CairnsFella

Nice. One or two of the pictures flashed by a little quickly though (Yes I could have paused the video, but my post Christmas reactions really aren't up to the job).

Very excited. G1 in five days and counting. I just hope I get some time to use it (I got a new audio interface for my Birthday in November, but as yet have not had a chance to plug it in).

Hmm.. interesting then, that it is an anagram of ZIP

I'm not even sure why I am reading this thread. But I did. And while I am no expert on your specific keyboard or power supply, I can advise that devices such as keyboards only draw the amount of current they require. Equally they usually (or should) specify the maximum current draw as a requirement (i.e. peak draw) So in practical terms, as long as the power supply can supply "at minimum" the specific current required, you should be fine. If a power supply can provide more current this will be fine (and some would say preferable as the supply would not need to be 'maxing out"). Of course, this doesn't apply to voltage, which will need to match the specified requirements exactly. Edit: Seems I was beaten to this by Scott. However as Scott was given credit in another thread by answering a question 'after' I did, maybe this is where things get balanced out !!! PS. Whilst I dont really disagree that low current draw may effect voltage with a high amperage supply, this really shouldn't happen to a significant detrimental degree in a decent PSU. Of course there are variables, but by this token a PSU with your exact specifications 'printed on it' may be equally risky for numerous different reasons. Having said that, there are other consideration when using a higher amperage PSU as well, such as reduced efficiency (assuming equally well designed supplies), and the amount of current available to the device in the event of a short etc. So I guess we do essentially agree that closer to the specified amperage is better as long as it is equal at a minimum.

"As Scott said." Hmmm. I am having a "chopped liver" moment.

I may be being a little slow here... but the above responses are surely in respect of the "G1", but the OP refers to the P1. Unless I am much mistaken, the correct answer is "You can't".

Hi there, In fairness to Grachus, I have read all the FAQ's and much of the rest of the forum, other online resources, watched the videos and read the manuals. Off the top of my head, however, I do not recall the 'compare' function being mentioned. This isnt to say it 'isnt' mentioned. It may well be referred to more than once and I dont recall. My point is merely that there is one HELL of a lot of reading out there (Im still reading up and have been for at least a couple of months). I agree though Grachus, if you havent done any reading I am sure some, if not all, of these points can be clarified by doing so. Im sure if you whittle them down (i.e. show willing) and then pop back with any outstanding questions, the guys will be more than happy to provide more specific responses. I wish I could, but my christmas present is obviously as yet unused, so my recollections from reading only may not be so accurate. That said, I think your sequencer questions at least should be in the manual (though I am assuming Q2 is a step sequencer question?)

Scott, I havent even unwrapped my G1 and there you are using your all new G2 !!! What's it like Only kidding (well I think I am, and I assume that was a typo). Whilst I believe I already knew the G1 didnt sent midi from the sliders, your post is a sad reminder that it doesnt do this. especially odd given that the P1's drawbar organ has 'some' ability to do this. Almost makes you think that different teams did different bits, and the drawbar organ team assumed that some data should be sent even though it was not part of the brief, whereas the other teams decided not to do any above and beyond functionality.

MarkO, I realise you were not talking about the warranty, but I was just responding to Brad. Anyhoo, the missus booted it up and by all accounts all was well. (She has now cunningly placed it in her sewing room with a sarong draped over it ) PS. I think Brad 'was' suggesting the warranty was from date of purchase, but by not using the XW I was wasting some of the warranty period.

Brad, I was typing whilst you were posting. The unit is new. Also, I don't know what the warranty is in your locale, but it's 5 years here, so it isn't as much of an issue as it might otherwise have been.

MarkO, Thanks mate. Very excited (and the wife hasn't bothered to hide the box yet). I actually meant to post in the general XW forum to spread my happiness to the wider XW community .. but I clearly 'missed' !! Anyway, I agree with your thoughts (though the unit will still be under warranty even if it didn't work at Christmas) But I suppose we would have the time to have the unit returned and back to me if there was a problem now. I might ask the wife to do it though, as I do get a childish joy from the unboxing alone (sad I know).

The G1 just arrived... HOOORAYYYY!. Now I have to stare at the box until the missus gets home to hide it for the next 34 Days !!!

Antonio. Appreciate the input. This could be useful when I get my XW in drawing up my own diagram. Until then though, if it isn't 'exactly the same' I might avoid looking at it as I do not want to get confused as to what is the same and what is different (and while I hold out a very small hope that the 'actual' flow diagram may exist somewhere'. Thanks again.

Chas. Thanks. I have read your guide previously. Very helpful. Although I will probably commit more to memory once I actually have an XW to hand. Having said that, my point here was clarification of what was being said with regard to separate filters in the solo synth oscillators. I feel that I have now established the workshop was at best 'misleading' or at worst 'wrong'. Having said that, I am now happy that I understand the facts in this regard. Thanks again.

