AlenK

zackan3, what did you decide to buy? I'm going to guess you decided on the PX-560 after all.

" I was intrigued with the possibility of triggering 2-4 phrase simultaneously ala PX5s and you saved me some time knowing this isn't possible" Well, two are technically possible at one time if one of them is triggered by a pattern. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

That MZ-X500 review is mistaken about the oscillators. In Hex Layer mode you can select from all the waveforms in the table called "Wave List (HexLayer)" that starts on page 31 of the MZ-X500 Appendix document. There are 754 of them incuding sine, triangle, sawtooth, square and pulse waves of various duty cycles. Missing is a PWM-able square wave and of course there is no sync between oscillators in the Hex Layer mode. Those missing things, as well as the lack of a 24 db/octave mode for the filter, mean it's still not as flexible as the XW-P1/G1's solo synth. Perhaps in the next iteration of the XW line or whatever succeeds it, we will see all of these things, and done better than in the XW synths (a hope I expressed in a post above).

What??? This appears to be the wrong forum for the OP's question. The XW synths don't have a chord mode. Furthermore, keyboard instruments don't usually have frets so I don't understand christylogu's answer. (I do play the guitar as well - started on it, in fact.)

Hi Guys and Gals, It has been almost seven months since I last published an update to The XW-P1 Companion, Volume 1. Where did the time go?? This update corrects a few more typos, adds some clarifications here and there (nothing super important that you should bother to hunt for) and adds another appendix, this one describing a method for selecting quickly between up to 16 tones, which I first described in this thread. Since I did add some significant content (the new appendix) I upped the revison number to 3. As always if you find any errors please let me know. Update: The document has been updated. See here.

Nice. Thanks for the link. And thanks for creating and posting all those videos.

Late reply, but I can try to explain what I know about Performances. I'm sure you know a lot of this already so please bear with the parts that seem obvious. I am trying to be complete in my description for other readers. You can of course associate a sequence having up to eight patterns, with a Performance. In STEP SEQUENCER (STEP SEQ) mode you can use the eight front buttons to select the different patterns. You can also use the lower twelve keys on the keyboard to transpose a pattern by activating KEY SHIFT. While you are using those keys for that purpose you can't trigger notes from them as you normally would. But you can simply switch KEY SHIFT on _only_ when you need to use those keys for transposing a pattern. At all other times you can keep KEY SHIFT off to use those keys to trigger notes normally. Note that you can't play more than one pattern at a time. You also can't play different sequences or patterns in different zones. Sequences and zones are independent and normally use different Parts. The only time they intersect is if you program the Solo1 sequencer track to play the tone in Part/Zone 1 instead of Part 14. The sequencer allows that, of course, because Part/Zone 1 is special; it's the only one that can play a solo-synth, Hex-Layer or drawbar-organ tone. Being that the Solo1 track plays only one note at a time, the solo synth is the natural target if you are going to do this. But there is no rule that says you can't use one of the other kinds of tone. You can also associate an arpeggio and a phrase to a Performance. The XW-P1 can only have one of each active at any given time (whereas the XW-G1 can play two phrases at the same time and the PX-5S up to four). When you activate each in a zone it simply means the arpeggio or phrase will play the tone programmed for that zone provided you play a key in that zone (or in the case of a phrase, press the PLAY/STOP key when KEY PLAY is off). It doesn't mean you can have different arpeggios or phrases in each zone. (That is precisely what the PX-5S can do, however.) While it is true that you can normally have only one phrase going at a time on the P1, there IS a way to play another at the same time using, if you wish, a completely different tone than any of those you have programmed for the four zones. The trick is to use a sequencer pattern to activate a phrase. Rather than describe how here I'll simply direct you to page 54 of The XW-P1 Companion (Rev 2a or Rev 3) where it is all explained in detail. I should also mention that by suitable transposition of the tones in each zone you can record a phrase that sounds like it has multiple tracks. You could use such a phrase, say with three tones happening (e.g., zones 2, 3 and 4) to accompany your playing in the remaining zone (e.g., zone 1). That is described in the Companion on page 78.

One more really important thing. The CGP-700 doesn't allow you to edit its tones. So it really does matter whether those guitar sounds in the video of the PX-5S are there already as presets in the 700. If not, there's no way to get them. AFAIK there is no Appendix document for the CGP-700 (or for the PX-360, which probably has an almost identical sound set apart from the actual piano synthesis engine) that would list the tones (there is one for the PX-560). Without such a list there's no way to know exactly what tones are included without auditioning them on the instrument itself. As well, on the PX-560 all the tones are editable, so you can adjust the way they sound to your taste (within reason). PS. I don't think there is an Appendix document for the PX-5S either. At least, I can't find one on any Casio web site. A strange omission, IMO. PPS. I also notice in the video the guy is flicking both the pitch bend wheel AND the modulation wheel as he plays the lead guitar tone (starting at about 2m32s). In fact, he spends more time riding the mod wheel. On the PX-5S and the PX-560 the mod wheel can be assigned to parameters (two at a time) other than just vibrato depth. That could be important to the sound he is getting. Note that the CGP-700 doesn't have a mod wheel, only a pitch bend wheel, so you won't be able to do exactly what he is doing on the 700, even if there is a preset that otherwise sounds the same.

