Jokeyman123

The PX560 will respond to program-and bank-changes the same way, regardless of what registration you load. Changing registrations is not connected to program changes, program changes work independently of registrations-nor can you change registrations with specific program changes, if that's what you are describing. What you can do, and I'm not sure I'm answering your question-is use program changes from external software-or another keyboard controller or hardware sequencer-to change each individual tone in whatever registration you select. And to do this, you need to know which midi channel each of your 4 tones-on your main screen-are hard wired to-and then you send the program change for each individual channel-the 4 tones you hve chosen in your registration. A registration will not save prgram changes from external software-it is already saving your 4 tone configuation-but your program changes are an entirely separate process. For example-upper 1 and upper 2 tones are an electric piano and string tone. Lower 1 and lower 2 are a brass tone and a pad tone. Each of those now store as a registration. Once you do that, you can remotely change each or all of those 4 tones with a software or hardware external controller. Look at page A-5 in the PX560 manual to see which midi channels are assigned-hardwired-to each of those 4 tones in your main screen when you have called up a registration. If you set your software or hardware controller to each of those midi channels, and its corresponding program change-then you can remotely do what you would do anyway-by saving a particular registration. Again, I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but the short answer repeating myself-the PX560 will always respond to program changes the same way, regardless of what registration you choose, but you have to follow the chart on page A-5 in the manual to see how the 560 hard-wires its midi channel assignments and based upon what "mode" you are in if you wish to switch individual tones whether in a registration or not. And you cannot switch registrations using program changes as far as I can see in the midi implementation chart. Would be nice, but that function does not look to be possible.

Merry Christmas to both of you, may this year be a blessed one. Peace on earth, good will towards everyone.

I don't have the 3100 so not familiar with it in detail-is it possible to edit tones? If it is, you could "map" a bass tone to the lower octaves, the piano to the upper, thus creating a "pseudo-split" but with 2 distinct tones-which now could be called up and activated as upper 1 and upper 2. Only workaround i could think of-the only other solution would be a software-based one-playing arpeggios through a midi player or DAW directed to only the bass tone in a split-since each tone in a split uses a different midi channel (at least the assignments are in my Casios) you could direct your arpeggio assigned to a specific midi channel, the midi channel of your bass split. Might even be able to send the original arpeggios from the Casio through midi usb out to your software, and have the software re-direct the arppegio to your specific bass midi channel in the Casio-a type of midi loop function.

Zappa-goes to show, it the musician, not the equipment. and Spinal Tap.....a Casio "Fairlite" that had to hurt. I wonder if it was mid'ied? Ghostbusters! I'd heard this never realized how much. (Classic Casio prices are exploding as this video is playing now.)😀 😀 I do have CZ-1 and SK-1 samples playable in my Alesis Fusion . Can do alot musically with the simplest sounds, actually easier to compose with simpler sounds than more complex, evolving sounds. This video demonstrates that very clearly. Wall of Voddoo, thank you one of my all-time favorite songs. when my brother was in the hospital this past month (motorcycle accident) I cheered him up considerably playing Mexican Radio for him. I can hear how the MT-10 was so prominent-that is a very good almost Irish tin whistle sound. Can cut through (obviously) almost even the loudest of other electronic or acoustic instruments. Great video, I'm only half-way through. Impressive, very.

There are no MZ's in the US new-all the major retailers saY SOLD OUT for either 300 OR 500 MZ series. Only chance is picking up a used one somewhere-and apparently this doesn't appear too often and when someone does, they list it ridiculously high in price. The PX560 is close enough for me to the 500, minus the pads (I have other pad controllers) and minus the sampling (I have a few samplers already, don't need. and it pretty much has the same arranger features, bu tnot as good as the editor features for the 17-track sequencer that are part of the MZ-X500. the 560 only allows for copying entire tracks, no cut-and paste of sections although punch-in/out helps. and at the time, the price was not much higher for the PX560 than for the MZ-X500. I was still looking it over though. the MZ-X500 almost looked a little like the old Roland EG-101 with its vertical speakers and controls. Not a bad idea, but Casio seems to like a certain design, and then let's that design hang in the air for awhile, or forever.

