CairnsFella

Members
  • Content count

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

CairnsFella last won the day on February 17 2016

CairnsFella had the most liked content!

About CairnsFella

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Hi all, and thanks for the responses. I have to say that I didn't really expect or intend to generate a general "what we dont like about the XW" or "what we would have liked it to be", as I realise this had been covered much in the past. However, now I think about it, all these views were quite some time ago, so your posts are indeed the same as mine in that you are expressing your views on the keyboard from a kind of "long term test" perspective, rather than the "recent acquisition" angle of those older posts. Alen. As much as I agree that the XW would have indeed been a superior instrument if it had combined the features of both boards, and I am sure I would have loved the hex layers, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this would not have been the 'solution' to any problems that I have. For me, it isn't the lack of whole new features, but more the detail of the existing features that are the limitation. Of course I may be in the minority, and most others may feel your vision would have been ideal for them. I guess this is the problem for designers once you create a keyboard that does more than one thing. Each additional function may or may not add value for any given person, and each feature may or may not be as fully integrated and expanded as any given person may require. Some of the complexity that you refer to I feel is inherent in a deep keyboard such as this, but other parts are not. Anticipating the length of this post I wont give too specific an example, but what I am trying to say here is that yes, sure, people may get frustrated with certain parameter tweaks that really cant be done much better, but I feel I waste as much, if not more time, trying to work out things such as why my DSP settings were ok one minute, but then not ok after a save. If some (well all really) of these 'non creative quirks' (bugs?!?) had been resolved, there would be a lot less pain. The MZ would not be for me at all. Solo Synth and step sequencer were arguably what I purchased the XW for, so again it highlights how a multi-functional instrument can win and lose followers dependent upon the inclusions / omissions. In this case I dont think it would be unfair to say the MZ is a bit like a home keyboard on steroids.. which is great for it's target audience. Cannot agree with you enough though re: the lack of additional modulated filters. Not something I initially ran into so much, but this time around I am really feeling this limitation. This alone almost (not quite, but almost.... well maybe just when I am in a really bad mood) makes me classify the XW as the 'home keyboard' of synths (which I am sure some Casio detractors would argue is the natural order of things). I'll have to take your word on the CZ though. Not something I know much about beyond the love I read in these forums. I would be surprised if I hadnt encountered one in my youth, but probably did not know or appreciate what it was. Gnomo, The P1 was never on my radar, though as it has the solo synth and step sequencer, it really has the 'main' components I was seeking originally. Im sure I'd love to have them as an 'addition' but I felt the Hex Layers and Organ were more adequately represented in my existing setup than the extra features of the G1. Can see where you are coming from re: the need for additional sound sources. Of course, this always depends on what an individual is trying to achieve. Even the 3 synths you list may be overkill for some.... and inadequate for others. I lean towards your point of view, but this is just down to haw I approach things and "why", which I elaborate upon below. Addict. Your comment makes me feel I should give the sampler a little more love than I currently do. I really only used it once when I did the 'sequence' for the Depeche Mode track. I am sure it could help me get 'unstuck' in some situations.The problem has been that I have 2 other hardware samplers, plus the computer (though I dont really use the PC for sampling duties), and have found it easier to turn to those when required. A Little Background (This is probably a little dull, so it isnt really recommended reading - so STOP NOW - if you are already half asleep. I just include it to give context to some of my views and opinions.) Many years ago I used to come up with a few compositions. I have had a bit of recording gear in my time, but really never got much down. In recent years I have primarily been hanging with a jamming group (playing my bass guitar), but I wanted to get back to composition (trying to compose at least). Time, however, is at even more of a premium now though. So I decided something like a step sequencer would introduce a simplified approach of creating some beats to work with. And having a hardware version would be much more instantaneous to use. When I first purchased the G1 I wasnt even explicitly looking for a sound source. In fact, as I say, my BIG priority was the hardware step sequencer. Of course an included sound source was a bonus, and several of my candidates had this. I was looking at things from the beatstep and electribe, up to the Roland JD XI. When I learnt