No Overdub Track Recording in MIDI Recorder?

[AlenK]

I see "New" and "Re-record" and two types of punch-in, regardless of track type (system or 1 to 16). I can't detect any difference between how "new" and "re-record" operate. I would have expected an "overdub" option but "re-record" doesn't seem to be it. Am I missing something or can't the PX-560 sequencer do overdubbing on the same track? (Obviously not with a different tone, just to be clear, but with the same tone, adding new notes and controller events on overdub passes.)

[Brad Saucier]

It would be called overdub if it was there.  The MZ-X series has an overdub function for the midi recorder. I think this is one of many tradeoffs between the different product types.   MZX being more focused on the workstation aspect than the Privia. 

 

Oh...and record new vs re-record.  From what I understand, re-record keeps the mixer settings.  Record new overwrites the mixer settings.  

[AlenK]

Well, that is a BIG and kind of inexplicable missing (the PX-560 is part of the Privia PRO line, after all.) I hope Mike has time to scan these forums occasionally. That is one feature I would like to see in the next PX-560 firmware update. 

[Display Name]

On 8/3/2016 at 8:34 AM, AlenK said:

Well, that is a BIG and kind of inexplicable missing (the PX-560 is part of the Privia PRO line, after all.) 

 

Not really. The PX-560 is designed to be an arranger / stage piano / synth -- not really as much in the way of a workstation the the MZ or WK line is, Think of the MIDI recorder as more of a sketch pad and not a full-blown sequencer.  This is the way everything seems to be going -- Yamaha's new flagship Montage doesn't have a full-blown sequencer either -- the thinking is most people are using DAWs for serious MIDI recording so what's on the board is just a basic recorder. 

[Brad Saucier]

I think what Allen wants is an MZ-X800.  That one has the 88 note scaled hammer action II.  😁

[Display Name]

4 hours ago, tnicoson said:

Scott

 

Obviously, Yamaha did not learn from Roland's mistake with the Jupiter 80, Jupiter 50, Juno Gi, and Juno Di,  They were vast departures from traditional workstation design.  They were also monumental marketing failures, because the folks that pay their salaries saw things otherwise.  Most of us over on the Roland Clan forums, that had the JP-50's and 80's, sold them within the first 12 to 18 months.  That's why Roland immediately followed up with the FA-06 and FA-08, which returned to the traditional workstation design.  Really, they are a DAW in a long box with keys on it.  They even threw in a nice set of assignable pads and a color screen to pique interest.  I think the PC based DAW movement is mostly change for the sake of change hype that design engineers are taking advantage of to save a couple of bucks.  OR . . .  maybe I am just in the wrong place here these days . . . .

 

 

 

LOL - "It's not them it's me" -    I never saw the Jupiter  80,/ 50 and Junos as workstations, nor should anyone else. They are advertised as performance synths with some recording features not workstations.  The Fantom has always been Rolands workstation line -- (I still have the first gen Fantom, the FA-76) - And like you said, they brought it back with the new FA's. 

 

RE: PC based DAW.- No it's not change for the sake of change. It's where the market is. Of course there is always that segment that want to do sequencing right on the keyboard (You should see the uproar over the Montage having only a basic sequencer).  Truth is, editing MIDI events, copy/paste etc. is much easier on a MAC/PC/iPad using a DAW than the 4" screen on a keyboard.. People also like to have choice when it comes to sequencing programs and not be locked into the on-board sequencer.  Engineers build what the market research guys says will sell -- leaving off a sequencer esp. when they already have the code for -- doesn't really save money. It's all about the target market.

Anywho -- I always tell people to research a new keyboard and make sure it does what you want out of the box, not what it *MAY* do with a future update. So many Montage users who bought without understanding it's NOT a workstation like the Motif -- It's a performance synth. Same with the Rolands you mentioned -- performance synths not workstations. 

Personally, I don't use on-board sequencers OR a DAW -- I use a Tascam digital recorder and lay down tracks old school the same way I did in the 80s with my Tascam 4-track cassette recorder.

I'll close by saying there is no right or wrong way to do things -- Music is a very personal thing and so is production methods. Find what works best for you and nuts to what anyone says. 

[Display Name]

2 hours ago, tnicoson said:

But where this gets blurred, Scott, is when these "performance synths" get touted as the be-all-end-all replacements for workstations.  Roland certainly did that with the Jupiters, and now I am seeing the same hype about the Montage vs the Motifs.  

 

I don't want to belabor this, but where exactly are you getting this for the Rolands? Nothing from Roland I have seen suggests the modern Jupiters or Junos are workstations. Maybe you can point me to something so I can see where you're coming from?