A few years ago several posters here had a discussion about the merits of aftermarket devices that might better simulate the Hammond B3 sounds and Leslie speaker simulations. several were mentioned, the Neoventilator being one and the Ferrofish B4000+ another. I've opted for the B4000+ because it has full-size drawbars-only one rank-but this device allows 2 keyboards to be input through midi for upper and lower manuals, and is a sound module with settings for splits. Also made like a brick-case is all steel and a bit on the heavy side. I've been playing it the last few weeks and its not bad. I also have a Rotovibe which is a pedal and has many different settings for styles of Leslie, ramp up and and down and setting separate speeds for the bass and horns. The Rotovibe is alot less expensive, really made more for the guitarist but the impedance matches my keyboards pretty well. You will still not have the true variations possible with a bank of drawbars. All of these have been around for awhile, might be worth checking around. The Neoventilator is also pretty expensive (IMO) but has quite a few diehard fans. and i never worked a gig with only one keyboard-in case on died, I'd always have a backup, and easier to play 2 sounds live quickly, and switch. Can always call up one tone on one while playing live on the other one. Plus, usually for my chops-one piano action and one-spring action made life alot easier.

I'm sorry I was kind of rude here, but honestly, look at what we've got now as musicians/hobbyists/creators to work with. It is mind-boggling, with even 1-2 or 2 electronic musical instruments what we can create. and there are so many brilliant people tat post on here, I would be very sad to see this user group become anything less than it has become. I respect all the developers that come up with these remarkable ways of creating new sounds, music and interactions between musicians, including those of you who bring those talents right here. "the present day composer refuses to die"....quote from Edgard Varese, and often quoted by Frank Zappa, RIP.

This is turning into a "flaming" war, and is going nowhere. You can create on whatever you want to, with just about any musical too imaginable now, technology that did not exist even 10-20 years ago. Give it a rest. Don't turn this user group into just another bitching contest, please. I have Covid right now, I am being rather b****chy maybe, but I look here for good technical and musical information, mot silly arguments about what is best. Grow up please. We're lucky we can play-anything period.

Install Google translate in your browser. Han and I communicate all the time with it right here like that. Then you have the option of right clicking (with Windows 7 at least) and get an instant translation right here. Been pretty accurate too, not as earlier versions were so prone to not be. Here it is... (hope you don't mind Han!) Надеюсь, ты не против, Хан! Good afternoon. "Kren", if you do not have skills in repairing / handling electronics, and there is no good friend who would deal with this tool, THEN it is better to purchase a used similar one (fortunately, they are on AVITO, etc.). Tool repair is expensive and not always good.

There are limited and not so inexpensive options, since a Hammond B-3 is such a rich-sounding instrument whose tones have everything to do with the variety of wood cabinet leslies and dual speakers-creating that great acoustic resonant tone live, why it is so hard to duplicate-especially since Billy Preston was working with George Martin and the Beatles in Abbey Road studios! Many Casio players opted for add-on equipment (including me) to try to duplicate the huge variety of Hammond sounds possible with almost infinite variations with drawbars, speed changes, chorus and vibrato possible on some Hammonds. Many use the "Neo-ventilator" add-on pedal connected to the Casio outputs. I tried the Line-6 Rotomachine which is pretty good and a less expensive alternative-has alot of settings and gets fairly close-but I missed the drawbars so finally purchased the Ferrofish B4000+. Again, an add-on device-this is not a pedal, it is a small drawbar organ module producing its own sounds internally, unlike the Line-6 which is a DSP device-modifies the sounds coming into it. both can be pedal-activated, the Line 6 is a pedal, the Ferrofish has to have a momentary switch or pedal to activaste the leslie chaging speeds. There are other add-on devices, Roland has one. The only other option-is to buy one of the Casios (or another dedicated digital organ with drawbars-the Casio XW-P1, MZ-X500, WK7500/7600 or CTK7000/7200. The 7500 and 7000 are not as good at the drawbar sounds as there are fewer "steps" with the drawbars-breaks up the sound a bit when moving the drawbars. The newer 7600/7200 series have better "resolution", smoother tranasitions as you change the drawbar settings. I believe the MZ-X and XW are the same, I hear no drawbar stepping with my XW. There are also "virtual" Hammond clones in software-that simulate a Hammond. I haven't tried these so can't say how good/bad these are but you could trigger these virtual organs using the Casio 6250 and a USB cable-a whole different category if you are not familiar with virtual computer sound engines.

