CairnsFella

Oildrops. Rediscovering my G1 in recent times and stumbled across your post. I can try to give a few responses (number 7 was really the one I had any insight into as I had recently looked this up myself, but I think I have one other explicit answer, and with clarification I may be able to assist further on some others.). I am in a bit of a hurry, so apologies if any have already been answered or for a any references to external sources rather than explicit responses. 1. Doing what you describe does not stop the Arp on zone 2 on my G1. A possible difference in functionality, but perhaps I am missing something in the description of the issue (can someone else with a G1 confirm they have the same result as Oildrops). I would ask, however (and I realise this MAY sound a bit daft to ask, but I am assuming that you "need" more patterns than the 8 assigned to the pattern pads, or are you changing patterns in the way described just as a preference? 2. Can you expand on this. I understand what you are saying you need to do, but not really sure what "isn't" happening if you do not do the process described. For example, is either the solo synth being played from the keys, or the sequencer track assigned to the solo synth not sounding if you do not do the steps you describe? 3. I believe from my quick scan that this was answered. 5 (What happened top 4?) When in "Step Edit" the + and - moves the focus up and down each step for individual step editing. Step + and - is also used for changing parameters in various editing modes. 7. (No 6 either?) I'd be surprised if this wasn't in the P1 manual (but I guess it is possible the two devices operate differently in this regard) but IF not in the P1 manual, have a look at the G1 manual to see if the note assignment of the sliders is the same, as it is clearly described in there. 8. No Hex here on the G1, so I have no insight to offer, sorry.

Alen, This is a very very minor point (you may not care given that the companion is a P1 centric document, and given where we are in time) but in reference to the following point: I have to say - as a G1 owner - I do not seem to have this limitation (unless I am misunderstanding what the limitation is. This is to say that if I play a step sequence i can open the mixer and continue to hear all playing parts, including any parts being played live - whilst adjusting the likes of pan, volume, tune etc. The only caveat I would state (which is really not related to this specific point, but the points that lead on from here in your companion) is that when soloing a part, any 'held' notes are cut. However any notes played before or after soloing are heard (provided of course that it is the part being solo'd). I apologise if I have got the wrong end of the stick here. Equally I was going to PM this point - as I don't wish to seem critical, I just wanted to advise of my observation - but I do not seem to be able to find any messaging mechanism on the forum. EDIT: I see that the 'caveat' I note is mentioned as being the case in the P1 also, so simply put then my G1 performs as per the P1 in your guide with regard to this function without the noted 'bug'.

Hey Jokeyman, thanks for the response. Was not expecting one, but grateful that you have posted, particularly as it made me realise I had gone off in a direction with my original post that I had not really intended - though to be fair I did not really a have direction in mind when I started. I tend to agree with the vast majority of your comments, and where I am less aligned it may just be down to interpretation (not that we have to agree as it is all just opinion after all, and I love a good debate). Interesting that you mention the MPC5000 as I own an MV8000 (essentially Roland's MPC5000) so I am very familiar with the capabilities of this type of unit. It was also interesting that you mention Auto-arranger keyboards. This is a product area that has never really featured on my radar, but I can appreciate the XW's 'slight' overlap into that arena. I would be tempted to say the same about my position on workstations, but there certainly have been workstations that I would love to own, though more for their synth capabilities than anything. Even though my MV does operate in a similar way I have never been a fan of keyboard sequencers that look like cut down DAW's and are invariably 10 times harder to operate. Of course not everyone's position will be as black and white as mine - if anyone's - but I prefer my hardware to have more "instant gratification" in sequencer and performance controls, and to leave the nitty gritty to my computer. Indeed I have on old WSA1 (I suppose I cant deny this being a workstation given the devices very name) and this has a sequencer that is far more capable of full song composition than the XW, but despite owning the WSA for several times as long, I have used it's sequencing functions a fraction of the time I have used what the XW offers. If I recall correctly I probably only used it to learn how it worked when I bought it, and never again since. So yes, I agree that the dance/beat box functions of the XW's are (very) strong, but I also maintain my view that this is where the presentation of the XW lets it down (primarily, though not exclusively from a sales perspective). It looks like a keyboard first and foremost, where a half decent keybed and good sounds would be the priority, yet these are it's weakest areas. Then you have the actual 'functionality' for beat creation which is is really great but despite having knobs, buttons and sliders, they are physically not the types of knobs, buttons and sliders that scream "grab me and tweak". I know many comment that the quality of these items are acceptable, or adequate for the price. I am not even going to suggest these statements are wrong, but I would equally say that there is no way they could have got away with being any more flimsy than they are. I get around this to some extent by using a BCR controller, itself not the last word in robustness, but a relative tank in comparison. I seem to recall that the XW series recycled a home keyboard chassis, which can perhaps be blamed for some of the layout and button choices (an excuse though??). Of course I would rather have these controls than not, but in practice (and without the BCR) the 'multi-functionality' of these controls (and I am being G1 centric here as I have not operated a P1) have never been quite as intuitive as I would have liked (well, the knobs are OK, but the ultra low resolution makes filter sweeps a bit of a gamble using on-board controllers - again fortunately I can get perfectly smooth sweeps using the external BCR controllers. And whilst I never thought about it at the time, you have those long led lights strips indicating the function selected on the left, yet I then have to scroll through the oscillators and envelopes with yet more buttons to select the function that the sliders then perform. To me this somewhat defeats the purpose of real-time controls. I mean why not replace the led strips with a button for each oscillator etc. It's really a huge empty space being occupied by a lot of lights and text. Okay, okay, I went off on one again. But it is points such as these that frustrate me given the XW's strongest area's are still let down in implementation, and that could have made the best parts better. I know it's just all pointless speculation. I mean where does one draw the line. The most accurate answer to that is that the line WAS drawn and we have what we have. In the end then, I think our 'similar' references of "Swiss-army knife" and "jack of all trades" sums things up the best. Choose any area that another keyboard (or groove-box) excels in, and the XW can potentially put up a small fight. It'll likely lose the fight but at least it 'can' fight in so many areas. I'm certainly in no hurry to get rid of mine, and I look forward to many more years of sequencing fun. Yes, it will be interspersed with the occasional "why did it do that", the more frequent "why doesn't it do this", and the positively regular "why did I even try to use an on-board sound for that" but on the whole I anticipate much more enjoyment, and just maybe, one or two more undiscovered surprises.

