anotherscott

On 12/30/2021 at 7:31 AM, Jokeyman123 said:

Technically-the question has to be-what is the  functional difference regarding directly connecting a keyboard controller to a different operating system via midi vs. the hardware cables connected directly to the mainboard-I am not sure. There must be some advantage to a directly-scanned key assembly directly connected to a mainboard, but maybe not. I know some have already tested this by simply disconnecting the key assembly from the mainboard, and operating the keyboard from the midi connection and it works. I just don't know how this might possibly slow down the keyboard's response, or possibly eliminate other functions needed by that mainboard connection. 

No need to open a board or disconnect any internals... you could test this by engaging the "Local Off" function, and running a MIDI cable from the board's 5-pin MIDI Out back to its MIDI In.

It's an interesting question as to whether "direct scanning" offers advantages over MIDI... I think boards have actually been designed both ways. My understanding is that Yamahas like Montage/MODX and their Motif-based predecessors use MIDI even internally for their keys, but that other boards may work differently.

Right, V would typically stand for Vox. Vox and Farfisa were the two most widely used transistor organs used in 60s pop. 

I don't have a CTX either, but looking at the tone list, there aren't too many to just go through and listen to, to see what comes closest. And right away, you can pretty much eliminate the ones which, by their name, would be based on other kinds of organs... i.e. I would say that ones that are NOT Vox or Farfisa would include  patches whose names include OD (overdrive typically not being associated with transistor organs), DP (I'm guessing Deep Purple),  Jazz, Perc, Gospel, Drawbar, click, 70s, pipe, chapel, theater, flute, or puff, so that eliminates over half of them right there.

On 12/24/2021 at 1:46 AM, Rhodes player said:

I think it is the Wurlitzer only,... right? Someone please confirm....I thought it as it talks about "60s EP" and Wurlitzer was the one to produce such sound at that time. The Rhodes came after 1972 so I think the 60s EP models a Wurlitzer electric piano...right? Someone please confirm

Yes, Wurlitzer,  and that info is already posted earlier in this thread. There were actually Rhodes pianos in the 60s as well, but if you heard an EP on a 60s hit, it was likely to be a Wurlitzer (or maybe the similar sounding Hohner Pianet N or other Pianet model of the time). 

On 12/31/2021 at 6:54 PM, kap said:

Should I take the output from the headphone jack and run it into the PX-560 Audio-In Jack?

yes.

On 12/31/2021 at 6:54 PM, kap said:

Or should I connect a USB-to-audio cable to the Audio-In Jack (and tell the mac somehow to send sound out that way)?  Or do I need to buy an audio interface?

there's no such thing as a USB-to-audio cable like that... USB is digital, the audio input is analog, you need something with a DAC (Digital to Analog Converter), i.e. an audio interface. But the headphone out (which uses the DAC built into the Mac) should be fine.

There's some other helpful info in the thread at 

If you added an expression pedal (using something like a MIDI Solutions Pedal Controller or Audiofront MIDI Expression iO), you can use the pedal to affect just one zone.

On 12/9/2021 at 11:25 AM, pax-eterna said:

 

Thanks Joe. Yes I have since learned from Casio Australia that they are obtainable. $650

There would seem to be a few options. One option, as Joe Muscara mentioned, is to find something like a like-new PX-150 or PX-160 and scavenge from there... I don't know Australian prices, but I suspect you might be able to find that for less than $650. But if you are mechanically oriented enough to have even been thinking about opening up your board and putting a replacement action into your PX-5S, you are probably mechanical enough to open up your board and quiet down the your existing action with felt as Jokeyman 123 discussed. He talked about modding an action that was inherently noisy, but it sounds like yours was okay but just got noisier over time, which should be a simpler thing to address (restoring it to how it was originally, rather than trying to make it better than it was originally), even though the basic process would be the same. Another option could be to bring the board to a service center, who can probably replace the felt to quiet it down to how it was originally, for a lot less money than putting in an entire $650 replacement action.

One more thought... even if you bit the bullet and bought that $650 action as a replacement part, I would not assume that necessarily includes the felt parts where things hit, those could conceivably be different parts, so it's not impossible that you could install that new action and still have the same problem.

On 9/13/2021 at 10:17 AM, Brad Saucier said:

It is not possible to deactivate that.  Tone changes, registration changes will always transmit that data.

On 10/26/2021 at 9:03 AM, bimfood said:

Is there any way to filter out the midi Volume Signal with external gear?

All of these things can be filtered out. You can use an external box like a MIDI Solutions Event Processor between the keyboard and the iPad, or you can probably also use an app on the iPad itself to do your filtering, e.g. Keystage or Camelot Pro.

I agree that the interface and button layout is confusing.

In terms of buttons, I've been bitten numerous times by the fact that there are two pairs of keys labeled with the plus and minus symbols (and there are also up and down cursor keys), and that button #1 in the Stage Settings section is actally the third button. Better legends and other demarcations would have helped, along with maybe putting zero at the end instead of at the beginning (though I understand there's always the basic MIDI issue of whether you're talking about 0-127 or 1-128). The thin black buttons that all run into each other also makes it easier to hit the wrong thing.