Nobody here hit on the most important aspect to the mics you are using-Shure made 2 versions of many of their vocal and other mics-low impedance and high impedance, so did EV and other brands. You need an impedance-matching transformer to make a low impedance mic work with a high impedance input-like the MZ, and most other keyboards. There is one post here that describes the difference. Low impedance mics were typical for most PA systems which had low impedance inputs-again most TRS and professional 3-prong XLR inputs are low impedance, this was standard with much studio equipment for a long time. Most 1/4" inputs-although not always. are high impedance. The thinking is that the 3-prong XLR and TRS inputs are less prone to external interference-will have grounding built-in to shield from stray RFI. Now if you are using an intermediary connection-like the vocal processor mentioned here-you need to know-are its inputs high impedance or low? If it is high impedance-it will not solve your problem if your low-impedance Shures are in use. And unless you have a mixing board/digital recorder-even one of the smaller ones-the mic inputs must be able to impedance match a low impedance mic. Some of my digitals do, some don't. I remember buying my first set of vocalmaster Shures years ago, some had a switch that would change the mic from low to high impedance, I don't see those around anymore. Any cheap "USB" Chinese mic flooding ebay lately-will be high impedance. and of course, without 48+ phantom power-a true condenser will not work at all. although some of the cheap chines mics advertised as "condenser" may be using a similar element but....not talking Neumanns here. Most decent digital recorders have phantom power-so this could solve your MZ mic problems, providing there are "line outputs" RCA connectors which will be high impedance out-but you would need an audio adapter cable to take the RCA outs to the 1/4" in. and if the outs are !/4" on your mixer or recorder, I think these should be high impedance also. Some are, some aren't have to look at spec sheets.

And there are more options for editing each part of a hex layer than are available when you are editing a non-hex layer tone. Individual wav samples (the raw samples that Brad described) can only be accessed through the hex layers when creating a new user tone, not the non-hex layer tones. A little odd, but that is the biggest difference I have found. So for example, you can create a hex layer organ tone, with different organ raw waves for each layer of the new hex layer organ. Unfortunately you will not be able to control each layer's volume to simulate a drawbar organ remotely through midi with another controller, there is no sysex or midi implementation to access those volume layer settings. You would have to preset each layer's volume as part of your hex layer and save it as is. But you can come up with some pretty interesting organ tones as hex layers, simulating different stops/octaves/wavsamples per layer, setting respective volume layers for each to get simulated drawbar stops. Would take...some work and time. Maybe not what you are after. But considering how many user hex layer tones you can save internally-could have a whole bank of organ variations arranged consecutively-would still be cumbersome to switch from one to another but would give you a bunch of organ variations in the same group of hex layer tones. Not as convenient as having individual separate banks under your fingers, but as close as I could get on the PX560. Many years ago, using simple sine waves at different octaves, my Korg DSS-1 created some very credible Hammond organ tones. took some doing, I'm wondering if that might work with the PX560, which has raw sine waves accessible through a hex layer.