about the Casio it ended up a choice between that and the Roland. Even then I felt the Roland sounded better, but as I have other sound sources and sound was not my original priority, I decided the features list on the Casio (and the price) meant I went for the XW. So in terms of 'what I bought it for' I have to be fair and say the G1 has met, and in many respects, exceeded what I hoped it would do. Of course it is MUCH more than a step sequencer, but as a step sequencer alone it is very very good. However, my intentions and reality often end up rather different. Yes, I would jam along to simple sequences, but I didnt really find myself doing much composition. However I did start to enjoy the potential of the step sequencer which I explored when doing the aforementioned Depeche Mode track. Now bear in mind that, as a compositional tool, I had always intended to use other sound sources that I have available. After all the G1 was a home studio tool (according to my original plan). However, our jamming group has these occasional weekend events out in the country on one of the members properties, where he has a homemade covered stage in a natural amphitheater (it's really cool). And at these events (and some of our usual jams to be fair) people often do songs (covers and originals) in addition to the jam sessions. I took my G1 to one of these and the Depeche Mode track went down really well (mainly because of the age group and people could sing along, more than my contribution I think). Of course though, this made me think I should put together a few more so I had something different for next time. This first track was done entirely on the G1 as part of my learning the step sequencer, but of course if I did another I would still need to use just the G1 as I did not want to be lugging any other modules/keyboards/samplers etc around (I already had camp gear, guitars, amps. mics PA etc). But when I started to try other tracks I began to find there just wasnt enough 'synth' there for my needs. I think I just lucked out on the first track with the sounds available. And it was hitting these hurdles that mad me lose touch a bit with the G1. As I got back into it more recently having decided I probably wasnt trying hard enough I find I am hitting the same hurdles. As mentioned by Alen, the sampler is probably something that could help a lot here. Whilst I 'should' use the sampler more, I rather feel this way about it. If I were doing my own compositions I would have no problem using the sampler as even if I were "stealing" sounds, I would be using them in my own way, in my own arrangement etc. However, in doing these 'covers' if I were to use samples I would feel I may as well record a backing track. I am not suggesting arranging covers is a skill per se, but I only really enjoy doing it if there is some form of challenge, and trying to get the sounds right(ish) myself is part of the enjoyment for me (and clearly a source of frustration too). Still, that's just me I suppose. So I cannot emphasize enough, in terms of what I purchased the G1 for, it has excelled. It is just that it teased and tempted me with some additional potential that, so far, it hasnt 'quite' fulfilled. Not entirely fair of course. I clearly understand that. But one cannot help how one feels.
  2. But in the tone menu I cannot easily increment the tones such that they are reflected by the step sequencer whilst it is playing. No matter. I have been using the phrase sequencer to audition the tones (where I can also edit as I scroll through). Not ideal, but it works OK. Appreciate the response though. Thanks.
  3. This question arises from some dabbling I was doing last night. It is possible I am missing something obvious, but I would rather obtain a solution and be considered a tad daft - or if not a solution at least an answer, even if it doesn't solve my problem - than protect my ego and remain ignorant. Quite simply, whilst using the step sequencer with a sequence running, I was scrolling through various PCM presets in the mixer, in search of something that approaches a tone that I am after. However, although the editable parameters are minimal - a point I expand upon in another recent post - I am wanting to make some edits on the fly in order to get closer to the tone I want. Obviously, one way or another, I am able to do both processes: explicitly, 1. scroll through the presets, and 2. edit parameters. However, I cannot seem to do this in an efficient way. Unless I am much mistaken, whilst in the mixer, where I am able to easily scroll through the presets whilst the step sequence is running, the control knobs do not seem to be effecting the tone selected. I do not want to be going into and out of menus to achieve what I want to, as it is a lengthy enough process as it is. Is it possible I have something wrongly configured i.e. should I be able to tweak the PCM Melody tone parameters using the knobs whilst in the mixer with the step sequencer is playing the tone. Or, is there a different place/page that I could/should be using where I can do both of these things in the same place. Any pointers appreciated. I should note that I CAN achieve pretty much what I want by playing the part in the phrase sequencer. However, I would obviously prefer to remain within the area that I am actually working. If it comes to it though, I can live with doing it this way.