Hi All. I'll save you some time if you are hoping for some useful info, there isn't going to be any. I have merely been delving back into my G1 again over the past few months (not that it has been entirely neglected otherwise, but mostly used for controller duties as I have been doing either DAW work, or otherwise playing bass). Consequently I have been on here reading and revising from some of the great informative posts from all you very helpful users over the years. The passing of time has not dampened my enthusiasm for the G1 as a whole, particularly the various sequencer functions, and to a slightly lesser extent, the sampling functions. To be fair though, I have in the intervening period come across both new pleasant surprises, and really disappointing limitations and hurdles in equal measure. Many of the plusses have been sourced from the aforementioned forum contributions. I am sure I found a few of my own too (or at least independent of similar posts). Similarly the -ve's may or may not have been detailed here too. I don't think I will go into any detail (at least not here and now) as I was inspired to post because of my current positivity regarding the G1. I have also revisited what XW videos I could find, though there has not really been many since I last frequented the forum. I particularly enjoyed 'Funzie's' P1 videos. Despite quite a few criticisms he still really seemed to enjoy the device. Again, this rather reflects my own situation (in fact I seem to recall he commented that he mainly uses the sequencers now himself). I do find myself wishing the G1 was actually a desktop keyless system. I know one could argue the PD was this type of thing, but for me it goes too far in another direction (again, "for me"). I do believe that the G1 (and P1) remain synths with a unique combination of quite in depth functions. I read and watch a LOT of synth reviews, and whilst I feel most (whether current or from the XW's era) have better actual sound synthesis performance (either sound quality, sound generation architecture, or both) there are really few (arguably any) that have such a combination of deep arpeggiator, sequencer, phrase sequencer, sample looper, multifunction keys, and control in one package. Of course there are he likes of MPC's, MV1's, Maschine's, Deluge's, Curcuit's, Elektron's etc, but the subset of these which these outperform the XW in certain area's are in a very different price league, and still (whilst many incorporate a lot of functions the XW do not have) the XW's feature combination is very usable, very musical, and unique. (I realise of course that my comparisons have no 'keys', but this is in line with my prior "keyless G1" comment. This said - and it of course very much depends upon what you really want to achieve - but I do believe if Casio were to revisit this sector currently they would need to raise their game considerably. Deepmind, Wavestate, Argon8, Minilogue, to name a few examples, are perhaps not aimed at the same target audience, but these are all really good quality synths. So, I am unsure the 'jack of all trades' approach (whilst mastering a few aspects) would be enough to go up against these (perhaps a little more targeted) devices. But, in what is perhaps a slight contradiction to this statement, if you actually got rid of the (lets be quite frank, quite dated**) sounds, upped the quality of the controls and housing, and even 'trimmed' the functionality down (at the same time ironing out some of the current quirks) you'd have a really (and in my opinion much better) competitor to current offerings in the Keystep Pro, Korg SQ hardware sequencer arena. **I don't even know myself if I really mean "dated" but I didn't want to use some of the terms that come to mind, nor did I want to give the impression that that great sounds are not possible with these devices, but I will summarise 'my opinion' as the sounds are not the XW's strongest suit. In fact (and I apologise if this is rather drawn out, but the 'lack of info' warning was provided at the beginning) I am going to contemplate that preceding point a little further. Because I think if you go into a keyboard store and see an XW (or were to have done) it looks like a keyboard. I know that sounds obvious, but what I mean is that it really does look, even to me looking at my G1 as I type and being a user of almost solely the sequencer functionality, it LOOKS like a keyboard. So I believe that is where most comparisons would be made. I would be surprised if more than a few percent of Keystep buyers would even have looked at the Casio, despite it's competitive feature set (yes I know the current keystep has around 4 polyphonic tracks, and CV out, but realistically to add a few poly tracks should not be a huge deal nowadays (even without the CV... I'm not sure it's a majority that use this on the keystep, though CV is becoming trendier). But anyway, I suppose that did seem to end up as a bit of a semi-rant (though really it was praising the positives) but all in all I am very happy with my G1. Indeed, most of the downsides that I have in the past bemoaned - and will no doubt do so again in the future - are really things that I would have been happy not to have even had in the first place. Very much like climbing that mountain, I moan because it is there !!! As I mentioned earlier, I have been logging a decent amount of DAW time, but it is now my intention to get into some electronica jamming and make use of my limited, quirky, but much loved hardware (not that my keyboard skills are really up to it, but nowadays all the 'key constriction' aids will hopefully help me out). You never know, maybe one day I will produce something adequate enough for youtube (but let's not get any hopes up). I would doubt many (if any) have got this far, if indeed ay started.. but whether you have or not, my best to all the Ex-Dubya guys and gals. Thanks again for all your great info over the years.