Woah! If i didn't already have quite a few arranger/keyboards-this is one of the few PSRs below 1000 dollars US that has a full 16-track sequencer which for me would be a partial ker-chunk with my money, in addition to the other Yamaha features. Looks pretty well made, it even has the same bullet-proof rotary pot control knobs-I noticed-as my old Yamaha RM1X, which have held up for years. I recently acquired a very old Yamaha P50m piano module-and I am stunned with how good the acoustic pianos were on this. That bodes well for the PSR although it looks to be using the same older AWM sound engine, not AWM-2 which might be a bit better. Not sure how that might sound but in my SY-77 AWM-1 sounds pretty clean, almost too clean for orchestral and synth sounds. Someone with an MZ will chime in better than me, the closest i have is the PX560 which shares some of the MZ series features and sounds. There would be one critical deciding factor for me Alex, and i am not disparaging Casio. I would go for the PSR670 simply because it is still available in the marketplace (at least in the US where the other MZ's are no longer available new anywhere I can find at least online, and is probably more well-supported by Yamaha and others. This user group for Casio is about the best there is though for any brand anywhere. something to consider with an MZ-X. One other aspect to this-like you, independent software developers have labored for years on the ins and outs of user-designed software for doing all manner of things with the Yamaha arrangers, from the least expensive PSR's to the multiple thousand dollar Tyros and everything in between. I personally find the Yamaha XG works still one of the best and easiest to use midi software players/recorders/arrangers, easily partnered with any of the Yamaha keyboards. Just my opinion for whatever it is worth!

Tell you more thing-and again I'd bet anything the PX575 and WK8000 are identical in this regard-one of the reasons I kept the PX575-and I have a PX560 to compare-I was very surprised at how good the organ sounds were on this. The ZPI sound engine is surprisingly good for the electric and acoustic pianos too. the drumkits-definitely right up there with anything I've played. I don't think you'd be disappointed either way- 7600 or 8000. Don't be like me, I'd buy both and get myself in more debt! But then, that's why I'm Joe-key-man. I have keyboards my wife reminds me-in almost every room in the house (not in the bathrooms, they hate that)! I'm never more than a few seconds away from a Casio, Korg, Yamaha, Alesis or...well never mind! I am not a hoarder...I am not a hoarder...I am not a hoarder!!!! I just love...sounds...... 😜 🤪

Aside form the obvious differences-76 keys on WK7600 vs. 88 on the 8000-neither of which are hammer-action keys, I had looked into the 8000 but ended up with the PX575 which has alot of similarities to the WK8000 except the hammer action keys on the 575. The sound engines used for each are different. The 7600 has the newer, somewhat better AHL sound engine while the 8000 uses the prior ZPI, which is no slouch for sounds either IMO. The WK8000 uses the IDES 4.0 software including a drawbar, Leslie on/off and percussion software front-end but also has hardware buttons instead of drawbars while the 7600 has the drawbars. I haven't owned the 8000 so can't speak from direct experience. i have had the WK series with the AHL sound engine. I honestly ended up liking the older ZPI overall but that's me-the 575 uses the same soundset as the WK8000 so I am familiar with that too. I also thought the operating systems on the older 8000/575 are easier to work around than the newer WK series-the screen is larger, easier to read and the functions didn't seem quite as "hidden" in menus. Maybe some others can weigh in, but the WK8000 looks a little more solidly constructed and I am not sure the key action is the same-I have a sense the 88-key action may actually be better than the 76, more substantially built even though it is not weighted or graded as is my PX575 but I haven't played an 8000, why I went with the 575 for a classic Casio. And if music notation is something you'd like to see-the 8000 will show your chords on a score in the screen which can be useful. and the 8000 will weigh more but not by much-18 pounds for the 7600, 23 for the 8000, pretty lightweight for an 88-key. an neither have midi DIN ports if you need to hook up to older midi equipment but both have USB ports for computer connection. hard call, good luckeither way.

