AlenK

The PX-5S, PX-560 and MZ-X keyboards aren't really meant for studios/producers. That's not the market they are addressing. Besides which, they are relatively new on the market (the MZ-X is just a babe in arms). The PX-5S is old enough to have made considerable "penetration" into the stage piano market. Based on comments in the Keyboard Magazine forum it appears that the PX-5S is actually well respected and quite popular with working musicians, despite a few flaws (show me a perfect product). But regarding studios, how exactly do you know how many are using (or not using) Casio products? Do you have statistics on their equipment usage? Have you visited many throughout the world? I expect your statement is actually correct and that not a lot use Casio equipment (anymore) but the absolute way you express it makes me curious.

Updated and revised to this thread:

Lackluster? The latest pro-level keyboards Casio introduced are the PX-560 and the MZ-X300/500. Those are, in my opinion, the best keyboards they have released since the MZ-2000. Neither is perfect but they demonstrate to me that Casio is seriously trying to step up their game. We'll have to see what new products show up at NAMM, if anything significant, but if Casio continues on this trajectory we should see even better products in the next few years. Everyone is expecting a true PX-5S replacement (the PX-560 is not that). Personally, I am hoping for a pro-level synth with 76 keys (my wish list for that here).

That makes sense. It's probably why the resulting sound is often described as "crunchy" and explains the appeal of low sample rate drum machines for certain types of music.

Yes, and everyone knows you can't possibly make decent music on toys: But you sure can have fun:

I don't know how it is normally done on the PX-5S but it is easy to turn zones on and off on the XW-P1. Hit the MIXER button. The 16 step sequencer buttons above the sliders now control the 16 parts of the instrument, of which the zones are the first four. If a button's LED is lighted up it means the part is enabled for playback. Hit the button for a given part to turn it on or off depending on its current state.

If you don't recognize the piece's name you might recognize it as music used in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." This is good stuff.

Outstanding, Carlo! You (and the rest of the band) play very well. Yes, the XW-P1 can really rock!