Hi all, I have a few questions that I have also asked in the G1 specific section. I have repeated some of those questions here minus the G1 specific issues, given that these ones also apply (to the best of my knowledge) to the P1 as well. I have also endeavoured to find the answers to these questions in the forums, manuals and other member supplied documentation. I am therefore assuming that what I would like to do cannot be done, but I may as well ask anyway. Arpeggio 'recording'. I am unable to 'record' (for want of a better term) an arpeggio to a phrase or step sequence (each recording the primary keystroke only). Whilst I am stating this as if fact, I would like to know if either of these are perhaps possible and I am missing something. (Note 1) Arpeggios in step sequences. Is there any way of "triggering' an arpeggio in an automated fashion, rather than playing the keys directly. For example, via the step sequencer. The one thing I have not tried is assigning the note progression to a track pointing to to the primary part / zone with the arpeggio linked to the performance, which I guess may work BUT I had already allocated this to other song parts that I would be playing at the time. Whilst I realise I can trigger phrases via the step sequencer or multi function keys, as noted above, I cannot record the arpeggio to a phrase. Note 1. I am not at home with my keyboard at the current time so I cannot double check everything, however as I believe the arpeggiator does send midi (As stated elsewhere on the forum) I realise that I could establish the arpeggio sequence externally and program it in as a sequence (It is a 'variation type' arpeggio that I am using, so I can't save it as a user arpeggio and look at the pattern that way). Despite this being a possible solution, I would still like to clarify my original question in this regard. Thanks for your time. And any answers / clarifications appreciated.

Hi all, As I intimated in previous posts, I have now moved on to trying out some of the functions of the XW, that until now, I had only tried superficially. I should also note that as some (but not all) of these questions are rather potentially common to both XW synths, I have basically copied much of this post in the general discussion section as well, though that post does not contain the G1 specific issues. I hope this is ok. My final preface is that I have endeavoured to find the answers to these questions in the forums, manuals and other member supplied documentation. I am therefore assuming that what I would like to do cannot be done, but I may as well ask anyway. So. Most specific to the G1 - Sample Looper. Whilst I realise there are no 'options' per se, is there any level of 'sync' applied to sample (looper) playback when, for example. playing alongside a step sequence? Is there any other way of triggering the sample looper, other than the 'Start' button on the looper interface? (see note 1) By this I mean via multi function key, step sequence, or anything else. As far as I can see it isn't possible. Arpeggio 'recording'. Whilst I am able to record an arpeggio to the sample looper, I cannot 'record' it to a phrase or step sequence (each recording the primary keystroke only). Whilst I am stating this as if fact, I would like to know if either of these are perhaps possible and I am missing something. (Note 2) Arpeggios in step sequences. As per the sample looper, is there any way of "triggering' an arpeggio in an automated fashion, rather than playing the keys directly. For example, via the step sequencer. The one thing I have not tried is assigning the note progression to a track pointing to to the primary part / zone with the arpeggio linked to the performance, which I guess may work BUT I had already allocated this to other song parts that I would be playing at the time. Whilst I realise I can trigger phrases via the step sequencer or multi function keys, as noted above, I cannot record the arpeggio to a phrase. Note 1. Just prior to posting, I realised that I can (probably) assign the sample loop as a sample to a keyboard part, and then trigger this via the step sequencer. In many respects this would be a more appropriate route, as the use of the looper as implied by my question is not what I would assume the most apt use of the looper anyway (as discussed a little further below). However, I would still be grateful to know if there is any affirmative responses to the original question. Note 2. I am not at home with my keyboard at the current time so I cannot double check everything, however as I believe the arpeggiator does send midi (As stated elsewhere on the forum) I realise that I could establish the arpeggio sequence externally and program it in as a sequence (It is a 'variation type' arpeggio that I am using, so I can't save it as a user arpeggio and look at the pattern that way). Despite this being another possible solution I, once again, would still like to clarify my original question in this regard. And just a little side ramble re: Sample Looper. As I note above, I had tried to use the sample looper as a way of resolving an issue I have (Not an issue with the XW, just an issue with what I want to achieve). However, I got to thinking how I might otherwise use the looper. I mean I have several guitar pedals (and a vocal pedal) with short loopers, and so I realise what such things are usually used for. However part of me thinks that the nature of the instrument doesnt lend itself to looping in the same way that a guitar does. Of course this is probably due to the fact that I am much closer to being a guitar player than a keyboard player. Nonetheless, I am intrigued to find out if anyone uses the looper in any serious or practical way (whether it be similar to a guitarists use, or via any other approach). I ask this with half an eye on my 'note 1' above, which says to me that in many situations, a keyboard assigned sample may be a more practical approach. Of course, this is no use for live overdubs, but then that is why I am asking how people use the looper. OK. Thanks for your time. And any answers / clarifications appreciated.