Casio didn't pay attention when I posted the suggestion-they should bring back the Casio horns in an updated version, and could beat the rather expensive and hideous looking Roland Aerophone-well somebody paid attention. This even has a midi din port, so sorely missing on newer instruments-including the Akai wind controllers which only have a USB port. If i didn't already have 2 Yamaha WX's, I give one of these a try. I might anyway. Now Casio, how about an inexpensive midi mallet instrument, before someone else does-would be pretty easy to beat the Malletkat prices and even the cheap-looking pearl Malletstation which I passed on. https://www.ebay.com/itm/255555124201?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D243355%26meid%3D3f904ec677b54a5a882d2732805b27e1%26pid%3D101113%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D394087870676%26itm%3D255555124201%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2563228%26algv%3DDefaultOrganicWebWithV5RefreshRanker&_trksid=p2563228.c101113.m2109

I'm looking this over again. My wording was not exactly accurate for step sequencers in relation to performances. All you can do with an existing performance if it already has a sequence "attached" or assigned to it, is to turn on the filter that will disable any sequencer settings (page E-62)-you can turn the sequencer on or off, at least that what i thought. I've only created my own custom performances without sequences assigned to them. When I've created a new performance, unless you assign a specific sequence with its number to that performance, there won't be any sequence "attached' to that performance. And if you are changing one of the factory performances to turn off the existing sequence that is assigned to it-it has to be saved as a new user performance using the "write" function. At least that's the way I've understood it. The XW functions can seem pretty convoluted (IMO) but then it can do so much, there had to be a way to cross boundaries with all these functions, and yes, there are probably bugs even in 1.11 OS that almost nobody ever came across-except AlenK. If you haven't gotten to his excellent manuals posted here, i definitely recommend it. He has been far more deeply familiar with the XW than I ever will be.

Perldude this is a pretty complicated post unless one knows the Behringer backwards and forwards which I don't but 2 questions. 1) What version of the XW-P1 firmware are you on? I seem to recall some changes were made to how midi works on the XW which upgrading the firmware added. I forget what it was, I'd have to look it up. 2) When you are switching around from performance to performance-both with sequences attached and not attached-are you switching from factory to user performances, or are all these user programmed -and saved-performances? This might be why you are seeing 2 different results from 2 different controllers-the Behringer vs. the XW's control dial. A factory performance will always revert to its original settings unless you save it as a user performance although I am not sure this has anything to do with what is happening. Or...the Behringer might be capable of sending sysex that the XW dial is not sending, or the XW can only respond to certain hex strings, will not recognize external messages, but will recognize its internal sysex messages if there is a conflict. I'd have to scrutinize the midi implementation chart to see, otherwise just a blind guess. Hopefully someone else more knowledgeable than me with both the Behringer and the XW can help.

The one (minor) disappointment-I was hoping with the new releases re Privias and CTS series, there would be a return to the MZ-X/XW/PX5s and PX560 series with some upgrades, even a full workstation with 76/88 keys. guess Casio is trying to gain a market share where there isn't so much competition and there have been a flood of cheap Chinese digital pianos recently which i'm sure are nowhere near Casio's qualityso that segment isn't much to worry about I would think.

PM Mike Martin. He contacts Casio Japan through the US office. If I could contact Japan's offices directly about any of their instruments, that would have solved several of my technical problems. I don't think they can handle direct contact with customers in the US, only the US Casio reps, and other Japanese companies (Yamaha, Roland) never had success trying to find out how to directly contact them as a customer.

Just Alex, I am impressed with your knowledge of firmware and coding you are ahead of me there. Thus i am going to pose a problem to you but since it is not directly related to a Casio product, I will PM you about it. Thought I'd post here so you would notice. I'll get it out later today. it is a perplexing issue re firmware for a drum machine which if you can help me solve, will make alot of musicians very happy. I'll detail in my PM.