  4. Hi all. Whilst I am having an active period on the forum (though to restate what I have already written elsewhere, I have always popped by to read new posts, but have not been actively contributing), I thought I would share some current thoughts on coming back to the G1. To be fair, I have been using the keyboard throughout, but for some time I have only been grabbing the occasional preset, or laying down a simple drum sequence to jam with (on my bass). Only recently have I begun to get back into the 'deep end'. It's fair to say that I have already forgotten a lot of the limited amount I had previously known. Some of it is coming back quite quickly, other aspects are stumping me, even though they are things that I am sure I had a handle on before. On the whole I would have to say that I remain quite impressed with what the G1 is capable of. It really doesn't need re-stating - though clearly I am going to - but if one uses the various 'features' of the G1 (Step Sequencer, Phrase Sequencer, Multifunction Keys, Arpeggiator, Sampler, and Sample Looper) then even without bringing the 'keyboard' into the equation, it has a massive amount going for it for what it cost (and I know many of you paid a lot less than I did). In fact if there were no on-board tones other than the sample based features, and otherwise drove external sound sources, it would still be a great piece of kit for the price. As I say though, this is if you 'use' those features (which in my own humble opinion, is largely the point of this piece of gear). However, ..... (And I really need to emphasise, the following is a personal point of view, not a professional opinion, nor a stance I am suggesting anyone else adopt). ...... Aside from the solo synth, I have become a little less enamoured by the fundamental 'tone/synth' aspect of the G1 (I realise it is a bit pointless excluding the solo synth from my synth considerations, as this really IS the synth part.. but to some extent this is my point). I am unsure why I didn't come up against this the first time around. Maybe it's because I 'knew' what the basic capabilities of the machine were, so could not justifiably feel disappointed by things which were never promised to be there. It seems I am a little less forgiving nowadays (though no more justified). Now there is a caveat here. And that is - as intimated above - I am very rusty on the details of the G1, and as such I may be missing something. However, on the PCM melody side of things, there may be a significant number of presets available, but whereas I recall feeling that a good percentage are pretty good sounds, I now feel that there are fewer that I would pick over an alternate sound source. It is not helped by the fact that the parameters you can modify for this side of things seems much more limited than I remember. Yes, you can get a certain degree of variation here, but it doesn't really pass for 'synthesis' by my definition (I realise the world is not defined by MY definitions, but of course, my needs are). So, whilst the G1 isnt a 'workstation' per se, it does somewhat fulfil that purpose for dance (and similar, and indeed other) styles, given the tracks available on the step sequencer. But I now feel a little constrained when working on the G1 alone, as the solo synth part is really my only creative outlet when composing sequences, and for the other tones I feel I have to 'make do'. For me then, really good bespoke 'polyphonic synth' tones are not a highlight here. I know half of this post is caveats, but I do not want to be seen as ignoring the obvious, so yes, I can use external sound sources (and do) and yes I can use samples (and do - though to a lesser extent, as I have other, easier to set up, sampler options), but this is more about what "I" am finding to be a limitation, rather than how I can work around it. This is compounded by - what I feel - is a limited effects section. Again, these are okay when working on one sound. But when composing a sequence with multiple tracks, they soon become a constraint. On a more positive note, I haven't yet felt quite so limited by the available drum presets. In fairness, I only passed over the Solo Synth above, and I continue to find this to be a much much more satisfactory part of the sound engine. Not perfect though (in fact far from it in many ways), but as stated many times it is very deep (and this isn't meant to be a five year too late review, but just trying to give credit where credit is due). Then again, I am finding that I need to 'work' to get a good sound. I don't recall it being quite so much effort and am finding that it is very easy to create pretty poor sounds here as well. I think perhaps I was originally entertained/amused by a lot of the 'oddness' I could create, even though a lot of that was not really usable. So unless 'weird for weird's sake' is the goal, rather more thought is required here than I was anticipating upon coming back to the G1. By comparison, I fired up a couple of soft synths the other day (not something I use very often) and random tweaking generally produced some pretty powerful and usable sounds. Anyway, this isn't meant to be a downer on the G1. In fact to be fair, if read as intended, I believe I am being far more positive here than negative, it is just that I have 'expanded' upon my areas of disappointment now that I have come back to the unit. When all is said and done, whilst I like to dabble in composition, the number of tracks that I have produced that I would be happy to share could be counted on no hands, so these issues are hardly responsible for holding up my million selling track. Equally, for the stuff that I do produce for my own consumption, it isn't exactly a problem to use interim tones on the G1. If I really do want to refine something, I use other equipment later. It would just have been nice (v nice) to feel I can do it all in one place). Nonetheless, my voyage of re-discovery continues, and I am sure that it will be, in the main, an enjoyable journey.