Small screen interfaces do tend to be confusing, and yeah, sometimes you'll "guess wrong" as to where you're likely to find something. There are also some things not immediately obvious, coming from other boards. One is that you generally do NOT want to perform by selecting sounds using the Tone buttons (the ones clearly labeled with instrument sounds); rather the tone buttons are how you access the library of sounds that you can place (by themselves or in combination) in Stage Setting locations, and THOSE "unlabelled" buttons are the ones you want to use for live patch selection. (Oddly, that section of the board is labeled "Stage Settings" while the manual describes them as "Stage Setups"!) But also, uncommonly, the tones withing the Stage Settings are completely independent of those in the Tone buttons, which can require a different way of thinking about things.

But as for terminology, while some confusion may arise from the generally different architecture of the board that I just referred to, the fact is, there is pretty much no standardization in the industry as to what these things should be called.

For example, you say "Stage Settings" should be called "Programs." But since Stage Settings can include multiple tones that are split and layered (not to mention MIDI zones), that's not typically what they would be called. Okay, on a Nord, they would probably be called Programs. But on a Kurzweil, they would likely be called Multis or Setups. On a Yamaha, they would probably be called Performances. On a Korg, they would generally be called Combis. On a Roland, they could be called Studio Sets, Live Sets, Performances, Scenes, Programs, or Registrations, and probably some I've missed. 😉

You say "zones" should be called "layers," but that's not what other boards generally call them. When it comes to external sounds, I think every board calls them zones. When it come to internal sounds, some boards likewise refer to regions with a specific sound assigned to them as zones, but that is not universal. Korg typically calls them timbres (i.e. in any of their workstations), Yamaha currently calls them Parts (in the Montage/MODX)... I'm not sure I've ever seen them referred to as layers, though. So learning a board's own terminology is nothing specific to Casio.

On 8/4/2021 at 5:52 PM, Jokeyman123 said:

A very impressive list of updated functions-and then it is out of production as far as i can find in the US. Unless Casio is going to resume production of these, seems odd that they would put so much into updating the MZ-and stop production?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the newerst update I can find is over three years old.

also, though, the WK-7600 has drawbar organ, the CT-X5000 doesn't

17 hours ago, jibin.jacob3 said:

The worst part is that there is no competitor to the MZ X500 even today (In the price range from ₹31000 to ₹60000), after 5 years or so. The only latest competitor is the Yamaha  PSR X600 but how can it ever compete the HEX LAYER if it cannot even layer 2 sounds in the lower part?

The Korg PA700 is a competitive option, each doing some things the other does not. And it kind of has a hexlayer equivalent, though not as easy to use. At first, both the Casio and Korg look like 4 part instruments... Casio has two upper and two lower; Korg has three upper and one lower; but both actually permit more flexibility there than is first apparent. Then, Casio adds the ability for a part to be a hexlayer that consists of up to 6 tones that can be split, layered, or velocity switched, while Korg allows you to create sounds that have up to 24 oscillators that likewise can be split, layered, or velocity switched (and each oscillator can itself have 2 velocity-differentiated samples assigned to it). So you could build hexlayer-type sounds out of it.

I don't know anything about its internals. It feels okay... not outstanding, not terrible. I'd say it feels better than the Yamaha MODX8, for example. Compared to PX-560, it's a tougher call, it depends what attributes matter most to you. If you're among those who find the Casio's return too bouncy, you're more likely to find the PC4 to be better. But in other respectes, the Casio can be better.

1 hour ago, Jokeyman123 said:

 am still waiting for a response on the kurzweil boards re the 2000 dollar Kurzweil PC4

now $2500

29 minutes ago, Jokeyman123 said:

Another Scott-yes the Roland RD-88 looks really nice, as does the DS-88 which I'd been studying. The RD is now double the price of the PX560. the RD's stay on the expensive side. The DS comes close-but I like having a full 17-track sequencer for rolling my own arrangements-the DS has a shorter loop-style architecture for recording. and of course-the hex layers are very powerful. there is alot of programmability in there-and I agree Scott-a few more features in the 560, and this can be called a workstation-and could compete favorably IMO with some much pricier options-if Casio kept the price of the 560.

Hmm... You're in the U.S.... Sweetwater is showing PX560 at $1199, RD88 at $1299 (and DS88 at $1199). DS88 is in a bit of a different category in having no speakers. If you don't need speakers, that also opens up Korg Kross, Yamaha MX88, Kurzweil SP6, and of course Casio PX-5S, each with their own pros and cons vis-a-vis the others. Full sequencer? Look at the Kross as the alternative to the Juno DS. Kross also has better MIDI functionality than the Juno DS, and more simultaneously available effects. OTOH, Juno DS has its own advantages, like the ability to load your own keyboard-playable custom sampled sounds, the ability to switch sounds during performance without cutting off held/decaying notes of your previous sound, and better real-time control over splits. Each board has something to offer...

