CairnsFella

What BradMZ says is, of course, correct.

All I would add is that when I first began to 'play' with the G1, I would commonly fail to take into account what mode I was in or what part was selected etc when using the mixer, so made adjustments with unexpected results (often this was "no result" when I thought there would be one).

With familiarity, and using the information provided on the screen more effectively I no longer have this problem (though I am convinced there are a few 'quirks' that I am yet to substantiate).

The combination of questions you have asked make me wonder whether you have read the manual though. Whilst not a great document, it, in combination with Mike Martin's videos (some of the P1 video's are equally applicable to the G1) , will give you a big step towards understanding the synth.

Interesting find BrettM. I must try to remember this as I even even begum to play with the virtual controllers yet.

Now I know why I didn't mention the Keystep, a quick search at Amazon, eBay (I haven't checked the usual music stores yet) I can't find this anywhere except on Arturia's website. But this is exactly what I was looking for. Apparently even has some very cool sequencer and arpeggiator functions, and this ouwd fit nicely in a small spot, just about the same footprint as the Reveal. I'll keep looking.

Ahh.. yes... well.... I couldn't bring you good news like that and spoil it with the lack of availability all in one go could I.

To be fair, I actually first found it on the aforementioned  'Sweetwater' site, but did not notice that it was pre-sale, however, I subsequently did notice it was only new.

I didnt spent a whole heap of time on this (so there may be other alternatives I didnt see), however it does appear to be closely related to the "beatstep" products, and I have read of quite a few user issues with the step sequencer functionality. However, as this element is merely a 'bonus' for you it otherwise seems to fit what you asked for.

................."the Arturias have so many knobs and sliders that it would take up my whole desk"..............

even this one ?

BrettM,

Thanks for your post.

Your opening statement is of course quite correct. I had wrongly phrased my 'requirement', as the 'result' is something I know I have achieved in the past on at least one of my old synths, but without recalling what I did my initial 'mental picture' made me think of a definable sustain period. To be fair, it remains possible that this was in fact what I did as I have no idea where that patch is or if it is still around, and whilst convention does only assign a 'level' to sustain, I am pretty sure I have come across boards with a separate "sustain time" parameter, though I guess it is a rarity.

I am at work at the moment, but looking at my WSA1 manual, it does have a second sustain element, however there is no indication in the manual as to what determines the duration of that parameter. A quick google of ADSDSR envelopes in general though, suggests that commonly the first sustain merely defines the level at which the second decay phase initiates. (I guess this is much like the XW's release levels) Thinking out loud though, if the initial decay is a low value (slight/non existent), and the second decay is a high value (extreme/total), then this may have provided the effect I recall achieving.

Either way, it would seem that what I have done previously is likely at least 'similar' to the ideas you have suggested.

The table you have posted is most useful, and most interesting, and makes me want to run similar tests when I get home.

Thanks again.

Very nice.

I am curious as to what parameters do not translate from the G1 to P1 in this case. Whilst I realise there is a different sample set, it seemed as though you had the basic sound. The difference would seen to be filters/modulation in nature, and I was unaware that the XW's would differ in that respect.

Thanks for the response and suggestion XW.

Unfortunately the Step Sequencer is otherwise fully employed as part of the project where I established this problem, but thanks for this anyway as it may well be useful at some other point.  Also the idea I had did not work.

Like yourself, I still feel there may be a way to achieve this with some convoluted editing. I'm not going to lose sleep over it though (I only wanted to achieve this in order to compensate for my poor playing abilities anyway).

If I ever do find a way though I will note it down here.

Hi All,

Sorry in advance. I perhaps ask my daftest questions when I am away from the board and have a bit of time on my hands at work.

Essentially, I assume that there is no way to affect where the manual sustain element (the dotted line) of the EG occurs. My goal is to have a pre-determined period of sustain that is unaffected by the key press duration: in other words have 'no' manually influenced sustain. I feel I must be missing something obvious, but I just haven't been able to achieve this despite several attempts.

Any views welcome, even if they make me look an idiot.

EDIT.

And as soon as I post this I think of something I did - potentially - miss. Please ignore until such time I recheck and post back. Sorry.

The manual states:-

"When the original key is C2, you can shift the key by pressing a keyboard key within the range of D2 to B2"

The PX-5S has about 1/2 the capabilities of the MZ-X, at least on paper, yet it goes for $999 Sweetwater.