Really sorry for the delay. As it turns out - assuming that the sounds with the same "names" across the G1 and P1 are in fact the same tones, I appear to have used tones common to both, including the wave used in the solo synth tone. Given the structural differences, I cant - to my knowledge - do anything directly to allow the whole set up to work the same on each device, so I can merely provide some more information. I actually did not realise that the numbering of the tones differed from one to the other. To be clear, I do not mean that they just may appear in a different sequence etc, but I mean a significantly different reference system. I am not even sure that I understand the P1's system (I mean I assume I do, but not having the synth, I could be making an incorrect assumption). For example, on the G1 I can refer to the Rock Piano as P102. On the P1 I believe I have to specify the group - i.e. pcm piano - an then the bank number - P0-3. Interestingly, both are Program Change / Bank Select 1/3 in this case (perhaps, this is a tone within midi convention, I just guessed not as it did not have the GM prefix.. anyway, no matter, as that was an aside and I am not using these numbers in general use and - I assume again - neither are you). I'm honestly very surprised how differently things have been implemented, as I cant see that using an equivalent system on each would have interfered with the known unique features of each board. But then again I am not probably giving it adequate thought to notice. So, if I am correct, then The solo synth should be ok as the AP1 saw is 54 on both instruments. The tones for the P1 for the other parts are: Part 9 PCM Strings/Brass P6-3 GM Synbrass2 Part 10 PCM Various P1-0 Synth Set 2 Part 11 PCM Various P0-0 StandardSet1 Part 12 PCM Synth P9-3 BrightBellPd Part 13 PCM Guitar/Bass P5-8 GM Syn-Bass1 Part 14 PCM Various P2-0 GM Sqr Lead Part 15 PCM Various P2-1 GM Saw Lead Part 16 PCM Strings/Brass P6-2 GM Synbrass1 (Part 8 is reassigned to the solo synth) Hope this is of use. Please let me know if you need any other information. I cant promise to be very prompt, but I can promise I will address things eventually.

Sorry. As seems to be becoming a pattern, my plans have slipped a little, so it may be anther few days. Sorry. Whilst I am grateful that this makes me feel a little better about my ramblings, I nonetheless felt that the end result in this case was a bit of an anticlimax. I should have bit the bullet and done the test with the sine wave, as I could have posted some clips of each stage as I tweaked comparable 'effectors' for each machine. I do like the technicalities of the whole synthesis concept, but then again it does rather distract my from actual music making.

If you can wait a day or two I am happy to have a cross check of P1 and G1 tones. Given the less than perfect nature of this sequence, I am confident I could make some changes to ensure I use common tones. The Depeche sequence, however, does use a sample which can't really be substituted. Hmmm. That's a shame. I might have to leave you to work on that one. If I recall correctly, its like a concrete being dragged over concrete sound. Ok. So stop reading here if the WSA1 XW comparison was of no interest (which is probably everyone). So I couldn't really achieve a straightforward comparison in the intended manner as the basic waveforms in both machines are quite different when looked at in a wave editor (aside from the sine waves, which are not my favourite basis for synthesis.) So instead I decided to try and see how close I could get to the Only You arpeggiated riff that I have done on the XW. I tried both to replicate what I had on the XW and then how much closer - if at all - I could get to the original. Interestingly, to me, I did not feel I could replicate the XW sound very easily. Equally, whilst the sound I ultimately achieved arguably sounded more authentic when played alongside the original than the XW (backed up by comparing the waveforms) when played in isolation, the XW tone sounded nicer and richer. Given the limited time spent, and my rustiness editing on the WSA I believe it would be possible to get passably close with both machines to be honest. So a bit of a futile exercise, though the process did highlight both the versatility of both machines, and the fundamentally different characters. Still you'll be pleased to know that I'll be leaving that there.