  5. I guess this is about all that is left for me to add here (unless anyone suggests anything else). In this example, I specifically chose a tone that 1. wasnt too fussy, and 2. was one of the ones that worked reasonably well (exhibited less problems) by default even with the onboard knob. Whilst choosing this does not emphasise the problem with the onboard knob, I believe it does show that even where the G1's own controller works reasonably well**, there remains clear improvements - other than the exception I highlight - with the external controllers. In this .wav file I use knob 1, External CC's, External Sysex, and External NRPN's in turn. For each I performed a couple of slow sweeps, followed by faster sweeps. Knob 1. As I stated above, this is certainly not the worst case of stepping that I could establish, but steps remain evident in both the fast and slow sweeps. (Note:- the first BIG glitch is merely the filter jumping to the knob's position which was not in sync with the parameter setting having previously used an external control). External CC's In my opinion there are no 'obviously evident' steps in the fast or slow sweeps. Perhaps a detailed analysis of the waveform 'may' reveal something, however to all intents and purposes I feel this is artefact free. The consideration here (slightly irrelevant in this context) is that it is a relative control. External Sysex Similar (if not identical) to the external CC's in the slow sweep, but the speed of the fast sweeps here really show up that 'catch up' artefact (for want of a better term). What I didnt show it here, as obvious as the problem is, it disappears 'fairly' quickly i.e. at roughly half the speed of those fast sweeps. so not unusable, but then again why use this if there are better alternatives. External NRPN's I cant tell any difference between this and the External CC's example (in terms of artefact's). Again, not pertinent but this is an absolute setting, which differentiates it from the CC's. So there you have it. IF, at the end of the day, one feels that the issues on tones such as these - where it is less prominent - are too small to be of concern, then that's great. Especially if all the tones you use are impacted as little. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to worry about something that they otherwise would not have been bothered by. At the other end of the spectrum. If one feels that there are still artefacts within NRPN and CC externally controlled sweeps, once again, I am not trying to convince anyone that they shouldn't feel this way. I am merely reporting as I find. Happily for me, I sit in the middle. In other words, I DO have a problem with the artefacts, even in less apparent tones such as these, but I am personally convinced that the external CC and NRPN controls all but eliminate the problem for the purposes of practical use. ** Note: - Whilst I intimate that the XW Controller (knob 1) performs differently on different tones, this was merely language of convenience. I do not believe that the knob performs any differently on any of the tones, nor do I believe that any tones are effected any less or more by the problem. What I am suggesting is that the issue is more audibly evident on some tones than others.. Filter example.wav
  6. I must confess that I am reading the thread without downloading the example. But I dont have a foot pedal.
  7. Not entirely sure where to start. The beginning I guess. How to keep this short (edit.. I didnt), yet still cover the ground. Hmm. Okay. Yes I know what stepping is BUT your point raises a valid consideration, and to that end I perhaps should have stated "artifacts including stepping" throughout. Whilst the focus has been stepping, the "important note" probably did encompass a combination of these issues. That is say that the harmonic spikes are without doubt the noticeable element in play here, however the nature of the filter sweep means that these harmonics - or more specifically, the frequencies in which these harmonics reside - may well be coming in and out more harshly than they would with a finer resolution sweep. I am not about to get an oscilloscope on to this so I guess we will have to maintain our own opinions as to the reality of the situation here. But if we were to focus on stepping such that I exclude anomalies that may be mostly / entirely harmonic spikes, this would merely solidify my findings that external controls do not exhibit stepping. Whilst pertinent to the testing though, my primary point is that, regardless of the use of the term stepping or not, filter sweeps are exponentially better using an external controller via CC's or NRPN's. I hope I have not appeared to suggest otherwise, but I have read much of what has gone before on this subject, including the use of modulation sources. You are obviously not alone though, re stepping via 'knob 1' and indeed it is this widespread acknowledgement of that issue that prompted my investigation with the use of my external controller. The point being that, should you have a controller available, it works much much (dare I add another much) better than using knob 1. The modulation sources were not in the scope of my post as they cannot truly replace this control, though they are useful to demonstrate what the filter (cutoff) may be capable of. This really had me scratching my head. I am going to have to disagree with the middle part of your statement, though it is sufficiently subjective it is perhaps not something that someone could legitimately disagree with. It really depends upon what YOU think that the MANY think. Certainly in my own view it is definitely as bad as "I" think. As for ways around it.?? My initial thought here was to suggest... "hey, maybe I'll do some testing to find out if there is".... then to re-post my first three posts. Clearly I am not going to do that, but it doesn't sound as though you are convinced (and I'm not going to try to change your mind) of the significant difference when external CC or NRPN's are used. If one has access to a suitable controller, I cant think of a better 'way around it' than this. I am unsure you need to backtrack on any of your theories from my findings as I am equally unsure they 'prove' what is going on inside the XW (Edit. Perhaps I have misinterpreted this. I am now thinking that you initially believed that as a result of my testing the XW may be providing additional smoothing when being addressed by the BCR to - in effect - give a result emulating a finer resolution than 0-127. Whereas you now feel I am experiencing a conventional 0-127, in which case I understand you decision to rescind) though I do think the tests demonstrate quite clearly what you can expect out of it when using the different approaches I used. As for still hearing some stepping (and I am going to exclude the extreme resonance examples in light of Brett's comments), it would be difficult for me to suggest the sweep becomes as smooth as butter / silk / (insert your preferred smooth thing) though I remain of the opinion that it becomes smooth 'enough' (subjectivity again). By this I mean if the filter performed this way by default, and I did not read any comments to the contrary, I may not notice any particular deficiency. None of this, though, contests your assertion that the filter has peculiarities. I actually did a blind test with my wife (who is not in any way musical or technical) yet she could identify which of the three sweeps I was using with ease. As she should really, as the differences are indeed obvious. You may well be right about the sysex. If I think about it, when I am turning the knob (slowly or rapidly) I am likely decelerating ever so slightly at the extremities, hence the slight artifact at those extremes. Just a thought, not a theory. Given I am able to monitor what is being sent by the BCR though, I would be less convinced that the bandwidth would be an issue. Sorry for you. But also sorry we lost some of your excellent insight. I am often paranoid about this and often I will copy the contents of a post as I go along (and especially before submission) in case it g I had seen this in the past, but I had not worked through it. Whilst the primary issues I raise in this thread concern the improvement found when using an external controller, and not what additional things can be done to further the improvement, I will still try this out at a later date. Edit (Sorry, that may sound like I did not think it relevant. Not at all. And of course it was a direct response to Brett's comments.)