I was hoping they would add some of the MZ-X500 stuff to the PX-560. The boards are so similar in many ways, but just sticking with the non-arranger-specific stuff, they added some nice things that would improve the PX-560 as well, some that might even be software-addable, though some would certainly need updated hardware... but imagine the PX-560 with additions like the mono ("bass") synth, the ability to name registrations, the tonewheel organ simulation, the ability to load custom samples, and IIRC, some further editing and split/layer flexibility. The one thing neither of them had that I'd wish for is some better MIDI functionality, as they had in the XW-P1 (and of course PX-5S).

As for today's PX-560 competitors, I see the DGX comparison from the arranger perspective, but as a sub 30-lb flexible stage board that includes speakers, I'd say the Roland RD-88 is its main challenger.

I like this inexpenseive stand that changes heights easily. And unlike an X, it doesn't change width as you change height. But I don't think anything will let you adjust it easily with the weight of a keyboard on it. I guess it also depends how strong you are and whether you can position yourself with sufficient leverage. There's also the complication that you probably need to adjust one side and then the other, which means you have an interim period of more precarious balance.

10 minutes ago, stefanocps said:

can you adjust the stand up or down with the piano sitting on the stand?no much effort?

I think you would need something motorized for that, like the K&M 18800 Omega-E. But it costs more than your PX-5S.

A little late, but in case you or anyone else may still be wondering about this... I haven't done this myself, but this is my understanding:

The sound(s) played from MIDI input do not correspond to what you have selected from the front panel and are playing from the keyboard. This is actually a "feature" in that you can be playing a 16-channel GM MIDI backing track, and still be playing along with your sound of choice from the keyboard itself.

To change the sound that is being used to play your MIDI data from Pro Tools, that MIDI data should include a Program Change command to select the sound you want it to play. If you don't, it will default to the first sound, which is piano. Selecting different front panel sounds, as you discoverd, will have no effect.

You should also download the MIDI Implementation guide for the PX-120 from the Casio web site.

On 3/29/2021 at 7:42 PM, GreatScot said:

I have a Yamaha TG300. I was never able to use it effectively on stage with my Privia PX-310 because I change keys frequently and it would never send the transpose signal to the TG300. Can the PX-5S send a key change?

As Brad said, you should be able to accomplish your goal using the PX-5S... but it's not doing exactly what you think it is. There is no standard MIDI command for a "transpose signal" or a "key change." The way a keyboard can accomplish the task, though, is to transpose each MIDI Note as it is sent. That is apparently what the PX-5S can do, which the PX-310 did not.

Bank changes exist so that you can have more than 128 sounds selected by MIDI, that's all. In the MIDI spec, there's no inherent correspondence between the bank and the sound (e.g. if bank 1 program 1 is a piano, bank 2 program 1 does not similarly have to be a piano). Typically, once you send a Bank command, all subsequent Program Change messages that lack a corresponding Bank command will simply select that numbered program from within whatever the last bank you had specified.

I've heard good things about Bose S1 Pro and JBL EON One Compact.

On 2/27/2021 at 9:54 AM, Jokeyman123 said:

Get yourself a controller keyboard, go to softsynth pianos

PX-5S is already a great controller keyboard. One of its strengths is how easily you can supplement its sounds with external sounds. Connect an iPad for example, and you'll have a whole bunch of other piano and other sounds available to you.

USB has always been hot swappable by design. That doesn't mean you can't mess up the data if you remove a device while it is being written to, or while writable files on it are open. The "remove properly" procedures on a computer are designed to make sure you don't do those things.

On 3/30/2020 at 2:00 PM, craZivn said:

It is curious that there are three contacts. Does the third one add a sort of nuance to the keystrike by measuring the velocity curve at a third point, or is it for reliability in case the computer misses one of the contacts?

The middle sensor (which is what makes a board "tri-sensor" or "triple sensor") is an alteranate starting point which is used to allow the key to be restruck from a lower point in its travel. Also, it means that (without holding the sustain pedal down) you can restrike a note without silencing it first.  (Without the third sensor, in order to restrike a given note, you'd have to lift the key high enough to again be above the trigger point for the top sensor, which on the key's way up, also performs the function of silencing the note.) This better duplicates the behavior of a real grand piano.  People often say that the lower restrike point aids with quick reptitions, but it is more about the quiet repetitions. A loud repetition still requires lifting the key high, in order to achieve the velocity. Billy Joel's introduction to "Angry Young Man" has fast repetition, but a third sensor won't make a difference since the key comes up so high between each strike anyway. But a more gentle repetition will be easier to achieve if you don't have to lift the key as high between strikes, and you will be able to achieve it with more of a real piano technique. Trills are a common way this comes into play. That said, the middle sensor of the PX-5S triggers a bit on the high side, and is not as beneficial/authentic as on some other implementations.