Groovebox Functionality

[CairnsFella]

Hi all,

 

This is one of my few outstanding questions regarding the G1.

 

Acknowledging  that few of the many functions of the G1 will be better, in isolation, than dedicated professional hardware that is focussed upon a narrower range of functions, I am still keen to make a comparison to other 'grooveboxes' of the past. Does anyone here own,  or have reasonable experience of things like MC909, RS7000, i.e. the sampling polyphonic grooveboxes, and if so could you highlight the most significant deficiencies the G1 may have in your experience if one was to try to use the Casio in the same type of way as these old machines. I emphasise the aspect of your experience as I 'hope' I have noted most of the specification type differences, but practical use is a different thing. By all means highlight any major pro's to, though it is the limitations that I am most eager to learn at this stage. I realise the most

 

On a related note. Has anyone here done any live/ or performance type sequencing. If so have you found the faders limiting insomuch that you need to switch between two sets of steps (in a 16 beat sequence) to facilitate any type of live parameter edit across a large selection of steps (I specifically avoid stating ALL steps as I realise there is a global fader).obvious is size (And this is a consideration) but I am more focused on function.

 

Ill also tag on a third of my questions, as although I really meant it to be addressed in isolation I guess it is sort of related.

 

Without trying to suggest that the G1 is any more limited than it is, or to understate it's flexibility, do any current users find the limitations in performance parameter tweaking more (or indeed maybe less) restrictive in practice than one might expect. (I mean the likes of filers in poly pcm mode etc)

 

 

Note:- This question is one from an original list in post:-

 

http://www.casiomusicforums.com/index.php?/topic/8029-a-list-of-g1-questions/

 

but as that thread ulrtimately focused upon a sampling question I have seperated these out

[XW-Addict]

Well each sixteen steps of step sequencer can be live edited or programmed for a specific function.

 

Once a step is programmed with a live feed by pressing each step button for a pattern then its possible,

for each step  programmed to change step data , step size , notelength, groove(swing) and octave. 

 

There is possibility to use one or all of the sixteen steps in each step sequence for instance if a four step pattern 

suffice you can do that or five , six , nine , twelve or the full sixteen steps. Which can make for interesting patterns. 

 

As well each step sequence can be copied to another step pattern , or do a whole note shift, And each step can have

its own scale major , minor , pentatonic , drums , velocity etc. 

 

To me personally  the step sequence is a big addition to this synth and if only used as a module connected to other

synths a typical groovebox it is.

 

Oh and everything you want to know about Step Sequencer can be found in the XW Sequence part of this forum

Its quicker to mention questions there.  

[CairnsFella]

XW-Addict

 

Your responses are, as ever, appreciated.

 

Unfortunately I feel that my attempts to be quite specific with my questions end up having the opposite effect so I am obviously not really asking what I intended. Sorry.

 

This point is probably closest to what I want to find out.

 

To me personally  the step sequence is a big addition to this synth and if only used as a module connected to other

synths a typical groovebox it is.

 

But even more I wanted to know what limitations there are in comparison to an 'actual', or as you say 'typical' groovebox.

 

I already realise, for example, that for real time tweaking of a sixteen step pattern you have to toggle between steps 1-8 and 9-16 before using the faders, and this (in combination with what parameter you select to tweak) means two things.

 

1. The faders will not reflect the actual parameter values when changing group or parameter, and

 

2. 'near' seamless live tweaks across the sixteen steps will take a lot of practice and dexterity.

 

So it is this type of experience - i.e. 'live' limitations vs a real groovebox - that I am most keen to learn about. I have seen a few videos and workshops using the different XW sequencers, but nothing that really compares to some of the 'live grooves' being laid down by some 909's and RS7000's. I do not mean by this that the G1 cannot do some comparable work, but that there just isnt that 'type' of video around.

 

Having said that, I do also like to learn about what the G1 CAN do, so thanks for the additional information.

 

As for moving this to the sequencer area... you are probably correct, however as I am really asking about the comparison between the G1 and 'sampling' grooveboxes rather than generic sequencer capabilities I thought here would be the correct place??