  8. I didnt mate, sorry. I barely even got back to it again myself, but I'll dig them out. I hope that I havent buggered up any of the files / parameters. I had little idea of what my impact what back then (not much more idea now to be honest). I still feel it could be much better, but it a basis for you to work from I guess.
  9. Alen, Didn't click from the other post that you had a BCR. Interested to know how you ended up using it with the XW. Did you use CC's, NRPN's OR Sysex? At the moment I am researching how I might retrieve current settings from the XW, as if this is possible, it will potentially influence which way I go (Though I think you might guess from my other post that Sysex is the least likely route.. One advantage of CC's is that it would be possible (dependant upon the parameters selected) to maintain one preset whilst still have some flexibility to re-assign some destinations on the XW itself. As for the CC's being relative, I am unsure as yet if that is an advantage or not. If I were a performer, I think this would be more practical, as there would not really be any nasty surprises. As I am not a performer though, the ability to use the full parameter range appeals. Given my 'home based' flexibility, any time I tweak a parameter that 'jumps' I can just start again, knowing next time which parameters to prime. Of course, this is moot if I can retrieve the current settings. I do understand that you can 'send' a snapshot of parameters to the XW (in theory at least), but this opens up more confusion than it resolves. Again, for a performer, this could be even better, as you could ensure you are set up where you want to be. However, with if multiple potential keyboard patches required, I think it could get very complicated very quickly. My other decision at this stage (which I formulated whilst setting up my rack sampler with the BCR) is that I will assign parameters on an 'as needed' basis, rather than try to predict which ones I will need. Especially as once a few settings are in there, it is easy using available editing software, to copy these and make the little tweaks required.
  10. OK. Just to add to the point about how the XW may be 'sampling' the midi data for controllers. At this stage I should 'confess' to a variation between the tests that I hadnt really considered. On the XW, the knobs turn approximately 270 degrees for min to max values. On the default settings, my external controller turns about 450 degrees. In other words, at a like for like speed, the onboard knobs are changing values - v v v roughly - twice as fast. However, when I did the original tests I partially took this into account, albeit a little subconsciously - because the controller displays the value being sent, and to that end I was always trying to go from min to max at the same rate. Nonetheless, given my greater awareness of this today, I redid the tests with the controller set up to a similar (if not slightly faster) resolution to the XW. The results were the same, even though I could see via midi-ox that perhaps a few more values were being skipped. This lead me to a 'possibly final' test. Given that I can see the values on Midi-ox from my controller, and in Performance mode, I can see - what I assume - are the values being used by the XW when turning the onboard knob, I recorded the values returned by both when being turned as fast as possible (with the external controller on the revised fast setting). So the XW :- TIMESTAMP IN PORT STATUS DATA1 DATA2 CHAN NOTE EVENT 001B6A28 6 -- B0 4A 03 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A29 6 -- B1 4A 03 2 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A2A 6 -- B2 4A 03 3 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A47 6 -- B0 4A 31 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A49 6 -- B1 4A 31 2 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A4A 6 -- B2 4A 31 3 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A67 6 -- B0 4A 56 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A68 6 -- B1 4A 56 2 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A69 6 -- B2 4A 56 3 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A87 6 -- B0 4A 7F 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A88 6 -- B1 4A 7F 2 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A8A 6 -- B2 4A 7F 3 --- CC: Brightness And the External Controller :- TIMESTAMP IN PORT STATUS DATA1 DATA2 CHAN NOTE EVENT 001F384B 7 -- B0 4A 01 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F385A 7 -- B0 4A 03 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3866 7 -- B0 4A 04 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F386C 7 -- B0 4A 06 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3875 7 -- B0 4A 08 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F387A 7 -- B0 4A 0B 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F387D 7 -- B0 4A 0D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3880 7 -- B0 4A 0E 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3883 7 -- B0 4A 10 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3886 7 -- B0 4A 13 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F388A 7 -- B0 4A 15 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3890 7 -- B0 4A 1A 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3893 7 -- B0 4A 1C 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3896 7 -- B0 4A 1D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F389C 7 -- B0 4A 1F 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F389F 7 -- B0 4A 21 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38A3 7 -- B0 4A 22 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38A6 7 -- B0 4A 27 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38A9 7 -- B0 4A 2B 