AlenK

Do you mean GM2 rather than MIDI 2.0? GM2 is specified for the FP-30 and above models but I don't see that on Roland's web site for the FP-10. Where did you see that?

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized they were that old (I should have payed more attention) and got confused by the 88-key GO:PIANO model, which as you say really was new his year. I have edited the post accordingly. Regarding the keys, Roland strongly implies that the GO:PIANO models "feel" like real pianos. It's central to their marketing. From Roland's online ad copy: I have obviously never touched them but that would be an outstandingly outrageous claim if they did not feel different than unweighted keys. That's why I said "at least semi-weighted facimiles." But based on what you say I stroked out the "hammer-action keys" above, which is too suggestive. Maybe I should not be surprised that Roland would make an outstandingly outrageous claim. I am curious now how those keys feel. My local music stores do not carry GO:PIANO (otherwise I would have known about them) so I cannot try. Has anyone here played one?

Roland GO:PIANO and GO:KEYS are very low cost keyboards. The GO:PIANO is available in 88-key and 61-key versions but here I am speaking only of the latter. The GO:PIANO has hammer-action keys or at least semi-weighted facimiles (of real piano keys) while it seems the keys of the GO:KEYS are probably much like Casio's CT-X line. These two products are attractive to certain people because of low cost. Low cost is where Casio plays. So, which Casio products are best positioned against them?

The FP-10 is Roland's latest product at the entry-level end of the home digital-piano market. (The new GO:PIANO88 may also fit that market but it is not as close to the PX-S1000 as the FP-10.) Compared to the PX-S1000 the FP-10 is larger, weighs more, is less attractive (subjective, but likely true for most people), has half the polyphony (although 96 is still more than adequate) and offers three less tones (15 Vs. 18). Street prices when they are released will likely be close. So my question is, why would customers choose the FP-10 over the PX-S1000? Some people undoubtedly will.

Good examples. The Korg Volca FM is indeed straight-up DX7 style FM and the Digitone (which I didn't know about) is 4-op FM with a nice little enhancement (additive harmonic control of waveforms). Korg, being a fellow Japanese company and unfailingly "polite" when it comes to using the technology of other companies, probably sought Yamaha's blessing. They may already have had that given their DS-8 in the 80's and MOD-7 in the Kronos more recently (although strictly speaking the latter is really just a software implementation, which is muddier waters). Elektron may be too small of a company for Yamaha to care about. Or maybe you are right and Yamaha is not today so lawyer-happy. But does that mean that a company like Behringer could come out with an in-your-face re-issue of a DX7 or even a DX9 without blowback? Maybe, maybe not. It could be that as long as Behringer doesn't use anything Yamaha has recently patented, Yamaha wouldn't legally be able to do anything about it. BTW, I don't share the Internet outrage I have heard over Behringer's re-issues of historic synths. If it's legal (which it has been so far, notwithstanding some cloned products Behringer did in the past) and if they think they can be successful at it, more power to them.

I would agree EXCEPT I doubt Roland or Yamaha would ever let them. No one can, effectively, do an LA re-issue without licensing the waveforms in the ROM. Many (although not all) of the most famous LA sounds depend on those specific waveforms. I doubt that Behringer would pay a license or that Roland would agree to license it to them. For FM in hardware (pure software is a different thing), the original patents have lapsed, but it seems likely Yamaha has newer ones that cover the technology given their recent re-introduction of mainstream FM in the Montage and MODX (and a little earlier in the Reface DX). Yamaha has traditionally been aggressively litigious concerning FM and I would expect similar vigor today. So IF Behringer ever does a classic digital-synth re-issue (a big if, I admit), the CZ line is probably the next best thing.

Something counter-productive to further development of synths happened at Casio some time after they released the PX-5S. That was the time for them to strike, while the iron was hot. They were never going to get a better chance for regaining a foothold in the pro synth/keyboard market than that. But it never happened. And now the field of low-cost synths is flooded. Unfortunate for Casio, good for us. Wrt Behringer, they are smoking hot right now. With both original products and re-issues, they seem to be working their way up through synth history. Could they be the company that finally provides what Roland seemingly won't: a re-issue of the ever-popular Jupiter 8? Some day they may even reach the early age of digital synths. Could a Behringer CZ synth appear? The patents on the tech lapsed long ago. I would buy one, I think (or maybe a keyboardless module, which Behringer has been producing too).

Okay then, "aftertouch" is a pun. Perhaps one day I will understand your unique sense of humor. Speaking of touch, did anyone here at CMF visit NAMM and actually touch something?

Either I don't understand your post or you may not truly understand what aftertouch is (which would surprise me). Of all the instruments you listed only the Kronos and Pa4X have aftertouch (channel aftertouch, to be precise).

I'm pretty sure the PX-560 and PX-860 implement damper noise and string resonance (as well as damper resonance), so it seems odd to attribute the source of these specific features to the higher-end Grand Hybrid series, unless those features are implemented better in the Grand Hybrid series and the S3000 uses those particular implementations. Is that the case?

Arghhh. Here we go again, with different Casio web sites in different regions and under different control - here, International (Asia) versus US site - containing different information. I had complained about this a while back and the situation has evidently not improved. It looks like the Asia site contains complete information for these two products and should be considered definitive.