Now the Montage is a different thing: The confusion there comes from Yamaha's marketing-speak touting the Montage as basically a Motif and DX-7 on steroids. People see "Motif" and think "workstation". It doesn't help that the Montage has a sequencer, which is really a simple MIDI recorder. Only when you dig a little do you find out that the Montage  is designed to be used with a DAW and does NOT include the sequencer that the Motif has. The forums are split with people who are ready to storm Yamaha with the torches and pitchforks demanding the sequencer.. the other half is people who use a DAW and very happy how the Montage works with a computer. 

So again, it's VERY important to do your research before getting a new board, esp. if you want a particular feature... and buy the board for what it does out of the box, not for what it *may* be able to do with a firmware update. 

 

It's tough out there: There are musicians like me that want nothing to do with a computer when making music and then there's the other camp that make music "in the box" and are very computer-centric. Again, no right or wrong -- it's all down to preference.. and if you want to work a certain way get the keyboard that works that way.  And don't just rely on the marketing materials: Check the specs, read reviews, watch demos and get as much hands-on time as possible before buying. 

I like to use this analogy: "I bought a 4 door sedan but really wanted a SUV so I am pressuring the car company to update my sedan with 4 wheel drive, a large cargo area and more ground clearance."   -- That's basically what I see in a lot of the synth Facebook Groups and keyboard forums. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[- T -]

Posted in error - removed

[Display Name]

First of all, I don't speak Casio -- I just help admin these forums. My comments are based on on my own research and product knowledge. I have no idea what Casio's plans are for future products. I'm just a user like you guys.

My point regarding the PX-560 is simply: It's not a workstation. Was never billed as one so people should not be expecting it to behave as one. 

I understand the frustration in not being able to find that *one* magic keyboard that will meet all your needs. The problem here is everyone has different wants and needst and keyboard makers need to make what they think will meet the needs of the average user. The low-end users end up with a bunch of features they will never use, the high-end users end up with a wish-list. 

Finally, I don't view this discussion us being "snarling dogs". I think we have both been very respectful of each other and it has been a very healthy conversation. It's important to know where everyone is coming from and how they see things. It's how we learn. 
 

[Jokeyman123]

Sigh......this all has inspired me to go back to my.......bongo drums and slide whistle.

[AlenK]

So many assumptions here about what I want and what I expected. Did I expect full DAW capability in the PX-560? No. Am I disappointed in the 560 because it is missing a few things I think should be there? No. 

 

All I have done here is note a very basic missing feature. Even the simple phrase recorders of the PX-5S and the XW synthesizers offer overdub recording. It's as useful in a minimilist on-board multi-track sequencer as it is in a phrase recorder.

 

Funny that the Montage's simplified performance-oriented sequencer is used here as an example. As simple as it is it offers overdub recording. Case closed. 

[AlenK]

On August 5, 2016 at 2:23 PM, tnicoson said:

Posted in error - removed

 

I didn't think so. You passionately defended one particular view of where keyboards should evolve. Scott has a different view. I have yet another but I will refrain from jumping in here with it. It's all good, brother. 

[Display Name]

10 hours ago, AlenK said:

 

I didn't think so. You passionately defended one particular view of where keyboards should evolve. Scott has a different view. I have yet another but I will refrain from jumping in here with it. It's all good, brother. 

 

Well what I posted isn't my view, it's more reporting how "it is". Personally, I'd love for keyboards to be loaded for bear with every function available for those that want to use them. But the market forces dictate something else and that's what we're left with. 

And please don't hesitate to jump in with your opinions - that's what this place is here for. 

[Brad Saucier]

Should overdub be a standard feature?  The MZ-2000 does not have overdub in it's song sequencer.  It does in the pattern sequencer however, which is great for looping sequences.  But for the 16 track linear sequencer, track merge works as "overdub".  The end result is identical and my prefered method. The overdubbing is contained entirely in it's own track. Easily delete or edit the overdub without touching the original recording.  Once it's perfected, merge it into the existing track.  The only time that does not work is when using the last empty track, which I never had happen.  

 

Somewhere along the line, Casio added overdub to their song sequencers in the CTK and WK series.  But as far as I know, it was never an option in the Privia series.  It appears track merge was never an option either, among other things.  I think it's a decision process they go through when designing products for certain targets.  I know many things have to be weighed and considered.  Considering this forum thread is all about overdub, perhaps it's time for a table meeting at Casio. "Should we make overdub a standard feature across the line?  Votes.....?"

[AlenK]

This thread is evidently no longer about overdub recording. Only five or six of the posts here, including my original are about that. I intend to let the thread die a natural death. I posted my opinion and that's that. This is my last post in this thread but you all are welcome to keep it going, of course. 

[Brad Saucier]

Of course it's about overdub.  If we talk about it enough, they might consider adding it.  😊  

[Display Name]

It's been weird. Posts have gone MIA. Thanks goodness i used the quote thingy or it would look like I was talking to myself. LOLOLOLOLOLOl

[Display Name]

Z