Okey Dokey then. The files. Seems to be a bit convoluted to me, but here goes. So there are Performance, Solo Synth, 1 user drum, 8 Step Sequence Sets, and 2 Chains (I had to laugh at just how tiny these files are . Not that I 'want' them to be bigger.. it's just a while since I have dealt with files so small. less than 4 hundredths of a meg in total. How cute.) I guess it doesn't matter where you put the performance file. In fact you can put any of the files anywhere, but of course you would need to manually ensure you point to the other files. This isn't 'much' of a problem for most items (It's is obvious where the Solo Synth goes, the user drum goes on part 8 (but is currently set to U305), and the chains should be adjacent in order. However, if the step sequences are not put in slots U40 to U47, you would have to re-select every sequence within both chains. Finally, if that were not enough, as there are two chains, it is necessary to increment the chains during the song. The second chain begins in the middle of the chorus after the synth solo such that the vocals of the second chain are "and all I ever knew.... only you". Obviously the chain should be incremented just before this. (I know it seems a bit random, but this is around the point I noticed that I ran out of steps) Let me know if anyone uses these and has problems as I will try and assist. Also, If anyone does have a dabble with this, I would love to hear about any tone "upgrades" you make. Maybe I will come back to it again in the future myself and improve it. Maybe. I'll start having a look at the files for the Depeche track "soon" and post on the relevant thread. It is a much simpler set-up (well, there is only one chain anyway). Good luck. PS. Maybe this should have been in the downloads section, but if it's ok with all, once I have the Depeche track up, I will perhaps make a post in that section with a link to each thread. OU2.ZSC OnlyU.ZSC OU8.ZSS OU7.ZSS OU6.ZSS OU5.ZSS OU4.ZSS OU3.ZSS OU2.ZSS Only You.ZSS Only U.ZDR Only You.ZSY Only You.ZPF

Indeed I do AlenK. I really love it. Sadly, the LCD display is starting to show signs of age. It's still perfectly visable, but it does make me worry about the day I turn it on, and the display is gone. At that point it will sadly be 'fairly' useless. I should probably get my finger out and set up my BCR2000 with it, though given the nature of the machine I doubt this will really resolve the problem of a failed screen. To be fair, you have to work reasonably hard to get sounds that are not too 'cold''. It is possible, and there are a good number of parameters, but a lot of owners ended up using it for very 'digital pads' - which it does well - but it can do much more. In some ways, there are a few 'tenuous' parallels with the XW. Of course any direct comparisons are meaningless. If you use a quick, dirty, and convenient calculation of the original retail price, in today's money it would be over $5000 USD. Of course that is mitigated to some extent by the reduction of cost of materials and development, and increases in processing power and memory over that time, but it is still an apples to aardvarks comparison in most respects. However, it was still a primarily home keyboard manufacturer trying to push a pro synth. It was also a very deep, and rather misunderstood synth. A lot of the criticism centered upon the way it performed it's analogue modelling. These criticisms were quite apt, in that it did not use the apparently gargantuan calculations of the Yamaha VL1, for example, and as such had no-where near the equivalent realism. BUT this meant that a very important point was missed, which was that regardless of how it performed as an analogue modeller, it still presented a reasonably individual, and very interesting, approach to synthesis (and of course had a significant polyphony and multitimbrality advantage over the other more authentic - and primarily monophonic - modelling offerings of the time.) To continue the rather oblique parallels, the WSA1 was closer to the P1, than the G1. This is because it had no sampling, but does have drawbar organ modes. And it could also perform hex layers. To be fair to the Technics, it's combi's are made up of eight sounds, which themselves are made up of four tones (I actually believe you can layer as many sounds as the mixer has channels outside of combi mode - 16 - but I wouldn't swear to this as it is not something I have tried). No step sequencer either, though it does have a 16 track linear sequencer (and no, this isnt why I was highlighting my issues with the XW step sequencer ) Less control on the WSA1 as well. Not that it is limited as it has an extra mod wheel, and two multi assignable track ball controllers, plus drawbar controls. I must confess my memory is a little fuzzy on the effects side, however there is certainly a lot more flexibility re: effects, filters and envelopes on the WSA1 (I think perhaps in 'combi' mode, the effects are per combi rather than per sound though) And without wishing to sound like I am dissing the XW (though I reiterate the theoretical price differential) as much as I dont think the technics effects are great, they are much better than the XW. I do not recall the modulation routing to be as comprehensive on the technics , though this could just be my poor memory (or, as I am starting to recall, it may be that the routing is distributed across various subsections rather than in an explicit matrix), although this almost misses the point that I suggested was missed in general above. Specifically that the 'modelling' aspect of the WSA1 allows for additional sculpting via it's resonator, tone interaction and positioning elements. Anyway, I am not going to go over every potentially similar or differential feature, but as I stated earlier, there are tenuous similarities (one of which is NOT the weight. Im not sure of the specs, but the technics feels about four times as heavy as the XW, so it is only the XW that ever leaves home). I am actually now curious myself to see what two similarly programmed patches might sound like across the two boards. A fairly meaningless exercise I suppose, and difficult to achieve a completely realistic comparison - though using fundamental waveforms and only comparable synthesis parameters, I should be able to get in the ballpark - but I confess that this type of thing does pique my interest. Re: the Integra 7. I only mentioned that unit as I happened to be reading an article about one the other day, and it mentioned music scorers as a user type. Whilst I dont doubt your assertion that they are more likely soft synth based, I also prefer hardware. So using yourself and me as a statistically poor sample set, we have a 100% preference for hardware!! It does look like a great machine though I really couldn't justify one even if could afford one. I probably already have more than I can master now. However I was rather daydreaming with a practical approach, given that I cannot fit more than two keyboards in my little room, but do have space in my rack. AND. Back to the sequences. Yes, I know I didnt post up the patches yesterday.... I had limited music room time, and once I got in there I was distracted with choosing my next target track. So no more miss-able promises other than to say 'soon'. Edit:- I keep referring to Analogue Modelling, but just in case I am picked up I should say that Technics term is Accoustic Modelling, as of course it is about recreation of Accoustic instruments. Additional Edit. Just some tedious clarifications re: my comments about the WSA1's effects (I was annoyed I couldnt remember so as I have rechecked for my own benefit, I thought I may as well be clearer here (but I know its not interesting to many (any?) so I added to this post rather than have another on the subject. So basically the WSA1 has what it calls a Digital Effect, plus two general effects blocks, and a reverb block (which actually does reverb OR all other DSP effects). All sounds (made up of four parts) can have specific effect settings applied for all of these effects, however, with the exception of the Digital Effect only one of each of these effect types can be used when more than one sound is used, such as in multichannel midi, sequencer, or combi modes. So, whilst the settings for each effect is retained on a per sound basis, it is overridden by Combi, or System effect settings when multiple sounds are used. The digital Effect remains on a per sound (four part) basis, but this is only effects such as chorus, celeste and a few similar, which are basically made up by modulating parts one and two of the sound. Within the effects routing, which has serial and parallel modes, it is possible to vary the amount of signal sent through certain preset (but varied) paths, which incorporates two separate equalisers, and options to send differently effected signals via the main and sub stereo outputs. There are further EQ's available at a sound level and at global level. Also it is at 'sound' level that the filter and amp envelope and lfo's reside; so an eight 'sound' combi can use eight filters, for example. (The manual suggests this is at part level, but I think that is just poorly presented) I know I know, not all that relevant, but I just wanted to be clearer re: what I had already stated. Also, as far as the original comparison went, it is interesting to recall limitations that I had forgotten in the WSA. Despite some good effects flexibility, if one was using heavily effected sounds in combi's. those effects become inactive, so like the XW, some potentially unexpected results would be achieved without being aware of such limitations. Right, I will shut up about it now.