A correction to what I had written above (which I edited): You DO get the 17-track sequencer on the CGP-700 as well. So if you have both keyboards you'll get both types of sequencer, which is nice. Frankly, I don't think you'll be able to achieve as good an overdrive guitar on the XW-P1 as on the PX-560 or PX-5S. At least, I haven't yet heard one as good. Same goes for rhythm guitar. However, as long as the guitar sounds we're hearing in the video aren't custom made on the PX-5S using, for example, its Hex Layer mode you should be able to get them out of the CGP-700. The big advantage of the XW-P1 is the monophonic synth sounds and secondarily the drawbar organ. If you don't need those then you may not need it at all. The PX-560 can give you very nice synth sounds, although always polyphonic and very smooth and civilized (can't quite get as extreme a sound due to the filters).

I think the CGP-700 + XW-P1 would be a great combination. You get the solo synth (the PX-560 doesn't have a monophonic mode) and a drawbar organ, as well as the correct kind of keyboard to play them. You won't get the 560's more advanced Hex Layer synth sounds (the P1's Hex Layer mode is not as advanced). But, overall, having the two keyboards may be the better choice. It's certainly more versatile.

The smf player plays only MIDI Type 0 smf files as far as I can tell. But it works fine within that limitation.

This is the PX-5S but the PX-560 should be able to make the same sorts of guitar sounds:

Hi XW-P1 users, In the XW Companion thread I mentioned a Volume 2. No, it isn't done yet. It's not even near to being done yet. But I thought it would be worthwhile posting an excerpt with a couple of emulation examples that are more-or-less done. These were the easy ones. The others I am still working on are proving much more difficult. XW-P1 Companion - Volume 2 -excerpt_2.pdf

.

First off, CC 07 is a channel volume command (the MIDI 1.0 spec actually explicitly calls it that) and it always applies to a single channel. If the XW-P1 is responding to it on channel 1 then that is the MIDI channel embedded in the volume messages it is receiving. If you are hoping that sending CC 07 to the basic channel will then apply it to all channels, that's not how the XW-P1 works. You mentioned patch changes. I believe that if you put the P1 in TONE mode then program change messages (with bank select) on channel 1 will change the tone (patch) of the sound you are playing on the keyboard. If I understand you right that may be closer to the kind of behaviour you are expecting. But I haven't checked that. Re the basic channel, what you can send to the P1 on it is described on the right hand side of page E-70 of the User's Guide. Note that the Performance change NRPN command is included (if you turn that feature on). For how to use that see item 7.39.3 on page 24 of the MIDI Implementation document. An external controller can send a Performance change NRPN command on the basic channel to select a Performance and thereby change all the tones (patches) for parts 1 to 4 together (parts 5 and 6, too, as it turns out, but the P1 can't itself access those parts). Unfortunately, I don't think the FCB1010 can send NRPN commands.

The PX-560 offers a few enhancements to the piano sound that aren't on the other two Casio models you mention (string resonance and key-off simulation, IIRC) but I think most people would only hear the difference on certain kinds of music and/or if you knew what to listen for. The PX-160 and GGP-700 actually use different piano engines, so if they sounded virtually identical to you I suspect the PX-560 would too.

If by moderation you mean modulation, then yes, you can control that along with reverb or with anything else. The possibilities are huge (yuge). See page EN-83 in the MZ-X500/MZ-X300 User's Guide (Tutorial). (BTW, moderation is apparently in short supply this year. ) Re linearity, see this thread, which explains the issue:

I think using an expression pedal directly with the MZ-X500 has some advantages because you can program it to affect two parameters at the same time, with different ranges for each. I don't think you can do that with the FC-200 (haven't checked its manual). OTOH, the FC-200 has ten footswitches vs only one (or two if you don't need an expression pedal) directly into the MZ-X500. Why not use both? PS. Can MZ-X500 users confirm if it has the same apparent problem with the "linearity" of the expression pedal input as the PX-560? If it does that would argue for using something like an FC-200 (discontinued) or a Behringer FCB-1010.

You need to enable the phrase in the zone you want playing it (or zones - you can enable it in more than one) and disable it in the zones you don't want playing it. If you have an XW-P1 see pages E-62, E-64 and E-65 of the User's Guide. For the G1 see pages E-72 to E-74.

P3-2 to P3-6 in the PCM Piano category has all the P1's preset clavinet sounds. (Ha, ha, my iPad's autocorrect "fixed" the spelling to "clarinet" too.) Press TONE, then make sure the PIANO button is selected (it might already be if you just turned the machine on). Scroll to those sounds or select them using the numeric keys (I won't bother describing how to do that). If none of those are to your liking (I think they're useable, personally) you could try customizing from within the Hex Layer mode, but it will take a lot more work. Check the Uploads section to see if someone has already done that. You could get lucky! The drawbar organ, btw, isn't going to give you anywhere near a clavinet sound. It's strictly for Hammond B-3 emulation.

