PX-5S hex layers waveforms over XW-P1

[oscar1]

I have XW-P1 and I am curious if the waveforms for hex layers from XW-P1 had been improved at all (they are mostly low quality and or PWM in P1). I am not talking about the piano sound, that is obviously in different category. 

I know the DSP effect had been hugely improved - and that should be obvious as well, the XW-P1 DSP is just plain digitally horrid (and mono) mostly happily destroying any sound it passes through.

But I am curious if the actual waveform in 5S had been redone. I like the potential of the hex layers for the lush "vangelis" sound it can produce in theory. When you can layer 2x hex layers + 2x PCM, with multiple arpeggios, with the big polyphony, this allows for unprecedented wall of sound, sort of going into Motif territory.

 

But on the P1 this all never goes beyond being just for fun or basically a toy due to the digital aliasing of waveforms (and the incomprehensibly bad DSP). So for someone having both, how is the improvement? I did try one at store, but they didn't have headphones and it was plugged into sort of mono guitar amp - far from being able to actually judge the quality of sound (it sounded bad in any preset so I just gave up)

 

[Choppin]

Hello,

 

There are actually a lot of demos and articles regarding the PX-5s and the hex layer.  From everything I understand, the PX-5s has a improved engine over the XW series and the Hex layers are superior in control and sound.

 

You can check out some of the clinics Mike Martin has put together.  Here's one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuhBWrLBoQ

 

Specifically, check out around 13:40 as he starts talking about editing a Hex layer.  You may be able to glean some information for your comparison from his tutorial.

 

 

[AlenK]

I have an XW-P1 and a PX-560. The latter uses many of the waves found in the PX-5S as well as a few updated ones (for example a decent string-section sound that walks all over the string-section waves in the PX-5s and in the XW-P1, which are still available in the PX-560).

 

There is just no comparison for many of the tones and in the waves available for Hex Layer tones. They are generally much better than in the XW-P1. If lush is what you want the PX-5S and the PX-560 can deliver, especially considering the smooth two-pole resonant filter available on each of the six layers of a Hex Layer tone. OTOH, my PX-560 doesn't do "rude" and "in your face" sounds very well.

 

Regarding the effects, I can say that the distortion on both the PX-5S (see various YouTube videos) and on the PX-560 is MUCH better (they sound the same to me). The distortion effect on the XW-P1 is simply horrible. I honestly haven't tried to compare anything else. You've got me curious now to try the phaser effect in particular because the phaser in the XW-P1 is also quite bad, sounding like nothing I'd ever heard before or want to hear again .  

[oscar1]

Thanks for the info. Also great to know about resonant filter that works. I always wondered about the people who were managing the P1 development. When they heard the DSP filters in P1 and said, "yes, perfect"! Because it takes some engineering to make set of filters that without doubt destroy any sound that goes through them.

 

I am currently bit confused by the mix and match methodology Casio makes with the new keyboards. Like I love the fact that PX560 has 4 hex layers - total Vangelis reincarnation. But why it has to loose the 4 arpeggios from 5S? Seems to be common way of thinking in casio land. Never make one keyboard with all the features.

And then there is MZ-X500 that seems to have seriously improved many solo PCM sounds beyond the PX560 / 5S and allows to create new sounds by uploading waveforms....

Darn, I was almost ready for 5S, then found out about PX560 and now I want to see something like that mixed with the stuff from MZ-X500. Well, i will see what they will come up next, but it may not be that soon. I watched the videos from Musikmesse 2017 and there was literally nothing new. Which means at earliest there will be something next year.

[AlenK]

I just tried some of the modulation effects on the PX-560. The phaser is better than on the XW-P1 but it's still not great. It sounds like it's only a simple single-pole affair, rather than the two, three or more pole phasers you get even in an average guitar pedal. The flanger is also a bit of a disappointment but somewhat more usable. The chorus effects are okay. The wah is fine. I didn't try anything else other than distortion, which as I said is much better than that of the XW-P1 (which isn't hard to do!). 

 

So, the PX-560 effects are definitely better than in the XW-P1. I believe (but don't know for a fact) that the effects in the PX-5S are the same as in the PX-560. 

 

However, Casio still seems to have a lot to learn about effects compared to Roland, Korg, Kurzweil, etc. 

 

 

[Choppin]

Hello,

 

I believe the PX-5s is a little meatier when it comes to the depth of the programmability of sounds than the PX-560.  The PX-560 seems to be a more user friendly version of the PX-5s with a better screen, and fewer controls to manage and fewer layers, zones, etc. 

 

If you want more depth, the PX-5s is more likely the way to go. 

 

If you want an easier to use sequencer with more tracks, and some generally more user friendly interaction and don't mind losing some of the depth of the sound programmability, the zone capabilities, the additional sliders and knobs for real time tweaking, then the PX-560 may make more sense.

 

Here's some specs:

 

https://casiomusicgear.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/the-definitive-px-5s-vs-px-560-comparison/

[Brad Saucier]

I don't know if I would say the PX-560 has less sound programming depth.  Hex layers are where most of the custom programming happens on the PX-5S. The 560 has the same depth of programming for hex layers.  What is lesser of the two models in terms of sound design are the number of DSP inserts.  And I suppose you could consider the 4 programmable arpeggiators on the 5S a sound design advantage since they have that cool controller track.  I guess what I am trying to say is that the 560 can do all of the tones the 5S can bur when it comes to assembling those tones together into a performance, the two models diverge in their abilities.  Each one able to do things the other cannot. 

[oscar1]

Well we should not forget the 4 layers of HEX on 560 vs only 2 on 5S. At least that was one that struck me most. This is 24 layers of pcm sounds on 560 - if that isn't enough, then I don't know. To be honest I don't understand the full difference between 5s zones and 560 zones but I see the DSP routing is better in 5S.

To be hones I would really want MZ-X500 with privia keyboard at this point. They seems to be adding stuff left and right in new models but never to create one workstation that rule them all. I somehow hope they will create 7S with many of the MZ additions.

If you think about it the 5S is form 2013. It may be time to refresh the legacy.