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38AC 7 -- B0 4A 2E 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38B0 7 -- B0 4A 31 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38B3 7 -- B0 4A 35 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38B7 7 -- B0 4A 38 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38BA 7 -- B0 4A 39 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38BE 7 -- B0 4A 3D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38C0 7 -- B0 4A 40 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38C3 7 -- B0 4A 42 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38C6 7 -- B0 4A 45 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38C9 7 -- B0 4A 47 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38CD 7 -- B0 4A 48 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38CF 7 -- B0 4A 4C 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38D2 7 -- B0 4A 4D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38D5 7 -- B0 4A 4F 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38D8 7 -- B0 4A 51 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38DC 7 -- B0 4A 54 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38DE 7 -- B0 4A 56 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38E2 7 -- B0 4A 57 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38E5 7 -- B0 4A 5B 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38E8 7 -- B0 4A 5C 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38EB 7 -- B0 4A 60 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38EE 7 -- B0 4A 61 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38F1 7 -- B0 4A 63 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38F4 7 -- B0 4A 65 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38F7 7 -- B0 4A 68 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38FA 7 -- B0 4A 6A 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F38FD 7 -- B0 4A 6D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3900 7 -- B0 4A 6E 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3904 7 -- B0 4A 73 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3908 7 -- B0 4A 77 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F390B 7 -- B0 4A 7C 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F390F 7 -- B0 4A 7D 1 --- CC: Brightness 001F3912 7 -- B0 4A 7F 1 --- CC: Brightness Quite a difference already (though still surprising how many values the external controller is skipping, let alone the XW). But hang on. The XW is showing the results for three channels.. so the real comparison is the above external controller results, and the following XW results edited for direct comparison :- TIMESTAMP IN PORT STATUS DATA1 DATA2 CHAN NOTE EVENT 001B6A28 6 -- B0 4A 03 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A47 6 -- B0 4A 31 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A67 6 -- B0 4A 56 1 --- CC: Brightness 001B6A87 6 -- B0 4A 7F 1 --- CC: Brightness It "MAY" be possible to turn the external controller knob a little faster, but it has more resistance than the XW, so in practical terms it would be easier to reproduce the XW results with little effort, whereas I took the 'fastest' of multiple attempts on the controller. I even moved the knob I was using to an endmost right hand side knob so I could have the easiest access to it. But even with a massive allowance for variables it is clear that the onboard controller is issuing vastly fewer parameters (In actual fact, there are 'timestamps' included, if anyone were so inclined to process these). This, then could !....... should ? explain the problem. But wait. I then 'listened' to the results. The test was pretty pointless sonically, as the end result in both cases was an instant open / shut filter. Okay, there is some usefulness in seeing the 'potential' for skipped values, but finally finally I thought I should turn the knobs at the fastest speed that still demonstrates stepping, then try to approximate this speed with the external controller. To some extent you are lumbered with 'taking my word for it here' though I realise that this isnt really good enough. The problem is reproducing a similar enough speed, covering a similar enough range. At this point I do not feel I have produced results similar enough (in terms of speed and range covered) to provide any documented support of my findings. However, using my ears, and knowing that in practical terms I was covering speeds and ranges on both that would have certainly overlapped on a number of occasions, it is may view that there is STILL more going on, than merely the midi values supplied. I mean it still "could" be that. Probably is the more I think about it, as at these speeds the external controller isnt skipping many values at all. But I do find it odd that at speeds upwards from where I am starting to skip values an on the external controller there remains no stepping, but speeds low enough to skip very few values on the onboard controller, obvious stepping remains. IMPORTANT NOTE One last point that perhaps I should probably go back and add to the prior posts for completeness is this. During these final tests I used some extreme resonance settings (112 upwards, where 127 is max), which did actually clearly step with the external controller when changing the values very very slowly. With faster movements the stepping was reduced or eradicated, whilst it remained and was more intense with the onboard controller. This does rather temper all of my existing findings, though at this stage my original views essentially remain intact because the actual sounds being produced were not, in my opinion, musical to start off with. In other words I believe that the vast majority of people would be using the filter within the ranges that would reflect my initial findings.