Here's an update to the thread and another confirmation of the problem. I recently purchased two expression pedals: the Roland EV-5 and the Moog EP-3. The first is on Casio's list of verified pedals. The second is not but it actually cost less than the EV-5 and, well, it's from Moog! I always wanted something from Moog and this is about all I could afford from them () so after Mark's informative post above I took a small chance and bought it too. I'm glad I did. Although the EV-5 and EP-3 are both made primarily of plastic (with metal base plates) the EP-3 is much heavier, seemingly much more solid (thicker plastic?) and a little smoother in operation. It's taller but that isn't usually a downside for a foot-pedal. I can confirm the basics of Mark's post above. With the bottom switch in the "Other" position and the trim knob on the side of the pedal in the position shown, the pedal worked as well as the EV-5 when the latter was used with its trim knob in the "0" position (any other position just adds resistance in series with the pedal's main potentiometer, which serves to change the minimum voltage output from the pedal). But, that is not to say it worked _perfectly_. With either pedal I heard the problem people are reporting above. I heard it regardless of whether I recalibrated when switching pedals or not (I actually didn't really have to recalibrate - each pedal worked more-or-less the same with the other's calibration settings). I listened very carefully and this is what I heard: When moving from minimum value (heel down) to maximum value (toe down) the volume when adjusting CC#11 (Expression) abruptly jumped from zero to not-zero at a particular (clockwise) rotation point, then jumped to _another_ slightly louder level with a couple of degrees further rotation and then, usually, smoothly increased from there to maximum. ("Usually" because I sometimes heard a _third_ abrupt step a few more degrees of rotation after I heard the second step.) When going in the other direction, from toe fully down to heel fully down, I heard an abrupt lowering of volume at some point in the (anticlockwise) rotation from toe fully down and then a smooth reduction in volume until near the bottom of travel, when I usually heard an abrupt step back to zero volume. However, sometimes I did _not_ hear the abrupt step and the volume merely decreased to a very low value that was _not_ zero. So, inconsistent behavior dependent on position (angle), direction of rotation, and, perhaps, random chance but none of it correct. BOTH pedals exhibited the problem, the difference being that in the case of the EP-3 the first abrupt transition from zero volume to low volume during clockwise rotation from full heel down, and from low volume to zero volume during anti-clockwise rotation, occurred much closer to the bottom of the pedal's travel (almost near the end, in fact). I suspect this has something to do with the two pedals having different effective linearity's for some reason. This may be why Mark reported perfect operation; it happens so close to the end of travel that it is very easy to miss. The fact that the EP-3 works at all strongly suggests to me that the PX-560 (and probably the MZ-X models as well) does not necessarily require a pedal with a 10Kohm potentiometer despite what the user's guide indicates. MOST expression pedals work as simple voltage dividers, using the potentiometer to send some fraction of a reference voltage sent by the keyboard back to it. The full resistance value of the pot is thus immaterial to this function; it only affects the amount of current that the pedal's full resistance draws and the current sent back to the ADC inside the keyboard that is reading the divided voltage. If the full resistance value is too low the current drawn from the voltage reference output may be more than the source of that voltage (ultimately a pin on a chip inside the keyboard) should or can provide. So you probably shouldn't go much lower than the 10K "requirement," otherwise you could stress the chip or even cause chip failure (if the circuit designer did not adequately protect against that possibility). If, OTOH, the full resistance is too high the ADC may not be able to measure the divided voltage properly. However, in the latter case the resistance would have to be very high indeed. I measured resistances between 25K and a bit over 100K when rotating the EP-3 pedal and those evidently do not cause any problem with reading the voltage. (At least with my PX-560 and EP-3: YMMV.) The PX-560 (and MZ-X models) appear to connect the reference voltage to the ring and the divided voltage to the tip, with the sleeve connected to ground. The verified pedals listed in the PX-560 user's guide appear to operate that way. (Note that the Kurzweil CC-1 is actually a re-branded Fatar.) I believe, but have not verified, that the EP-3's "polarity" switch swaps the ring with the tip. I will have to do further investigation of that. IIRC, I did not get correct operation with the switch in the "standard" position. Upshot is, there is indeed a significant "bug" with the way the PX-560 reads the expression pedal. I don't know if this was fixed in the MZ-X models or whether it is fixable with a mere software update in the case of the PX-560. I hope so. Depending on exactly how you are using the expression pedal the bug may or may not affect your playing. Regardless, it is undeniably there and deserves to be addressed by Casio in the next firmware update if it is possible to do so.

The apps can be accessed from the links above but I'll link directly to them here for your convenience: "Set List Maker" and "iMidiPatchBay"

In physics there is a thing called the Observer Effect: The act of observing or measuring something unavoidably affects what you are observing or measuring. This is kind of like that. In this case, releasing a video on YouTube about vintage gear that is "under the radar" brings that gear into enough prominence that it is now detectable by radar (to continue the analogy), increasing demand and driving prices up. Now, concerning twelve-bit samples being "lo-fi". It's not nearly as bad as they are making out. Twelve bits doesn't have to sound "grainy" (or "crunchy" as they claim in the video). Any grain or crunch heard in sampled sounds is likely due to aliasing from using an overly-low sample rate for the input audio. Filter the audio coming in to the analog-to-digital converter in order to adequately remove frequencies above half the sampling rate and all will be well (assuming proper post filtering as well). If the result is overly dull, use a higher sampling rate if you can. A sampling rate of 48kHz generally does the trick. Unfortunately, the RZ-1 is restricted to a single sampling rate that is probably no higher than 20kHz (according to this site - the RZ-1 manual doesn't specify). But 12-bit audio does obviously have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than 16-bit audio (CD quality), which you can hear as a hissy (white) noise floor. The maximum achievable SNR in dB of a digital audio system is approximately 6 times the number of bits. So, 8 bits is about 48dB (objectionably noisy), 10 bits is about 60dB (noticeably noisy), 12 bits is about 72dB (about the same as FM radio and the same as old 1/4-inch reel-to-reel tape decks that were considered audiophile-grade Hi-Fi back in the day!) and 16 bits is about 96dB. The "lo-fi" aspect of the RZ-1's sampled sounds are primarily because of a restricted frequency range, not a limited bit depth (although according to this site, the samples are eight bit not twelve, which means they are noisy). You probably won't hear anything much above 8kHz out of the RZ-1's outputs, which is about half what you need at a minimum for sounds containing high frequencies (like snare drum, hi-hats and cymbals). Other sounds like kick-drum and even tom will probably be okay.