Thanks for your comments guys. Cant really say that I am disagreeing with either of you here. I guess I am just re-stating what you guys already know and have stated before, but from the standpoint of returning to more serious use of the board after a period of more superficial use. It remains a shame though, that the cpu power (I avoid stating DSP as I do not mean just effects) just doesn't quite allow the XW to shine quite as brightly as it could - though I am NOT suggesting that it doesn't shine pretty brightly already. I know some of my other 'wants' are rather more fanciful. Well, I guess they all are given that it is what it is. Anyway, from this point on I will focus more upon exploiting what the XW does well and try to avoid the limitations that I am now increasingly aware of (whilst at the same time, of course, pushing the limits here and there). Of course, as I noted, there are some elements I have not yet utilised so there 'could' be some comments - good or bad - to come from trying these out. Having said that, I have no explicit 'expectations' from the modulation side for example, so I doubt there can be much I would be disappointed with in that regard. I am also looking forward to integrating my BCR2000 more with the XW (maybe in connection with those modulations (no... wait.... that could be setting myself up for some expectations there )). With regard to some of the more specific comments. Jokeyman, Thanks for using the term "bogs down". I had a real brain fade in trying to find the words to describe what I meant, but this is exactly it. However, I should emphasise that I experienced this at an early stage, so I had not begun any chains at this point, nor does this track contain any other elements such as looper, arpeggiator, or sampler. It was experienced merely after a long session of tweaking solo synth parameters, which is why it seemed odd. I havent noticed it in the same way since though. To me - and this could just be phsycosematic - I do notice an everso slight pause when switching chains, which I guess is another horsepower manifestation. I can say with some confidence that I will also be keeping my G1 for many years to come. I do get quite attached to my gear (even the items I dont use often) and havent ever really sold anything beyond a couple of guitar stomp boxes. And I also love to have 'different' things (I have owned my Technics WSA1 from new, so I must have had that 20 odd years). And whilst I make comparisons with what other gear can / cant do, it would be a little pointless if the XW were the 'same' as another peice of gear that I already owned. so I do celebrate the differences. Lets face it. If I were a professional music scorer, I would buy a Roland Integra 7. Or if I were a screaming synth soloist in a performing band, something like a Nord Lead/Stage. But I am not. And despite my gripes, the XW fits my home studio just fine. XW-Addict You are entirely correct in mentioning the sampler (sample looper). In many ways I do know that I go about things the hard way. By this I mean, for example, I could easily resample some tones created in the solo synth to get around the limitations of available parameter tweaks on the PCM side. However, for my 'experiments' I have been stubborn, and really wanted to drive my compositions (well not my compositions, but my recreations) through the XW's tone generation alone. Why?? honestly I dont know really. And so I feel perhaps I am being a little harsh given that there are potential solutions to my problems already provided. I do not feel it has been in vain though, as it is interesting to find out how far I can push various elements of the board. Perhaps I will endeavour to integrate these other elements into my next 'cover'. This can only be beneficial research given my intent to try some more self composed material after that. And back to the track provided. Listening again this morning, I really do have to apologise again for the levels, and the parts that I "played". Not that my previous Depeche track was particularly polished, by it was still a magnitude less rough than this one. That said, I make no pretence to be a skilled keyboard player. I am now going to attempt to get both of those tracks loaded up here in something that can be used. I intend to have this done today. If anyone does try either track, please let me know if I have not provided anything correctly. Obviously the audio files provided will give an indication of what things should sound like (Should = the way I have programmed it, not the way it should "really" sound like). I will leave this post with one question that I sort of raised (as more of a comment) earlier in this thread. This is re: the envelopes. Have others also found that very short amplitude attack envelopes ultimately soften the attack (e.g. values of 1 or 2) rather than making them even snappier, or is this just an aberration that I alone have encountered? Thanks for your time guys.