Indeed, some of the specs for the PX-S3000 have now been corrected and that is one of them. But others have not (e.g., it stills says it has 18 built-in tones instead of 700). Brad, you are careful to make the distinction between MIDI recorder and simply "recorder" here. That does follow the respective specifications as they appear on Casio's web site now. The S3000 specifications state the maximum number of notes for the recorder, which of course implies MIDI (while not actually saying it is MIDI), whereas the S1000 specifications do not say that. However, the description in the main body of the text on the S1000 web page DOES actually reference a MIDI recorder: "Change instrument settings, control the MIDI recorder, and learn your favorite MIDI songs...)" The S3000's web page makes a similar statement, likewise not in the specifications section. So the S1000's two-track recorder is almost certainly a MIDI recorder and the fact that the S1000 specifications do not state the maximum number of notes that it can record is simply another error (or rather omission). Finally, with the MIDI recorder in the S3000 having only three tracks, this is not an exact replacement for, say, a PX-360, which is what I was saying earlier before that part of the specification was corrected. It's a sideways-grade rather than a pure upgrade, meaning that some things are better (in some cases MUCH better) and some things are not. That said, the things that are better are the really important things, like the built-in tones, the styles, assertedly the action and last, but in many people's opinion not the least, the industrial design (appearance). To get 16-track recorder functionality for those who absolutely need more than three tracks (and how many people will that be?) you can easily hook up an iPad. Casio knows their chosen market well.

Got it. The specs part of the page also doesn't mention the 200 "smart styles" that are referenced on the UK site's page: https://music.casio.co.uk/pxs3000. And probably lots of other features. Cross your fingers that the MIDI recorder has the old 16+1 tracks or at least the six tracks of the CDP-S350. BTW, here's a sign that Casio still can't get any respect from some people. Over on the Keyboard Corner someone remarked they thought the S1000 reminded them of the Williams Legato, adding "Maybe they outsourced the shell design or something." Really? They don't think Casio can even design their own case? Sad.

You'll have to speak more plainly for us country-bumpkin types, 'cause I have no idea what you mean. If that was a joke I don't get it.

Jokeyman123, the specs for the PX-S3000 are in this link, which was given before: https://www.casiomusicgear.com/products/privia-series/px-s3000 Re MIDI recorder, the specs say two tracks. This is in no way a PX-350, 360 or 560 in terms of workstation functionality. Except for the additional non-piano sounds this and its brother the S1000 is even more purely a digital piano. And what nice digital pianos they are. Very sleek for the home. I'm sure some pros will buy these for stage use too given the price and value. But if they had been designed primarily for stage use they would have had a somewhat different feature set.

This is not really a follow-up to my last comment but more of a response that pertains directly to the thread title. Based on feature set and technology the CDP-S350 could easily be considered an 88-key weighted-action outgrowth of the CT-X line. Point being, it is still primarily a home keyboard. I haven't seen any indications yet that Casio is ready to tackle the pro market that they seemed to be so aggressively courting back when they introduced the XW synths in 2012 and quickly followed up with the PX-5S. I am not a pro (heck, I am at best a peck-and-pray keyboardist) but pro keyboards are the ones I have always been interested in since I lusted after Minimoogs and Prophet 5's in my teenage years. Oh well.

There have been some seriously good compromise semi-weighted actions in the past that allow decent playing of both piano and non-piano tones. But most people who are buying a digital piano want a piano action. And most of the extra sounds in something like a CDP-S350 will be used for accompaniment.

Can't adjust layer volumes? So much for Casio listening to user complaints. Really, this ask was extremely low-hanging fruit. If Casio is wise they will get that capability ASAP into the next firmware update.

(In case you don't read the General Privia/Celviano Discussion forum where these links have already been posted.)

Nice project and lots of great information in this thread. Thanks Matt (and Brad). PS. I would be willing to bet that the SP-34 would connect and operate correctly with a PX-560 with just a passive cable adapter. Anyone want to buy one when they are released to find out? I don't have a need yet for three pedals or I would be tempted. It looks like the pedals are no longer than those on the SP-33 but at least it will sit on the floor properly. (Mind you, I do have my PX-560 on Casio's stand, so I could have already bought the SP-33.)

Actually, for a 76-key keyboard meant to play a variety of tones, not just piano, I would prefer a compromise action between a fully-weighted hammer action and an unweighted, so-called "synth" action. The gold standard in that direction is/was the 76-key "VPK" keyboard action used in the later Synclavier from NED. I believe this was the same action used in the Prophet T8. I have no personal tactile experience with that particular action but I have never heard anything but praise about it from people who have played it. Not going to happen, especially from Casio, but I can dream, right?

I wouldn't have agreed except that Mike Martin likes your post!

The XW-P1 comes in at about 8m30s. Assuming, of course, that this is real. There's a lot of fake stuff out there and you have to take a lot on faith.

Agree that the XW-P1 knobs are attached to potentiometers. That was never in doubt. But I will not believe that the three knobs on the PX-560 are also attached to potentiometers unless you show me a picture of them from behind in a disassembled unit. In fact you will have to provide part numbers. They feel and behave in all respects like encoders. Externally, encoders look superficially like potentiometers but they work on an entirely different principle. If you took one apart you would see they are very different internally. I have designed with both so I know the difference. But I am not about to take my PX-560 apart to confirm. PS. See this: https://www.keyboardforums.com/threads/px-560-have-endless-encoder-knobs.28726/ [Oh yes, happyrat (Gary) is in that thread and he gives the wrong answer.]

I heard they would have a booth and demo some products. Of course I'm joking. But really, Casio has never been loose-lipped about product intros. If they are introducing anything at the show they will leak some tantalizing ads online a couple of weeks before.