The MZ-X is going for only $100 more and it's loaded.

Whilst I don't doubt there may well be substance in your statement, the fact that one is 61 key and the other semi weighted 88 does suggest it may be a bit of a sweeping statement.

 They obviously share the same DSP, but they are also forced to share the same volume, pan position and reverb send.

I actually only noticed this yesterday.....  I thought was going nuts. Using the editor I could 'see' the simultaneous volume movement, but I thought I must have selected sum sort of 'link' option by mistake..

 

I haven't tested this, but I suspect that the same thing happens for channel/parts accessed from within the Step Sequencer. 

Actually, I may have misread the issue about tone edits in a performance, and now I am unsure I was aware of that limitation (although, as stated, I haven't spent a huge amount of time exploring performances as yet). Still, I am curious...... It may be a late night !!!!

Thanks for the comment XWAddict.

To be honest, I realise that in many ways the G1 (and sister) are a little old hat now, so I didn't really expect a 'review' of the G1 at this stage in it's life to be of much interest, however I thought it would be nice for myself at least to formulate my thoughts and reflect on them further down the line. Nonetheless, It is nice that you found it of adequate interest to comment.

I agree with the little irritations that you have noted - or not so little at times. I always try to appreciate the numerous positives of this board, and I tell myself that a lot of the annoying things that I keep finding are a small price to pay for the associated functions the G1 brings. But I do find myself asking how Casio 'test' these boards. I get a distinct feeling that they essentially run through a 'checklist', rather than gety any extensive field testing of the deeper functions, as some 'quirks' just have me baffled.

Then again, this is why I am writing this review over an extended period as I feel confident that some of these issues may dissipate with familiarity (hmmmm.. I guess the opposite could also be true).

With the wife's permissions I have just had a couple of weeks where I spent most of my spare time with the G1 working through the manuals and repeat viewings of the Mike Martin videos, however I sadly need to get back on to the chore list, so the rest of this 'diary' may be a little slower in coming. With that in mind I should apologise as, for obvious reasons, performance mode is likely to be towards the end... sorry 

PCM Modified Tones

My disappointment in this area remains. There really is a very limited amount one can do with the PCM tones. I guess there may be some units out there with even less flexibility (though nothing that I recall using, particularly branded as a 'synth').  Sometimes it would seem what you can do is enough to lift the tone adequately, and to be clear, there are a percentage of tones -with tweaking - that I would consider sufficient for any given project, but generously, less than half (To clarify, I feel that I could probably find somewhere under 50 percent of the tones I need for a project based upon the PCM sounds BUT having auditioned the PCM presets, the number I would want to use from the total available would be much less than that) . So in terms of modified PCM tones the phrase "you cant polish a **** " comes to mind.

I certainly accept that certain genres are better catered for, but in my opinion all genres often contain a string or brass or some keys that need to sound at least reasonably crisp and organic. I read somewhere that the PCM tones in the xw come from something like the WK-7500 which whilst seemingly a "budget" board itself, is not a dirt cheap unit, so I really would have hoped for a little more here.

Again, this is a personal view, and if you believe these tones are better than I am portraying them, then I am honestly happy for you. Personally, I am happy to use the internal tones as a sketchpad (and, of course, utilise those tones that 'cut it' but I will be using external boards/modules for the majority of tones in any 'final' mixes. **

Once again though, as disappointed as I may be, this was not my primary reason for purchase so I am a long way from 'buyers remorse' .....................yet.

** I realise I am likely to devalue my own judgment in the eyes of some, however it has been a long time since I have completed many personal projects of original material as for the past few years I have been playing bass at jams and some semi formalised practices (though not really 'bands'). Even for these tests I have been sequencing a few covers. Having said that, I feel I am in a prime demographic for this type of board as I am not an entire novice and enjoy having some depth of programming available, but not really in need of - or able to afford - any further high end gear. So I feel my opinion is adequately valid.

It seems I am unable to edit drum parameters  - e.g. reverb send - (from either User or Preset kits) while in a step sequence via the PC Editor.

I am otherwise able to make live adjustments via the G1's interface, but I have become accustomed to live edits via the PC editor for other tone and performance parameters.

I can perform edits to the drums with the PC editor if just playing the kit from the keys, but it is almost as if the kit selected for the step sequencer is a whole other instance of the kit.