Hi. So here is the audio file. To add to the already listed caveats i.e. primarily No exactly spot on tones Levels needing adjusting I should also add There are several parts with wrong notes - it was done by ear - which are sometimes (but not always) corrected in later parts The part I actually play, whilst simple, is awful. Not being a keyboard player should allow me a little leeway (though it should still be better, but if I waited until I could do it well, I may not get around to posting it at all). Be careful not to play to loud as I got a 'clip' warning when uploading the file. Despite all the reservations, and as stated before, it should still provide a basis for someone to improve upon.

Ok. Back (I have had to come and cover in our shop, but it's pretty quiet, so I can add some more to this post) Skip to last sentence for briefest summary. OK.. so yes.. that first sound (i.e. the the arpeggiatted sound at the beginning of the song). I kept thinking I had it, then I'd come back the next day and decide it was nowhere near. Ultimately I am convinced one of my earlier attempts were better, but I never kept any because despite being better in hindsight, I didn't consider them better enough to keep at the time. Anyway, I am sure something better is achievable, so I'll leave that to anyone that wants to try. The sad aspect is that I could not find anything suitable in the PCM tones, which meant despite only using 'Synth 1' in the solo synth, it obviously ties that up, and there are plenty of tones on the track that would have really benefited from using the solo synth. Probably purely my lack of understanding, but I also struggled with the interaction of the Total Filter envelope with the individual filter envelopes within the solo synth. I probably just need to do more, re-reading and testing here though. After this, as I say, I really just decided to knock the thing out quickly. As a result, the tones I chose become less and less similar to the original, culminating with the tones that I use for synth parts towards the end (the 'solo' and the later 'string' parts) where I was very very lazy and didn't even audition all the tones before settling. Again, I am sure anyone that wants to use this can find better. I actually started writing notes saying "revisit bass", "revisit snare" etc, but gave up on that as I was ultimately needing to revisit everything. My next issue was the mixer settings (volume and tone selection). Because the song uses multiple 'sets' of sequence patterns I found that I had to reselect my tones for each 'set' e.g U40 U41 etc. But what was odd here is that 'some' tone selections seemed to carry over, and others did not. Of course I am sure there is a reason for this, but as I was trying to rush through the process at this stage I did limited investigation, though I did try to see if saving the Performances, Tones, Sequences (and Chains) in different orders helped. It did not. The volume problem was not a new thing, but it didn't stop me from cursing the links between DSP enabled tones. Equally though, the volume settings did not carry across the sequence pattern 'sets'. Interestingly, even though it 'appears' as though the mixer volume settings are related to the sequence, when making changes using the PC editor. the LCD does not display the '!" as it does for other changes, yet it definitely does take on the mixer change when I make a volume change on the mixer in sequence mode and then execute the write procedure on the XW. The result of all this is that I have not really set the volumes appropriately either, as after going through all the sequence pattern sets a few times, and still not being happy with it, I once again decided to 'make do' with where I was. Another thing I 'thought' was odd was with regard to the chorus, as I did not realise this was disabled when a solo synth is active with effect bypass. I realise now this is in AllenK's excellent companion (maybe the main manual too) but at the time it wasn't one of the known limitations that I recalled reading about. I also couldnt find an efficient way of 'auditioning' solo synth tones as a combined sound. To explain. Most channels are just one tone, so I can scroll though the sounds on the mixer page to audition them. However, I wanted to make a sound using zones 2 and 3 and hear both tones as I auditioned. If I used the PC Editor, it is a slightly stilted process of clicking, scrolling, selecting, and saving (not saving as such, but "ok'-ing, if you like). If you use the mixer, you only hear the selected tone/zone unless you keep going into and out of the mixer; though this was still the quickest method. There may be an alternate way of doing this, but I didnt find it. My final irritation - and yes, I was irritated even though it is mainly irritation with myself as I should have known better - was the fact that I ran out of steps in the chain. Whilst I have done a few sequences previously (though only one other to reasonable completion) I had not hit this problem before, but it does make me believe that as undeniably useful the sequencer and specifically the 'chain; functions are, I feel it is probable that will hit this problem again in the future. (By which I obviously mean I would plan a bit better beforehand to see if this will be an issue or not). Of course I can (and indeed did) continue onto another chain, which will play back seamlessly. I know full well though, that if I do play this at one of our jams (I selected it as one for the girls to sing along to) there is a fairly big probability I will miss my change. Anyway, I do emphasise that this feature is not really 'pushed' as a full song sequencer (which is just as well, as it obviously isn't) It's a shame in some ways that it gets 'close' to fulfilling a number of things that it just doesnt quite manage as well as I would like (not a complaint, just how I feel). In fact I would expand that thought to items such as the Control Tracks. To be 100% honest, I had not used these until now, and even now I have only used one control track. But whilst having my volume issues I was thinking how great it would be to have enough control tracks to fully automate the mix. Or even to be able to address a number of channels with one control track. This again is not a complaint, just a wish. I think I do have to make it clear (as I have many times in the past) that for its purchase price for a new instrument it is still an excellent step sequencer , and I really dont think there are that many dedicated 'step' sequencers that can do as much, short of full sequencers (I am only human in wanting more more more, but I genuinely like what I do have). I think more than anything, the areas that I (personally) felt were the most limiting this time through, were the lack of synthesis and editable parameters outside of the solo synth, and the weak and limited DSP / Effects capabilities and routing. At times it felt like an interesting but flawed pseudo mono-synth tied to a handicapped home keyboard....... At times. I am going to have a bash at one more fully sequenced track just on the XW. Hopefully I will make a suitable track selection with the XW's pluses and negatives fresh in my mind. After which I plan to do what I purchased the instrument for in the first place, and that it to use alongside my other equipment in a compositional situation. I have plenty more to explore as I havent really touched the extensive modulation options yet, which I remain very excited by. I have played with phrases, loops and arpeggiations a little, but increasingly find these aspects as 'fun' additions rather than something I would use extensively. This view may change in time, but I think i have this opinion because I have other tools that may do these jobs better**. This is definitely true of the sampler BUT I have no intention whatsoever to cart my other gear around, so the fact that the XW 'can' do all of these things remains an asset for any tracks I want to take to a sesh. **as an aside. The more I use it, the more I feel that "the way" I use the XW makes it very similar to the old Roland MV I have. Of course the MV has no keyboard per se (though can easily be accessed with a controller keyboard). The downsides of MV in this context are - in addition to the lack of keyboard - the lack of built in sounds (samples only, aside from a two oscillator synth module that can bu used instead of an effect, it is much 'less' portable (though built like a tank), and doesnt have the immediacy of access in the way that the XW does with its various 'modules'. It's also pretty damned slow in terms of loading up projects, transferring samples etc. Im not going to list the flipside here as it may not sound as intended, but suffice to say that 'depending on what exactly one wanted a G1 for, the MV should also be a serious consideration, as what it does do, it does very very well. As a second hand purchase I dont think the prices would be 'that' different. OK.. Well ast I stated earlier, I am at work at the mo. I will probably just get the audio loaded up next (after I get home), as I am still a bit unsure what the best way to upload the various elements of the track is (hence why I still havent uploaded the last one). But I will get onto it. Summary. Still hitting some hurdles, but Stlll having fun.