Perhaps this, _IF_ the above described bank select MSB method works with the PX-560: PS. More about possible iPad apps here.

Ah, that clears up a few mysteries. So, if we assume that the PX-560 works like the MZ-X models in this respect at least and that, in turn, the MZ-X models work like the PX-5S, and that despite being copied from the PX-5S MIDI document the relevant information in the MZ-X MIDI document applies and is accurate (aside from the difference in terminology) then the following may work: Stage Setup Number Switching by Bank Select Message and Program Change Message The bank select message and program change message can be used to switch the stage setup number. The change target can be switched by the bank select MSB. The change target is specified by the program change number. The bank select LSB is ignored. Change Target: Stage Setup Bank Select MSB: 70H When Stage Set.Chg NRPN is enabled by Instrument settings, number switching by bank select and program change is ignored. For details about stage setups, see the Instrument’s User’s Guide. I haven't time to test it out right now. We're counting on you, Stu.

Unfortunately, a MIDI implementation document has not yet been released for the PX-560. Even if and when that happens it might not contain the information you need. For instance, the recently released MIDI spec for the MZ-X models (here) doesn't reveal how to change registrations over MIDI, assuming it is even possible.

I see the same thing. Firmware version 1.10 (as shipped - don't know if there has been an update). Looks like a bug.

Short answer: You can't. At least, not for _certain_. But you already have the right idea. Look for similar names between tones and waves in their respective lists in the PX-560 Appendix document. The rest of what I share below is unverified. I might be right, I might be wrong. In the case of the acoustic grand piano there are actually four velocity layers. That's the significance of the 1, 2, 3, 4 numbers at the end of the wave names. Each velocity has a left and right version. Already that is eight waves; two more than Hex Layer can handle. Bigger problem: The 560, 360 and 5S (and I believe the new MZ models and most of the other digital piano models) smoothly crossfade or interpolate (or _something_) between the velocity levels. You can't do that in a Hex Layer tone. Velocity switching is pretty much all you'll be able to do there easily (a pseudo-crossfade between two waves is also possible with some difficulty). Hence, if you use two Hex Layer tones, one for the left waves and another for the right and layer them, you'll at least be able to get a velocity-switched version of the grand piano.

Thanks for the lesson. By "encapsulated" I did indeed mean COB. Encapsulated is still a valid word in this context but not, I agree, specific enough in this case. I did not mean to imply that Casio was trying to hide anything. They may be protecting against industrial espionage (you flatter yourself if you think they care about what circuit benders do) but far more likely it is done merely for cost, as you say. That is one of the reasons I said it's probably a custom chip of some kind; because they would surely put one of their own chips on the board that way. Another, better, reason to think it's a custom chip, with certain operations done with hardware and not just code, is that there are particular unusual aspects of the operation of the XW synths that tell me it shares the same functional constraints as the last series of WK/CTK instruments. If it was just all software they could have changed those. Those aspects have remained unchanged throughout firmware updates and Mike Martin has stated here for a couple of them that hardware limitations are the reason. I'll take him at his word. BTW, here is the post in the Casio Music Forums with the picture you couldn't find. CYBERYOGI, I gotta ask: Why do you post about the XW synths in the Casio Music Forums? You have said you don't own either model yet you speculate about what is inside them based on no real, specific information about them (only much older models you have analyzed) or even based on experience using them, and from my perspective in a faintly disparaging way. Your profile says " I collect small and strange music keyboards and partly build synths from them. I detailed research 1980th Casio home keyboard hardware." That's great, but have you designed embedded hardware for any commercial products? Written any embedded software that we can find in commercial products? (Coding on something like a Raspberry Pi for use in a one-off creation doesn't really count in my book.) If not, then I will take your speculations about how Casio designs their products today (not in the 80's or 90's) with a grain of salt. Buy and actually use an XW synth and I will start to take what you say about them in particular more seriously.