I just want to k\make sure this is definitely the case and I am not missing something.

Thanks.

BrettM

Thanks for your kind response.

I had indeed been using Audacity (probably due to a previous recommendation from yourself), and similarly have been using the PC editor for everything I can as I prefer it to the boards UI (though - as I am about to note in another question, it isnt always avoidable).

I have some additional time with the G1 today and tomorrow. To vary things a bit I am working on a step sequence today, but tomorrow I will revisit and repeat my sampling exercise. I may well video the process so that 1. I can review it myself just to make sure I have done exactly what I believe I had, and 2. so that I can be very definitive on what I report.

I will incorporate the other suggestion you kindly provided into this further attempt and report back.

Many thanks.

It looks like the sample engine is the same as in the XW-PD1. 

Indeed (Long: 9 seconds x 4, Short: 3 seconds x 32)

Interesting. I guess this should be a little more flexible than the G1's sample engine (aside from the G1's 21hz mode??), though why they cant adopt a standard sample frequency is a little baffling.

Hi All,

I was going to wait until I had researched further (for reasons you will note below), however as it will now be a few days until I get a chance to revisit this, I thought I would make a note of my - potential - problem here in case anyone has any ideas in the interim.

My problem is in two parts. In fact, the first may not even exist, but for completeness I will outline the problems as I came across them.

As a preface, what I was doing in order to familiarise myself with the sampling functions of the G1 was attempting to create my own piano patch. It has been a number of years since I have done such a thing, but also the previous gear I had used (such as my Yamaha A3000) have been a little more suited to this type of sampling activity, whereas I appreciate the G1 is more of a 'hit' or 'loop' sampler, so it has been a bit of an experience so far.

Anyway.

First Issue.

I reiterate, the second issue probably makes this a 'non' issue, but this is nonetheless how things transpired.

I externally prepped my samples; quite roughly at this point as my initial intent was to establish the optimum splits for each sample to maximise the use of each bank with (on this attempt) two samples per octave. For the first bank I started in the higher registers using the full five splits.

All was going well, but after what seemed to be a successful 'mapping' I noticed that the lowest note of this bank suddenly displayed a strange and prominent artefact from midway through the sample. After a couple of attempts with reimported wav's and little hair pulling - there would have been a lot of hair puling, but I only have a little hair to pull - I decided it must be related to the gain setting in the 'user wave' conversion, as it was akin to turning up the volume during the natural sustain (not looped) of the note. So, I again re-imported the wave and overwrote the original file using a lower gain, went through the whole process again and..... bugger me if it didn't come back. So I did it again and renamed it  this time and wrote to a new slot. Again no luck, and the same for a further couple of attempts.

To the best of my understanding at this time (though this is one aspect that requires a revisit) I did not observe the artefact with the default auto mapping of the samples.

However, this brings me on to my second point.

Second Issue

I basically ran out of time as I established this last problem as I had to leave for work, but I noticed on the sixth attempt that when I was transferring the user wave to the board (dragging and dropping in the Editor Application) although the progress bar showed the correct name at the bottom of the screen, once the wave was transferred it would reflect a previous file name on the G1 side.

I cannot recall the names I used but as en example, a prior wave bank would have been bank2, but when transferring bank5 the progress bar would show bank5 but the transferred file would show bank2. Although originally overwriting an existing slot, I retried a couple of times using empty slots with the same result (and ran out of time). I should also highlight that my first file would have been named (sticking with the examples used) "bank" so the issue obviously did not occur when transferring the second variant (and perhaps the third, as I cannot recall if I used a "1" suffix or a "2" for the second attempt.)

So there it is. As I have emphasized if the problem is due to the G1 "somehow" receiving an earlier file instead of the updated one then it is the second issue at fault as my revised attempts would be merely replicating the initial ones with the 100% gain setting.

IF, however, the revised files were being transferred and it is merely a 'naming' problem occurring via the transfer, then I will still be left with the 'first issue' as detailed.

I understand that there are more things I can try and as such I understand if no-one wishes to chime in at this point, but until I get a chance to sit back down with the G1 if you DO have any nuggets of wisdom, they would be gratefully received.

Thanks All.

 

PS. Maybe this is a bit too esoteric for most readers but when you get deep into programming little things like this are golden.

It's quite a bit to get my head around, but Im sure when I am in front of my XW it will make a little more sense. Love info like this. Many thanks.

