Jump to content

Solo Synth PCM Oscillators: Envelope Oddities


AlenK

Recommended Posts

In trying to make use of the PCM oscillators within the solo synth I discovered some "oddities" involving the envelopes that are worth mentioning.  I hesitate to call them "bugs" but regardless they can affect any voice that uses the PCM oscillators.

[uPDATE: These observations were with V1.10 firmware on a XW-P1.  There is a newer V1.11 version that MAY have addressed some of this (but I doubt it).  I have not updated yet.]

First thing to be aware of is that the Legato setting has no affect on the triggering of the PCM sample that plays when you press a key.  Enabling Legato in a PCM oscillator block will stop the re-triggering of the pitch, volume and filter envelopes in that block when you press a key while another key is still being held.  But the PCM sample itself will retrigger regardless.  This means, for example, that you can't actually get a legato voicing out of a PCM oscillator when you play in a legato manner, since you can't avoid the attack portion at the start of the sample. I would argue that this is not how legato is supposed to work.

The second thing to be aware of is this: With the Legato setting turned off press two keys in succession, holding down one as you press the second.  The envelopes will retrigger when you press the second key, as they should (since Legato is turned off).  Now, with both keys still held down release the second key you pressed.  What will happen is that the first note will re-trigger, including the sample and the envelopes.  I would argue this should NOT happen.  The sample and the envelopes in this case should retrigger ONLY when I press a key.  In this example, the first key was pressed only once at the very beginning - it was not pressed again when the second key was released yet the XW acts as if it was.  What I believe should happen is that ONLY the pitch of the note should change.  (The XW implements last-note priority so the pitch you hear should always be that of the last note you pressed. If you let go of the last note while holding one or more others, as in this case, it should be that of the second-to-last note you pressed, etc.)  Casio's engineers might disagree, but I don't believe an analog monophonic synth that retriggers on every keypress (e.g., the Arp Odyssey) behaves this way (retriggering notes that are merely being held).  And so neither should the XW. (ADDENDUM: Before someone corrects me I should add that the Odyssey was actually duophonic. It doesn't change what I'm talking about.)

ADDENDUM2: As it turns out the particular behaviour described directly above (retriggering of held notes) also applies to the synth oscillators.  It must be how the Casio engineers (or perhaps just one engineer) thinks envelope triggering should behave, i.e., it must be intentional.  I continue to disagree. :)

Third oddity and this one is truly odd: WIth the Legato setting on or off (doesn't matter) and using a volume envelope on your PCM oscillator that sustains, press two notes in succession.  Now release the FIRST note you pressed while holding the second one. You will hear the second note that you are still holding, as you should (and it will retrigger, which I think is wrong, but I covered that above).  Now press the first note again.  You will hear it sound instead of the second note you are holding since the keyboard is last-note priority.  Now release the note again.  Strangely, you will hear SILENCE.  What you should be hearing is the pitch of the second note that you are still holding.  If you now press and then release ANY other key on the keyboard while you are still holding that second note, you will hear what you should - the new note you just pressed will sound and when you release it you will hear the note you are still holding.  I have a hard time believing that this strange behavior with that original key you pressed (but not any others) is intentional.  It is certainly not desirable.


Of course, chances are against ANY of the oddities described above getting "fixed" in a firmware update, assuming that we aren't once again up against a hardware limitation.  I don't know any workarounds for these per se, but now that you are aware of them you can possibly avoid something surprising happening when you play a patch that uses a PCM oscillator.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phew-I agree, hadn't noticed yet. I seem to recall in my old Sequential Circuits Pro-One (yeah I am that old I had a new one) and i could be wrong (my human memory must be RAM not ROM as I lose its contents unless its constantly refreshed) it had a switch for high or low note priority with legato-maybe not exactly what you are talking about but close. It was monophonic, dual oscillator but I could get the low or high note to trigger on release depending on the switch (I think I'll have to look this up). Certainly not what one would expect, but then other keyboards allow for scale reversing, different tunings including micro, just, Werkmeister and other ways to screw with your brain, as I said in another post the technology is so far beyond our ability to use it all (IMO) the challenge I guess is to try to retain some of the traditional ways of playing with interfaces that often only a software engineer could like. I just realized in the XW-P1 appendix it lists over 2000 basic sounds, PCM and otherwise, my goodness i thought my Wurlitzer tine piano was pretty cool back when, at least it played chords and was velocity sensitive.  I remember not fondly writing one of my first computer programs that took an hour in binary code which generated a crude dot-matrix picture of a dog, barely recognizable. Sort of like eating soup with a knife. Thank god the XW is a little more approachable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my human memory must be RAM not ROM as I lose its contents unless its constantly refreshed

LOL.

 

I have a friend who had a Pro One, also bought when they were new.  He sold it under pressure from his _former_ SO (see what happens when you force a man to part with a synth, ladies? :)) and is still kicking himself.  He refused to sell his Jupiter 6, however.  Now he has added a Jupiter 80 to his rack (just above his RD-700) and he loves it.  He's an all-Roland guy now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember not fondly writing one of my first computer programs that took an hour in binary code which generated a crude dot-matrix picture of a dog, barely recognizable. Sort of like eating soup with a knife. Thank god the XW is a little more approachable!

 

I can remember spending DAYS programming pages of code for a program that came with computer magazine (early 80's), only to type 'run' and then be greeted with 'Syntax Error' (the forerunner of the Blue Screen of Death!) There would then follow another few days trying to debug the code if we weren't patient enough to wait a month for the next edition of the magazine to come out with the corrections listed...!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.