Of course there are no VCF chips in the XW synths! No one will take your bet. As for how much of the functionality is accomplished using dedicated hardware and how much is done with software, only Casio can say. The main chip is encapsulated on the PCB (there's a photo of the board somewhere on the forum). Go ahead, buy a P1 or G1 and pry it off to see what's underneath. Of course you won't learn anything useful. I can say with confidence the fact that it's encapsulated means it isn't an off-the-shelf part. I am willing to guess that it's a custom chip Casio designed originally for their WK/CTK series of instruments. Some of the features added to the XW may use a lot of software (like the solo synth), others like the Hex Layer mode and even the drawbar organ mode may use less software. All the synthesis modes are likely augmenting and using in particular ways some underlying hardware on the chip such as, say, dedicated sample playback DMA channels.

Yes, thanks sslyutov. I don't think you should feel bad about making an assumption that turned out not to be true. I do it all the time. In this case the source of the mistaken assumption is the "Part and MIDI Channel Assignment" diagram in one of the appendices of the PX-360 User's Guide. Despite its apparent complexity (or because of it) it is not unambiguous. I had the same problem with the Effects Block Diagram on page E-37 of the XW-P1 User's Guide. It is actually incorrect. I redrew it for the XW-P1 Companion and found it best to turn it into two diagrams that use Casio's own convention for effects diagrams from earlier manuals (that they have thankfully returned to now). Casio's products are for the most part well engineered and always have great bang-for-the-buck but their manuals still need improvement IMO.

Assuming you really do mean that all sounds are coming from the XW-P1, including the piano sound, then you can do what you want as follows: You can play any of the XW-P1's sixteen parts using external MIDI input, in this case from your controller. Normally you would reserve the last nine parts (8 to 16) for the XW-P1's internal step sequencer. That leaves you with seven parts for live playing. In this case you need only one to be externally controlled (with a piano tone, presumably acoustic). You can at the same time also play up to four other tones from the XW-P1's keyboard (although your example only states three). Those four would be parts (zones) 1 to 4. Program them how you want in a Performance (split point, layering, etc.). Set part 5 or 6 to the acoustic piano preset (P0-0 in the PCM Piano category) using the mixer (see pages E-67 and E-68 in the XW-P1 User's Guide). I believe that tone is the default, so you might not have to change anything. Note that you could theoretically use part 7 but any changes to the settings for part 7 in the mixer aren't saved anywhere - they won't survive turning the power off - so I wouldn't advise using it. In the Performance editor set the input MIDI channel for your chosen part (5 or 6) to match what your controller is putting out (see Page E-66 in the User's Guide). All of the Performance and mixer settings you make for parts 5 and 6 are stored in your current Performance along with all the settings for parts/zones 1 to 4. Just be sure to save the Performance again if you edit any of those settings. (The manual doesn't mention this or anything much about parts 5, 6 or 7 since they aren't normally accessible from the XW-P1 itself unless you do clever tricks with MIDI cables. ) Note that the solo synth, drawbar organ and Hex Layer engines are mutually exclusive: only one can play at a time in a given Performance and only on part/zone 1. So if you have organ and synth in the same Performance, one of those will have to be chosen from the PCM tones.