Solo Synth Controllers

I am going to give this one it's own section as it is after all a differentiating point between the G1 and it's more socially outgoing Hex touting brother, the P1.

I remain confused regarding this aspect. whilst I perhaps should not be committing my views to text on that basis, I have been confused for a while and I am not sure my position has changed, nor is it likely to.

I love the ability to tweak sounds, and as much as I do not venture too much into the completely bizarre (as I find many sounds that come across as quite fantastical initially, are ultimately quite unusable), but 'fairly weird', and 'quite unusual' are areas I often stroll though. I really thought I was going to have a fantastic time with these 'live' controllers.

I have no doubt that IF you became completely familiar with each of the 28 or so controllers (no.. lets say 30 including the mod wheels) these would be a complete hoot. But that is a lot of controllers to remember. Now I am not bemoaning the number of controllers (indeed I'd take more if they were offered) but a number of factors mean that - in my opinion - it is very hard to use them for much more than 'random' variations. Of course there are plenty that are happy with random variation, and for those people I would say the G1 has a lot to offer you.

However, if you consider that the majority of these controllers are multi function (i.e. the faders and the three parameter banks) plus the fact that the majority of the parameters are going to effect the sound either more or less significantly depending upon how the sound is designed. (for example, 'volume' will have an obvious impact, but LFO rise will depend upon the other LFO parameters set) I find it hard to see how these can be used as a predictable live tool.

I find myself wishing that I could remap the sliders (maybe I can ??????) so that I have the ones I want the most in one bank and can 'learn; that set first. But even then this hypothetical scenario would men that I would not have correctly labeled faders, although this could be resolved with some masking tape). Without this, and using all the 'banks' you have the real issue of jumping parameters (and not knowing where you start from) plus the really overly short throw to work with in the first place. Other (more expensive) boards get through similar problems with continuous encoders, per controller LED's, and sometimes per controller displays. Would I expect such luxuries on the G1. No. Not at all. But that does not detract from the limitations these constraints introduce i.e. they are very real even if they are, to some degree, understandable.

Of course, having all the options provided does not mean you HAVE TO use them all, and with that in mind one could enjoy some increased flexibility by limiting the parameters you manipulate, making it a bit easier to predict your results. Over time - I admit - you may become proficient enough to increase the number of controls you can use instinctively. Equally, for a non live situations e.g sound creation, one has more time to select, reflect upon and, if necessary, correct ones changes, and the controls are a welcome addition in such scenarios.

I also utilised them with the step sequencer having selected a solo synth tone for my bass (which I, for some reason, had a bit of trouble achieving initially). In this case, I was less put off by the problem of 'randomness' and once again found an area where it was vastly better to have the controls than not to - even though it would be better again if the outcomes were more predictable.

Overall then I have to say that I was at least a little bit disappointed with the 'extra Solo Synth control' provided by the G1, though this disappointment was tempered by the realization that any meaningful improvement would likely be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps more accurately then, given that I wouldn't want these taken away, it may be more correct to say 'Contently disappointed'.

Data Editor

As with the 'phrase sequencer' above, I am not in a position to call myself an expert with the editor as yet, although I have run through the vast majority of what it can do.

I really like it. When I looked at screenshots (I didn't download it before I used my board) it looked a little simple and childlike, but in practice it seems very well implemented. As per Mr Andertons review, it really does allow one to understand how the architecture hangs together, and as a result provides very quick and clear access to the parameters you want to tweak.

In some - quite obvious - ways, it provides features above and beyond the what is offered on the board, such as the wave and phrase conversion. But I do find myself (perhaps over optimistically) wishing that it went a little further. An option to see multiple parameter pages on one screen would be my main request, but I'd have also liked better sample manipulation, bigger drop downs lists (or ones that remembered when they were previously enlarged), a slightly more blatant indication of edited parameters, a page/tab of assignable controllers such that you could create a custom interface (this would be extra extra good for people with touch screen monitors, though I am not one of those people). And whilst I am in the land of fantasy, step, phrase and arpeggio editors. It would also be very very handy to manipulate the envelopes via the nodes on the graphics.

There were a few more things I wished for as I went through the features (one could argue how important can they be if I cant remember them) but the reality is that the Editor is still a great little add-on and I would much much rather have it as it is than not at all.

