AlenK

Beyond the strong (IMO) possibility that Casio has no great desire to upgrade the features in the PX-560, I personally suspect that the PX-560's processor is already low on memory resources. Hence, I believe it is likely that feature-wise they have pushed that particular architecture about as far as it will go. The MZ-X500, on the other hand, although sharing many common elements in software and user interface, is a later design with, I strongly suspect, far more memory for the processor. An example that I think supports my conjectures is the overdub recording function in the MIDI recorder (sequencer). No matter how it is implemented (there are a few different ways it can be done) it takes additional memory for buffers. The MZ-X500 has the feature while the PX-560 does not. This is NOT an arcane function; you can find it on almost every MIDI sequencer over the years, whether software or hardware. That it is missing on the PX-560 suggests that its processor lacks sufficient memory to do it. Don't get me wrong. I support your desire for upgrades. I am simply not confident we will get any.

Actually, I can't take credit for finding the Wah workaround. IIRC someone here found it first. But I CAN take credit for documenting it fully. With respect to paraphonic filter operation, don't forget what has been called the Performance synthesis mode. You can play up to four polyphonic tones, many of which already layer two waves, through the solo-synth's resonant filter with all the usual modulation capabilities. It's not as easy to use as Hex Layer, granted, but we must take what we can get on the XW-P1!

Doable, sure, but I say unlikely.

Analog controls? The XW's knobs may be actual potentiometers rather than encoders, which means they are indeed analog, but the XW digitizes the voltages from them before using them. Hence, they become digital controls. And I do believe they will send out on MIDI but of course you will have to double-check that. Regarding the sliders, the XW provides no overt way to program them to send out specific CC messages. There are posts here on CMF that demonstrate that they do send out CCs in certain modes but you can't select which CCs. That's why I mentioned the possibility of the virtual-controller sliders. You can program their functions (by programming the virtual controller sources), the only question being if they also send out messages on MIDI if you select CC numbers as sources.

It certainly does. Some people didn't think so when it first came out. I think they got their knickers in a bunch about the lack of a controllable resonant filter in the Hex Layer mode, something Casio corrected in their very next synth/keyboard (the PX-5S). But there are many polyphonic sounds that don't require that. And in any case you can fake it paraphonically. The solo synth in particular is brilliant. Sonically it's not perfect and one could argue that the number of controllable parameters is bordering on ludicrous. But it's an awfully nice synthesis engine to have.

Re the sliders: Have you tried to see what the XW-P1 outputs as you adjust the sliders when editing the virtual controllers? I am referring to the functionality described in section 3.4.6.1 of The XW-P1 Companion. You can adjust just about any parameter of the solo synth with the sliders in that mode but I never did check to see what, if anything, the XW-P1sends out on MIDI in that situation. Re playing an "octo-layer" sound over a 16-track sequence, the XW-P1 can indeed get surprisingly close. You can play a Hex Layer (six layer) tone over a 15-track sequence input over MIDI. You can layer a Hex Layer tone with one or two PCM tones (some PCM tones already layer two waves) in Performance mode and still sequence 13 or 14 parts over MIDI. If external MIDI isn't considered, the XW-P1 can sequence up to a total of 14 parts: nine parts using the step sequencer, another part using the phrase sequencer when it is started by the step sequencer and up to four more parts from the phrase sequencer when it is started manually (see Appendix A of the Companion). Getting the latter to synchronize must be done manually but it is still possible.

The User's Guide reveals all: https://support.casio.com/storage/en/manual/pdf/EN/008/XWP1_1B_EN.pdf See page E-71. From the description I assume all user tones will be deleted if you chose to initialize "All" but I'm actually not sure since I have never done it.

I would characterize many tones I have heard from the original model D Minimoog, which remains to me the best of the Moog synths, as "nasal" in character. So perhaps using a bandpass filter response on some, but not all, of the layers might bear fruit.

On the PX-5S you can specify pitch bend or any CC from 00 to 97 for the arpeggiator's control track. Strangely, for the MZ-X500 Casio took a step back and allow only panning or filter cutoff. Why they did that, I don't know.

Welcome!

I have not tried to do that but the filter in the PX-560 is very different than the filter(s) in any Moog monosynth or the one in the XW-P1; it is only 2-pole rather than four and it's not a ladder type, so doesn't exhibit the same characteristic distortions as the famous Moog filter. On the plus side, it is REALLY smooth, which helps enormously with analog synth emulations in general. The XW-P1's filter is, how shall we say?, just a TAD rougher in comparison. In any event, some signature Moog sounds don't actually depend on the unique characteristics of the Moog filter. Just using some detuned saws (no more than three), passing them through the LPF with a highish resonance, employing portamento and riding the pitch bend and modulation wheels can get you in the ballpark. Oh, and be careful of your phrasing because the PX-560 doesn't know monophonic. If you play more than one note you'll sound like an Oberheim polysynth, not a Moog monosynth. (Moog made polysynths too, of course, but nobody particularly cares how the Memorymoog sounded and the infamous Polymoog is a different beast entirely.)