If by "it is not available for the mod wheel" you mean that _control_ of the rotary effect is not possible from the mod wheel, that is not true. You can control any of the parameters of the rotary effect that are shown in the list on page EN-35 of the PX-560 User's Guide, up to two at a time. Or, indeed, up to two parameters of _any_ effect if you have chosen another one for a tone. See page EN-76 ("DSP Param 1-16"). Second, Vibrato/Chorus is part of the "Rotary" and "Drive Rotary" DSP effects. It's not selected separately so you get it when either of those has been selected. As you know there is only _one_ DSP effect that gets shared by all of the four keyboard parts (Upper 1, Upper 2, Lower 1, Lower 2), as shown on page A-6. Unfortunately, the manual is less than clear about how that DSP effect is shared between the parts. On page EN-16 it says "When tones with DSP are assigned as both the main tone and the split tone, the effect of one of the tones becomes disabled." It also says on the next page "When tones with DSP are assigned as both the main tone and the layered tone, the effect of one of the tones becomes disabled." Note that these statements are _not_ saying you can't hear the DSP effect for a tone below the split point of for a tone layered with Upper 1 or Lower 1, only that if a DSP effect is assigned to more than one tone you will only here the DSP effect for one of them. I believe, but am not certain, that Upper 1 has priority, i.e., if you choose a tone for Upper 1 with a DSP effect, that is the DSP effect that you will hear. If you want to hear a DSP effect in a tone selected for, say, Lower 1, you have to ensure you select a tone for Upper 1 that does _not_ use a DSP effect. I don't know the relative priorities of Upper 2 and Lower 2 parts, so I don't know which DSP effect you would hear if you selected tones with DSP effects for, say, Upper 2 and Lower 1 at the same time. BTW, the "Rotary" and "Drive Rotary" DSP effects on the the PX-560 (and MZ-X300/X500) are _much_ improved over the rotary DSP effect on the XW-P1. Of course, the downside of the PX-560 is that it lacks the drawbar organ engine; there are only PCM samples of organs.

Re adding a second tier to the CS-67 stand: Of course, it was never designed for this. You'd have to engineer something yourself. And the stability of the resulting "monstrosity" would be questionable. The different depths of these two keyboards also present a problem for such a conversion. Personally, I wouldn't try it. It's possible you could position an X-stand behind the CS-67 between it and the wall but the resulting position of the XW-P1's keyboard might be all wrong; maybe too far back and flat instead of overhanging the PX-560. I don't know a good way around that but maybe someone here can offer up an idea. Maybe an extension board and something (wood blocks?) to elevate the rear of the XW-P1? The most stable stand for two keyboards would, in my opinion, be a Z-stand with arms for the second level. Like this one. (Price is good, too.) I'll be getting something like that soon myself (actually probably that exact one). A two-tiered X-stand would work for you too but there is more leg room with the Z-stand if you will be sitting. More room for pedal units, too. Speaking of pedals, if you want to use the Casio SP-33 three-pedal unit that you can buy as an accessory for the CS-67 stand with a Z-stand instead, you could engineer something to install it across the bottom legs, like someone showed in a post here a while back. He was using an X-stand but the idea is the same and possibly even easier to do given the design of the Z-stand's legs.

Yes. All the ports on the back work as normal.

Leaky smartphones are bad. ;-> (Cue voice of Foghorn Leghorn: That's a joke, son.) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtnEUPvpus) Seriously, if Casio stays true to past behavior they only leak a week or so before the event where they release the new product. You'll just have to wait.

Never bought anything from Musician's Friend but plenty of people do so they are likely reliable. They are owned by Guitar Center. Just in case you haven't seen this, here's a review of the 560 to whet your appetite (you'll have to put it through a translator if you don't speak German): http://www.tastenwelt.de/lesen/news/casio-privia-px-560m-im-test-guenstiger-universalist/ Here's another: http://www.pianobuyer.com/PDFarchive/2016_Review-Casio.pdf