Many people have grown up editing multiple parameters through tiny screens, but to be fair, the XW's on board interface isn't too shabby (once you become accustomed to it). But for those that hate menu diving, the editor is a great alternative. Even for those that prefer on board editing I still believe using the interface encourages some extra tweaking that the normal interface may have you thinking 'I cant be bothered'. Also, at this stage of ownership there are a few parameters that keep forgetting where to find them. Not all of these are on the Editor but those that are are quite logically located and easy to find. I should probably state though, that there is still a small learning curve with the Editor as well, but as the various tabs are clear for all to see, it doesn't take too long to look around and see where everything is located.

I haven't even started to properly create my own sounds yet, but have just been having fun playing with some presets and downloaded tones, but I am confident in offering a big thumbs up to the editor already.

Phrase Sequencer

I think it's going to be a while before I am particularly proficient with this, and many other, areas of the board, however I think I have dabbled enough to give an opinion.

So far this has been amongst the most fun and most usable of the 'feature' items of the board. As well as the really handy key play / transposition aspect, I have found it to be a great little sketchpad where I can capture quick ideas and not have to fire up a sequencer to do so.

There isn't a great deal to add other than to say it really does hit it's mark with what one could expect from it.

I guess the only downside (and this really is more a question of familiarity, and of course applies to the other areas I mention) is when it is used when the arpeggiator is also active. More specifically, if you have everything running (step sequencer, arpeggiator, and phrase sequencer) it can be a little confusing as to what takes precedence where. I reiterate though, that this is more a familiarity issue than a genuine gripe.

Casio has tweeted an introduction video it gave me a little smile I recognize the Casio sound so this is solid. 

It certainly looks flexible and useful for some.

Im still 'put off' rather then 'attracted' by the marketing elements though.

"Delicate authenticity", "new Dimensions", "Transcends". "Brand new playing styles". Such a lot of hype terms with no real meat to them. And then the overuse and - in my opinion - unqualified use of the term professional once again. 

The sounds seem okay to be fair (especially the hex tones). But nothing that seems particularly in advance of other arrangers. Maybe in it's price range it may be comparable, but then again one would imagine the video was produced to provide a flattering reproduction of what the board sounds like (Im not suggesting a false impression, but merely an optimally produced sound).

The touch screen also looks a little sluggish compared to the - admittedly more expensive and genuinely professional - montage.

If anything it seems like this board may find a home because of the numerous features rather than anything else. And thats great. It's the reason I have the G1 after all. But it certainly seems rather more derivative than innovative or spectacular.

Played side by side against my WK-6600 which I assume sounds pretty much the same as the more expensive WK-7600 or even the PCM sounds in my XW-P1 there's simply no contest.  The Korgs come out on top every time.

 

Nowadays it's all about how much sample memory they used and whether or not artifacts like looping are audible on sustained notes.

 

If the X500 is built upon the same old PCM sounds in the WK line and the XW I don't care what they call the engine.  Call it a "Zippy Whizbang Doodle" for all I care.  A ROMpler is STILL a ROMpler and unless these are totally reworked sounds they will definitely fall flat on their faces at triple the price point.

I really couldn't agree more.

I have a few pieces of hardware (I think it is pointless to compare software in this context), most of which is pretty old and which comprises Yamaha, Roland, and even Technics. All of these have better sounds than my G1. Strictly speaking only one is a rompler (well 2 if you count my old electric piano as well), but the others can still be compared with basic waveforms and the G1 still lags. Regardless of the G1's intended use I think it's still quite inexcusable in this day and age not to be able to produce basic sounds at a standard that was set more than a decade ago.**

I guess some people are going to compare the 'number' of waveforms available, but I for one would take half (or even a quarter or less) if it meant the sounds were better.

So I agree, stop wasting time and effort coming up with ultimately meaningless rompler engine names, and focus on the sound.

Of course I haven't heard the MZ yet and would would welcome being pleasantly surprised, but if I were a betting man........

** I always feel the need to qualify my statement in that I do really like my G1, but I still feel the basic waveforms are woeful.

Gabester,

I don't have a comprehensive answer for you, and I haven't started to use the G1's midi as  yet, but something I read with regard to the P1 recently is that channel 1 is always assigned to either the Solo Synth, Hex Layers, or the Drawbar Organ. I imagine, therefore, that the same applies to the Solo Synth on the G1.