As you have noticed, your options to synchronize changes in one synthesis parameter to changes in another in the PX-5S are very limited. (The PX-560 is the same in that regard - don't know about the MZ-X500.) The LFOs can't even sync to tempo like the solo-synth LFOs can on the XW-P1. You may know if you read a certain document that there are even more ways to sync modulations in the XW-P1's solo-synth. It's amazingly flexible. And, of course, the XW-P1 offers hard sync between two of the solo-synth oscillators. And the step sequencer has four control-only channels that will do tempo synced modulations of a boatload of parameters. But that doesn't help you on the PX-5S. I think your best bet, at least for synchronizing modulations of synthesis parameters is to use the Phrase Sequencer. You can record knob and slider movements by which you can roll your own LFOs, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Overdubbing helps. I tried this on the XW-P1 and wrote it up in the document. On the PX-5S you can simultaneously play eight phrases using the Song Sequencer, presumably each affecting its own separate part; that capability may also be useful. PS. All pitch locking does is make the pitch of one layer follow another. Sure, technically that is synchronization of the two oscillator waveforms, probably right down to their phases, but it's just a tuning thing.

Seems like a tale retailers tell to dissuade you from buying Casio, which they either don't sell or make less profit on.

Would the Song Sequencer be of any use to the OP? I was trying to understand its capabilities a while back:

Well worth $199. (BTW, amusing that an ad for a used item would employ the inane practise of $X99 pricing. Why not just ask $200?) The P1 and G1 include some CZ waveforms but unfortunately not the Phase Distortion method of synthesis that the CZ models used. Hard to get close without that. Wrt the FZ, it is/was a sampling synthesizer but AFAIK neither the P1 or the G1 uses any original samples from it. Be sure to download The XW-P1 Companion from here. Sure, you have a G1 and some of what is in there will not apply to you. But enough of it WILL apply that you might find the document useful.

I'm not affiliated with Casio but I imagine that a fix for your first problem will not be forthcoming. Saving all tones used in a registration would require more Flash memory than the MZ-X500 uses now, since those tones would need somewhere to go apart from the existing user slots. The MZ-X500 does a LOT of things, so I bet that it is nearly maxed out on available Flash memory (unless you want to sacrifice user sample space). That means also that Casio probably won't be able to increase the total number of user tone slots. If the way the MZ-X500 retrieves tones from a USB stick is anything like the way the XW-P1 retrieves tones from an SD card, then there might be a workaround to your second problem: Not enough user slots in a given tone category. On the XW-P1, you can specify a user tone slot in any PCM tone category when you retrieve a PCM tone from an SD card, not just a user slot in the PCM category the tone originally came from. (You won't be able to do the same for Hex Layer tones, as far as I know.) I can't tell from the MZ-X500 User's Guide whether it allows the same thing (and I don't own one), but then again I can't tell that the XW-P1 can do it from its User's Guide either. Of course, if it works on the MZ-X500 it does mean that when you are looking for a tone you have to remember that it may not be in its "proper" category.

Yes, a very solid video. Well done. I watched the whole thing and I don't even own a CT-X. Interesting that phrases (for pads) can record arpeggios. Brad, can the MZ-X500 do that? I only know for certain that the XW-P1 can't. (But on the XW-P1 phrases can be arpeggiated, which is its own kind of fun.) Of course, the XW-P1, XW-G1, MZ-X models and the PX-5S allow user-programmed arpeggios. And the PX-5S can play four real arpeggios at once, not just four recordings of arpeggios. So far, every Casio generation of instruments seems to handle arpeggios differently.

Right you are! I was too quick and took the wrong column in the table when I answered. I should have given it some thought. For posterity, I have corrected the post above where I made that silly error. Glad to hear that things are making sense now. The MIDI implementation document is a goldmine.

I saw Robert Palmer live in the 80's and this song was part of his set. I had a hard time taking my eyes off the stage for that concert, if you know what I mean. The music was good too.

BlackTea, the answers to all of the questions you have asked so far and probably many more you are considering, can be obtained by studying the PX-560 User's Guide. If you not have downloaded it please do yourself a favor. https://support.casio.com/storage/en/manual/pdf/EN/008/Web_PX560-ES-1B_EN.pdf

Give it a try. There is theory and then there is actual practise.

Coming up dry. Heck, I couldn't even get the XW-P1 to do that (although on the XW-P1 it is possible to modulate the various envelope time parameters of the solo-synth with an LFO, which at least provides some more variability). I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a firmware update that adds any true functionality to the PX-560. Maybe it might get another bug fix update but probably not even that.

Nice detective work and nice fix. Thanks for informing the forum. (A few cents more spent by Casio originally and you would not have had to do this.)

Could be you are right, but I was only considering revenue into the division from non-home keyboards. Whatever you may think of the PX-560 and the MZ-X models, they were a step above Casio's home-oriented keyboards at the time. By calling them consumer/"prosumer" I think you recognize that too. I would guess that when those projects got the green light Casio was transitioning from taking a run at the pro market (XW-P1, PX-5S) to retreating to only home keyboards again. That fits the timeline of that article about Casio's internal problems. Hence, the PX-560 and MZ-X models are in the space between. If they had not (re)abandoned the pro market then we would have surely seen the true PX-5S successor everyone was clamouring for, and the XW-P1 successor I was personally thinking they would need if they were serious about competing in the synth market. Instead, we got the PX-560.

Dude then? Well, I guess I have a new name.