I'm posting this in the DP General Discussion forum rather than in the PX-560 forum because Casio's triple-pedal units are designed for many different Casio DP models. I have a PX-560 on a CP-67BK stand. Loving it, and IMO the 560 looks quite nice on the stand. They are both high-quality products. My next step (literally) will be to get a triple-pedal unit. Easy, right? I just buy an SP-33 and install it. However, I have a few concerns. The SP-33 is a dark gray color, not black, so it doesn't quite match the stand (but hey, a very minor issue). The pedals are short, apparently coming in at about 2.5 inches long and reportedly causing some difficulties for people wearing shoes. That's more troubling. And there are a number of reports that the pedals feel flimsy and "plasticky." I haven't seen any reports of pedals actually breaking so the latter complaints are just about about how they "feel," which may also be partly caused by their short length. How do owners here of the SP-33 feel about it? Is it comfortable to use and has it stood up well with time? Ergonomically, I might prefer a mechanically unattached, but otherwise solid, triple-pedal unit like the M-Audio SP-Triple or the Studiologic VFP-3-10. But those products are only of limited use with the PX-560. With either I could connect only two of the pedals to the 560's 1/4-inch pedal input jacks and I could well need a splitter cable to do even that. And I wouldn't get half-pedaling. It may be possible to modify such a triple-pedal unit. One such modification is described here. The pdf describes how the author connected three single-pedal units, one of them modified electronically to output an additional half-pedal signal, to a PX-120's bottom connector, which is designed to connect to an SP-32 (predecessor to the SP-33). However, it is unclear if half-damper functionality would work correctly on a PX-560. The SP-32 is intended for models such as the PX-X20 and PX-X30 (where the second "X" is 1 or 3) as well as other models of similar vintage and is apparently incompatible with the more recent PX-X50 and PX-X60 models, which reportedly require the SP-33. One of the reasons for that may be revealed in this thread here on the Casio Music Forums, in which we learn that the SP-33's damper pedal passes a reference voltage coming out of the DP's bottom connector through a potentiometer, thus feeding back a continuously changing voltage. Hence, it allows continuous variation of damper position, not just three states (off, half and full). That's a great feature and I don't know of a stand-alone triple-pedal unit that works in the same way (and hence might be a better starting point for a modification). Of course, connecting anything not made by Casio to the bottom pedal input (unlike the 1/4-inch pedal inputs on the back panel) could void the warranty. I don't know. This is no minor concern because I understand you get a three-year warranty if you register your purchase with Casio. That's pretty good and a sign that Casio stands behind their quality. So I'm not advocating doing such a modification. But I do find it an intriguing possibility for those who are comfortable working with electronics (in this case it's pretty simple stuff).

All interesting points, Brad, but you seem to be assuming 88keys posted because he (she?) is trying to decide between the two models. He or she may well be, in which case everything you say should aid the decision. If it wasn't clear before your answer it should be clear now; that while the PX-560 has some arranger features it is not in fact an arranger. And while it has some "workstation" features it is not a workstation. But I took his/her post at face value; that he/she was merely commenting on some obviously similar design elements. I know what you mean by "similar on the surface." But from a product-design perspective, in another sense the similarities actually run "deep," assuming I am correct that the two models share _some_ of same code and circuits (which, from a development perspective is the smart thing to do).

I don't think it's an odd comparison at all. I'd be willing to bet that not only are there many similarities in software but that some of the underlying hardware is the same too. And I'm not just talking about the touchscreen, which is obvious; I'll bet that circuit diagrams for the two would show many similarities if not identical sections. The two models might even share a circuit board or two although that is far less likely. While there ARE many obvious differences between the two models, the underlying fundamental development resources (software & circuits) have clearly been shared.

I have never opened up my XW-P1. Thankfully, I haven't had any problems with it (here's knocking on wood), probably because I purchased an extended warranty when I bought it (it was very inexpensive). In my experience that almost always protects a piece of equipment because of the maximum perversity of the Universe.

The resonant filters in the PX-5S and all the later models do sound much smoother. I don't hear that roughness at all on the filter(s) in the PX-560's Hex Layer mode, which AFAIK are the same in the PX-5S and the MZ-X500. Of course, those filters are only 12dB/octave (two pole). It has yet to be seen if Casio can achieve the same smoothness on a 24dB/octave (four pole) filter like the one in the XW's solo synth. I was originally very disappointed in the roughness I heard when sweeping the cut-off, as it seems you were too. It was like a third punch to the gut after the initial disappointments of the roughness in the PWM implementation and the aliasing caused by using sync (which, by the way, means you can't use sync of a square wave to do PWM). But this workaround restored my faith somewhat. Because it will be quite a while before Volume II appears, here is an excerpt from it that describes the Moogish brass sound I created using the workaround. As patches go it's nothing special and I'm not claiming any mad "skillz" in sound design. It was created merely as a tutorial. Update (11/24/16): There is a new excerpt with another example of using the resonant filter. See this thread to download it.