  11. Hi Alen, Appreciate you taking a little interest in this. I rather wish I had stumbled upon this a long time ago, given how the stepping filter issue was such a hot potato in it's day. Obviously using an external controller does not really nullify the original criticism, but I do feel it does show some greater potential (or perhaps less limitation of potential) than originally reported. And lets be honest, the XW was so cheap, that even if you did factor in the cost of an additional controller - that obviously be used for many many more things - you are still in the realms of budget synthesis. Anyway, back to the testing. So I have tried with the controller mapped to CC#74 (and for the sake of due diligence, mapped to an alternate CC, in turn mapped to cutoff via the virtual controllers.. though the results were the same). Just to Recap then. Onboard knob (Knob 1) - Stepping, as widely reported External Sysex Control - Much reduced stepping in general, but singular large, slightly less than instant, step with fast movements. External NRPN Control - To all intents and purposes, no stepping at all. And External CC Control - (Drum roll) .....................Well blow me if there is once again, NO stepping (looks like we both backed the wrong pony on that one). I am honestly flabbergasted that this hasn't been reported before (or if it has, that there has not been more reference to it in the past). Of course, as you intimated, externally controlled CC's do result in a relative change, not absolute, although I obviously took this into account, setting the cutoff centrally before testing the CC control. So why the hell does the XW's own controller produce the worst results of all. I cant fathom it. (And I did also conduct the rather pointless test of reassigning the knob to an alternate CC to control cutoff, but it was just the same). Your theory seems quite plausible (I dont have one of my own) that the knobs position is not being registered literally (i.e. the values are being intermittently sampled). Really though, if this were the problem you'd have to think this could easily have been fixed...... wouldn't you. It's really madness, and especially so when , as you noted, the mod wheel also produces smother filter sweeps. (Edit. I have added another post below, just to add a little more to this point). Actually on that note, I used your term "smoother" re: the mod wheel, but in actual fact, to be consistent with my other findings, I would say this was the same as my external CC and NRPN sweeps. In other words I am calling this smooth. This isn't to be picking up on your grammar, but more to understand what you mean. "Smoother" could imply 'more smooth' than before, but still with scope for improvement. Your experience is likely greater than mine, so if this is your view it probably would be a more appropriate one for others to take on board, and if this is the case then my NRPN and external CC results should be interpreted the same way. I would like to try to 'justify' my own view though if that is ok. In many respects I feel the XW's filter is quite 'rough' in nature. Certainly more obviously digital than many in a lot of applications (though this may be as much or more a function of the sound sources as the filter itself). Equally, it is able to be driven more extremely than quite a few other instruments allow. With only 127 resolution (though accepting 'smoothing' can still come into play within this limitation) I dont really feel the results from the Mod Wheel, External CC or External NRPN exhibit any real "stepping" as would be reasonable discernible within a complete piece of music. At least for purposes then, 'smooth'. BUT, had this been the default state of the filter when originally reviewed, I would have still felt comments such as "the filter isn't the smoothest" would have been reasonably fair, though I honestly dont feel it would have been highlighted in this event. Without any doubt though, the comments in some forums that I have read that classified the filter as 'laughable' would not have existed. Not much more I can add. I am a little reluctant to extend the testing as I too easily find 'technical interests' detract from any musical pursuits, and I am sure enough other anomalies will arise that pique my curiosity. Though given that I only tried a few sound sources, i cant help but wonder if a greater selection may have started to show up some glitches in my NRPN and External CC results. (To be fair, I did choose the default presets that appeared to perform the worst with the onboard controller). My offer remains if you do want me to record the results, though given your experience with the mod wheel, the only peculiarity you may not have experienced is the odd 'jump' with fast SYSEX sweeps. (Actually today I found that with v fast sysex sweeps, the note would cut completely. This may be an issue with my midi setup though, with a possible feedback loop). On the other points you raise, I am once again quite surprised.. Especially the comment re: massive slowdown. I am somewhat curious how this may translate when hooked together with another Midi device (Something which I plan to do with my G1 and Roland MV at some point in the future). Still, I dont suppose there is much to gain by my trying to reproduce the issue now. Perhaps it's best I just thank you for the heads up on that one, so I can be aware of why this may be occurring in the event I encounter it. Sometimes I wish they could just get a technician on a slow day, and get them to spend half a day reading the forum, and half giving us some frank facts that close off these points once and for all (good or bad). Yes.. I still dream of the impossible EDIT - SEE IMPORTANT NOTE IN POST 4