I don't know Alex. I like to keep a positive attitude about whether Casio reps read our posts and suggestions. The technical decisions from what little I know, have to be submitted to Casio Japan. I post ideas anyway-have to take a shot. "Let George do it?"...and George never does it. Can't hurt-I've posted ideas about wind controllers, a return to digital guitars, a midi mallet instrument like the Malletkat or Malletstation. One rather ominous sign I've picked up on-there is now a huge resale market for musical electronics that were innovations 20-30 years ago, suddenly coming on the market out of Japan, especially Yamaha-products I thought were long gone, and many look new. Apparently, many of these were never sold, and vendors are now trying to get rid of all these old keyboards, modules etc. If a huge player like Yamaha never sold all this "old stock" I can guess Casio has to be very careful not to fall in the same trap, manufacturing something that will collect in a warehouse somewhere forever. Then I see Japanese vendors still trying to sell some of the original Casio digital guitars from 30+ years ago! I just bought a Yamaha 1990's P50m piano module which looks almost new, from Japan. I can't believe they still had these! I might whistle in the wind, but then product development, must be such a black art. What will people buy, why and for what? Trying to predict the future-impossible. So many musical failures-Seil, Generalmusic, Ensoniq, Technics, Wersi, too many to mention. Especially since the virtual music world has taken over, and there are so few venues left for live musicians to play, outside of education, major city clubs and freebee jam sessions. So the need for performance instruments-ain't what it used to be. I just drove past Sam Ash in Paramus, NJ. One of the few places in this amazingly populated area where I could walk in, try the latest keys, pick out some cymbals, throw some chords down on a huge collection of guitars and basses and look over whatever new stuff came out. Plus check out who's playing where. It's an abandoned, graffiti infested ghost town now, fenced in like a prison. Talk about depressing.

PS-One of the best midi recorder software programs I've found is the Yamaha "XG Works" as this program can record multiple midi tracks at once and place each in its own midi channel/track. not all DAW's can do this, or do it easily. if you can't find it and wnat to try it, PM me and I'll upload it.

No, the 560 cannot create a new rhythm accompaniment from "scratch" like some of the other Casios-I think the CTX 3 and 5000 can do this, as could the MZ-X500. I cannot directly answer your question in a simple way. Look up chandler's complete and thorouh doc posted here about how to create rhythms from a computer-it is a summary and compilation of exactly how to do this, and how I did this. I had to midi record patterns i created in software DAW's-including intros, variations, endings-placed in the correct midi channels designated by the PX560 for auto accompaniments-then place "markers" in the software midi file to designate the exact length of each and so the Casio would recognize that "loop" for each part. Then I had to save these to a .ckf Casio rhythm file using software designed to do that-again posted here in my posts-and then simply copy that file into a thumb drive for play on the 560. I also had to make some octave adjustments as these files did not always fall into the proper octave-mostly the bass parts came out an octave too low, probably just a miscalculation on my part-but some I recorded from other manufacturer's auto-accompaniments for use with their other keyboards, so the assignments for octaves did not always match. Rather not get into the details-look at this post already, and i haven't come close to describing what needs to be done! All the details are already here though, if you can look up the various existing posts as to how to do this. what's nice too, is that if you find a complete smf file-a complete song, once you know how to do this, you can literally chop a section or sections of this file, and use as auto-accompaniment patterns-sort of similar to 'chopping" samples or creating "loops" as has so often been done now with dance, hip-hop-techno etc. if you are willing to put in the work, you can make the 560 behave like a "looping" beat-box, like my RM1X or MC-505 or many of the newer Akai MPC's-except without the sampling features of the MPC series. Hmm...I haven't done much of this since my initial work, you've go me thinking-maybe its time for some more!

I miss organ drawbars for varying stops with the 560, although an expression pedal connected helps for dramatic effects. Picked up a Ferrofish for the drawbar engine midi'd to the 560. If i had to bring the 560 to many gigs, i would probably not want the speakers which might be vulnerable to all kinds of stuff in a gigging environment although these are pretty well protected by the case design. Hex layers, programmability and ability to work up full arrangements without a DAW in the 560, plus all the programming features of a synth definitely ticked alot of boxes for me, just shy of a workstation. Hard call and since I'm using it mostly at home, the 560 felt more appropriate.