by using the + or - buttons to switch to an adjacent Performance and then back, or by using the numeric keypad to explicitly call it up again. Either way, all the original data for your performance should be reloaded into the XW-P1, including the tone for Zone 1. At least, that’s the way it works for me.

You don’t have to save the octave setting in a Performance. (Although you can if that works better for you.) You can save it directly in the Hex Layer tone. As described on page E-30 in the XW-P1 User’s Guide, there is a Course Tune parameter for the entire tone with a range of plus or minus two octaves in semitone steps. A one octave difference would be a setting of +12 or -12 depending on direction. I should also mention that if you need to select between tones quickly, there is a method I describe in the following post that uses the 16 sequence buttons: The downside is that only one of the 16 tones can be a solo synth, Hex Layer or drawbar-organ tone. The remaining 15 must be PCM tones.

You can't download tones for a plugin into the XW-P1. The plugin does its own sound generation on whatever you are running it on (PC, Mac, whatever) while the XW-P1 does its own sound generation. They are completely separate. There are two ways to install a tone patch into the XW-P1 after downloading the patch to your PC or Mac. The first method uses Casio's free XW-P1 data editor (download it from here: https://support.casio.com/en/support/download.php?cid=008&pid=64). Connect the XW-P1 to your PC or Mac with a USB cable and follow the instructions in the data editor's manual. The second method is to copy the patch to an SD card (max 32GB) into a directory on the card called MUSICDAT. I believe the card needs to be formatted using FAT32. Insert the card into the XW-P1 and follow the instructions for loading the patch into the XW-P1 starting on page E-77 of the XW-P1 User's Guide. Be sure to read the entire chapter on memory card use starting on E-73.

I shouldn't have said "exactly" and certainly shouldn't have emphasized the word. Listening to some online videos just now, I can hear that S.A.M. on the Apple ][ sounds glitchier than I recalled. The Amiga's voice synthesis was considerably cleaner, maybe due at least in part to better dac's. The same technology was used in that famous first press demo of the original Macintosh computer by Steve Jobs in which it introduced its "creator." But there is definitely a strong family resemblance between all of those voices, including Hawking's specific voice, since they all came out of Klatt's speech-synthesis work based (fundamentally) on formant production. I am certainly not the first one to make that observation, even if as it turns out I did exaggerate a tad.

My first exposure to speech synthesis was a product called S.A.M. "Software Automated Mouth", which I ran on an Apple ][+. (Boy, am I dating myself now!). It consisted of a DAC board that went into one of the slots and, of course, a program for translating text into speech. I don't have to provide an audio example here of what it sounded like because you already know. It sounded exactly like Stephen Hawking's voice and I mean EXACTLY. It was very likely based on the same voice-synthesis technology. Many years later I bought an Amiga 500 (A500). One of the things that came built in to it (and into all Amiga computers since the original A1000 AFAIK) was a text-to-speech synthesizer. It was again EXACTLY the same sound as S.A.M. IIRC, I had later read that it was licensed from the same developers. Of course, S.A.M. was not very good at singing. The new Casio vocal synthesis seems to be pretty good at it, in a charming robotic kind of way.

Yes, it only works with text input through the app. But you "play" the text through the keyboard. No, you can certainly play it as usual with interesting tones. It has 800 of them by way of the AiX sound engine. The AiX emulations of acoustic and electromechanical instruments are IMO the best that Casio has done in quite some time (maybe ever), aside from the AiR acoustic piano tones. That said, IMO they are not quite the equal of tones on Yamaha's more expensive instruments. But quite respectable on a keyboard this inexpensive. A vocal harmonizer is a cool idea. However, if it were ever to become reality, it would likely appear on a future product, not added to this one. Casio doesn't typically add major features like that to existing products, even if it were to prove possible with the hardware.

Craig Anderton's review was what convinced me to buy the XW-P1, even though by the time I saw the review (in 2014), all the links to Craig's audio examples were dead. Personally, seeing where Casio has gone since the MZ-X500, which was perhaps their most complete keyboard (a synth in arranger clothing), I think there is zero chance they will re-enter the professional synth market again. If by some chance, they do try again, true CZ emulation (and not just samples of some waveforms) is not likely to happen. After all, people have been begging them for exactly that for years, maybe decades now and it hasn't happened. There must be some good reason for that but we'll never hear it.