  12. Hi all. Long time since I last contributed here (though I do pop by for a read now and then.. where sadly, I see, it is much quieter nowadays). I have mainly been absent because my musical efforts have been focused on my bass playing, but I continue to dabble with the G1 and other bits and pieces. But anyway, to the subject at hand. I do, of course, realise this has been done to death in the past, so I apologise if this has been covered before, but from my searches I cannot see my observations being explicitly confirmed. Basically, I recently obtained a Behringer BCR2000 midi controller. I purchased this primarily to revive an old Yamaha sampler with the traditionally failed front panel encoders, though I have also been integrating it with my DAW and other midi instruments. Enter the G1. With the help of the user manual, midi implementation guide, Allenk's excellent (p1) companion, and other posts here and elsewhere I set about trying to understand the Midi machinations of the G1 - which it would be fair to say I am still trying to fully grasp. However, as part of the initial stages I was trying to get my head around the seemingly multiple ways of controlling the same parameters. Simply because it was the first parameter that presented itself, I was using filter cutoff as my guinea pig parameter. It had been reported elsewhere that using a modulator to control the cutoff potentially eliminated the much maligned stepping, and I had read comment that an external controller 'may' help, though I do not recall reading that this was confirmed. Well...... I guess the first point is that I have only just realised that I did not try the controller mapped to the filter "control change" (CC) I am not at home at the moment so I cant try this for a few hours. I have my suspicions that this will produce the same results as the on board controller, but I suppose its pointless guessing when I can check for sure later. It is also possible to control the cutoff, not only with sysex, but also with NRPN's. (The former I learnt a little about whilst setting up my sampler, the latter is new to me (beyond the acronym). Sorry, it has taken a while to get to this part, but it - for me - is the interesting bit. Using Sysex, the stepping usually noted with on board controller is massively reduced. I would throw a figure of around 90% less artefacts. Of course, even a 90% reduction means that it still cannot be called smooth. I probably need to do some more tests, but I actually felt there was an almost 'new' artefact with unnecessarily HUGE filter movements, like almost one big step, albeit not quite instant. Anyway, this latter part is rather subjective at this point and should rechecked. The reduction in the original stepping though, is blatant and clear. As for NRPN's. Well for some reason that I cannot get my head around - although my limited understanding of much beyond basic midi may be reason enough - produces another distinctly different result. A filter sweep with NRPN's is ..... very very very nearly ... artefact free. At least in my limited tests so far. Yes, things can still get messy with the G1's resonance screaming, but with reasonable settings, and even with pretty fast sweeps, there really isnt any stepping. I tried this with a number of solo synth settings. The Sysex and NRPN settings on the Behringer and the G1's own control are obviously all available at the same time, so could make immediate and completely equal comparisons. There really is no question. Three different control methods for the same parameter, three DIFFERENT results. Bizarre..no? In one of the posts I have read in the past, it was suggested that a controller may have access to finer adjustments (i.e. a greater range than 0-127). If this were the case it would explain the CC/Sysex/NRPN variations. But no. They are all operating over the same range. Even if this is an unreported finding, I guess I am preaching to the few nowadays, but if you are reading, and have a controller that you can assign NRPN's to. Please try it. If anyone is interested, I could record an audio clip to demonstrate the differences too I guess, but I'l hold off on that unless it is requested. However I will report back with the CC's controlled via the BCR later for completeness. Till Then. EDIT - SEE IMPORTANT NOTE IN POST 4
  13. Giovanni. Do you mean the downloads section? If so then it seems an interesting point, as I do not - so far - appear to be able to access and filter this section using "my activity streams". However, assuming I 'am' referring to the same section, whilst the "main page" for downloads is not sortable, once you go into the more specific sections (e.g. Downloads > Community Created Files > Privia PX-5S > Acoustic Pianos and Piano Layers) , then the files can be sorted by date.
  14. Makes sense of course if you do not want the 88 keys, I couldn't agree more. My point was that this was ignored in your MX / PX price comparison, as you only mentioned the comparative lack of features. If, like yourself, a potential purchaser did not want the extra keys or the semi weighted keys, then your right, the MX seems like a much better deal in theory. It comes down to a lot more than that in practice though. If you wanted the pads, for example, then the PX obviously wouldn't even be an option (in fact the more I think about it, the less I would be inclined even to compare the two at all..... not that you shouldn't, I just dont think I would).
  15. I thought I would reiterate a point that Happyrat raised that I believe was in the deleted thread, given the possibility that he will not be raising it again himself. There are several 'subforums' entitled General Discussion. Whilst it is clear which "area" each of these refers to when accessing the forums via the primary menu, it is not obvious at all when looking at the Activity filters ("All Activity" OR "My Activity"). In these cases all one sees is read / unread topics (dependant upon the filter) listed as "General Discussion". It would obviously be more efficient to be able to identify these within the list / filtered list so that one can establish which are of interest. I acknowledge that by opening each read/unread article, one can establish its area of concern, or one could further filter the "My Activity Stream" to only include those areas of interest (although in the latter case, if you have more than one area of interest you will still not be specifically sure which "General Discussion" area is showing in your filtered list). Sometimes it is also evident because of the thread title, but this is more luck than design. The easiest solution would be that proposed by Happyrat, which would be to make minor amendments to the "subforum" titles e.g. "CTK / WK / LK General Discussion", "XW General Discussion" etc. I include an example of the issue to which I refer with a pertinent post, and the 'ambiguous in this context' subforum name highlighted in green.