Hi all. Well I have completed a new step sequence for Yazoo's Only You. To be frank it didn't turn out nearly as well as I had hoped for a multitude of reasons. One reason we can probably tick off to start off with is my own ineptitude, so that element goes without saying for any of the other problems I encountered. I wasn't even going to post it in the end, but as unhappy with it as I am, it will probably serve as a basis for anyone who may want to tweak it. My initial problem was programming the first sound. In fact I had so much trouble with it that when I finally decided to make do with what I had done I was already fed up with it. I probably spent a week on the first sound, then was going to give up, but decided to finish it with rather less attention to detail. So I spent about a week on one sound and then just over a day on the rest of it. The biggest problem I had with that sound was the envelope attack. I found that if I set the attack too fast then the 'snap' would actually disappear. Even when I believed I got something tolerable, I would go back to it and it would sound too soft again. In one session it seemed to get worse over time even though I didn't change it. I know that sounds nuts - as does the following - but I would swear it was as if the longer I was working it felt like to board was getting less able to cope (like using an old computer when you open and close a load of programs and eventually, even though you only have one program open, the computer slows to a crawl. Whilst I am not about to argue this as fact (as i dont really see that this is probable), but it honestly seemed to improve after a reboot. (Sorry. Didn't realise the time! Am going to have to finish this later)

Look's like I will have to feel pretty stupid after all. Whilst I did manage to resolve this eventually based upon your guidance (thanks again), for some reason I still couldn't work out specifically how this step sequencer keyshift function worked exactly, and initially I managed to get down to just "1" playable key, before some more prodding and finally getting all my keys back.

Hey Brad, I wont have a chance to check this for a few hours, but it sounds promising as I have been primarily using the Step Sequencer. (I probably should have mentioned that really ... D'oh!!!). Many many thanks (and kindly worded so as to not me feel 'too' stupid). Thanks again.

Hi all. I'm on a G1 but this could be device independent. A few times recently, I have obviously done something to, in effect, turn off the lowest octave of the keyboard. I have had to perform an initialise to resolve this as anything else I try just doesn't seem to work e.g. Zone low key range. It would seem there is no fault as such (other than fault that can be directed at me) because the initialize has always worked. I felt convinced it was the zone range as the display shows a line that does not extend to the full length of the screen, as it does when a specific range is assigned to the zone, but as I say. Changing these values does not help. In fact I say change because I tried setting an even lower values, but the initial value shown suggests that it was correctly sett anyway. Any ideas much aprecciated, no matter how stupid they may make me look.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I must confess that I am reading the thread without downloading the example. But I dont have a foot pedal.

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.)