Brett, Thanks for the info, but as I stated (though in reference to the P1) "The manual only seems to have one for the 'solo synth' tones, and not for all of the sound generators" Though I had missed the effects block section on E-36 so that does help, thanks. Equally, that presentation, although interesting (and I am still going though it) also glosses over the architecture in terms of signal path for everything other than the solo synth tones, though it does give additional information on the solo synth tone flow. For example. the graphical representation of the hex layers really only shows that there are six layers that are routed to the DSP. There is obviously much more to it than this, both inside and outside the layers. I guess it is possible to extrapolate the flows for the PCM tones from the individual solo synth blocks (though this is neither stated nor do I have any reason to believe this would be entirely accurate). Even then, what about the drawbar organ, or sample tone flows? I really find signal path flows useful and interesting, so I guess if it comes to it I will have to construct my own after Christmas and perhaps ask you guys to check them over.

OK. Thanks for the info. A bit for me to look into here, much appreciated. Based on your info I looked at the workshop again and it definitely highlights that the (a) difference between the PX5 and XW is that the PX5 has it's own filter on each of its layers. Now knowing the limited amount that I do about the XW, one could obviously interpret what is being said to mean the difference between the 'hex layer filtering' specifically on the XW and the PX5. However the fact is that the video compares the solo synth layers on the XW with the hex on the PX5 (and shows signal paths for each in turn... around 33.19) and says that the XW only has the total filter and the PX5 has its it's own filter on each of the layers. Resonance - in this part of the video - is not a factor. So I would consider that information to be a little misleading. It would probably be fairer to suggest that the two different tone generation methods (solo and hex) should not really have been compared in the same breath, or at least should have mentioned that these were quite different elements. Anyway, its not a problem (nor a complaint of the XW's limitations, as the fact is I didn't realise there were independent non-resonant filters on the XW solo synth), but just an observation that it confused me. Thanks again for the info.

Hi all. Last night I re-watched a Casio Workshop (synthesis 101) which used a P1 and a PX5. In that tutorial it stated that the XW's only have a total filter on the solo synth. Withough yet owning the P1 I cannot check this first hand but this was also what I had previously believed. However, looking at the P1 manual on page E-22 (editable solo synth tone parameters) it clearly shows a separate filter in each of the six oscillator/sound/noise blocks. Is the manual plain wrong, or is my was my original understanding and the workshop video incorrect?

Hi all, Just wondering if anyone has a signal flow diagram for either of the XW Synths. Something like the one posted here for the PX-5S :- http://www.casiomusicforums.com/index.php?/topic/108-px-5s-features-youre-glad-are-included-features-you-wish-were-included/page-5#entry8403 Any and all help appreciated. The manual only seems to have one for the 'solo synth' tones, and not for all of the sound generators.

LOL. I just noticed that Casio have put a post on their "Casio Music Gear" Facebook page only several hours ago regarding the XW synths. Nothing new. In fact I would tentatively guess it was an old post re-posted in error. (Or I could choose to believe it was a small token in response to my hope that they would still show the XW's some love ) Edit: (Indeed upon further research the 'caption' used is one originally used in 2012)

I'm really really looking forward to trying the sampling functions on my 'Christmas' G1. As I mentioned in another thread, I have just taken possession of an old Roland MV8000. It's a very powerful old machine, but disk access and sample load times are ssssssssllllllllllllloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww . So I am hoping the G1 - being over a decade newer - is a little quicker in that respect. Very different machines though so I have a feeling they will compliment eachother well.

Chas. I didn't initially see Brad's post so was about to reply that I understood the G1 could map more than the per octave sample. Not being in possession of my G1 yet you had me worried. In fact it was with that in mind that I made the suggestion that the G1 could come close to the pd1 functionality. I'm sure there is more to it but in essence the much improved sequencer on the pd1 seems to be the biggest differentiator. If you need what the pd1 provides in that respect then obviously the G1 is no substitute. However if the G1's sequencer is adequate I stand by my feeling that the G1 would not only suffice for a similar purpose, but also provide greater flexibility elsewhere. The MV 8000 is much like the older akai MPC's. Not the newer ones though as they are now much more PC dependant and less standalone. I have received it now, and whilst it shows its age with regard to things like disk access time and the like, it is a very very powerful and flexible machine. Although I won't be able to unwrap myn G1 until Christmas, I doubt I will have scratched the surface of the MV's abilities by then! Anyway, hope you are enjoying your PD1 as much as I am enjoying my MV (which, if you are, you will be having a very very good time indeed)!!

Sorry if my response is not a great help. A quick google suggests that the "time" in ADSR envelopes is commonly milliseconds, but NOT ALWAYS (either because of inaccuracy, or the use of other units of measure). However, not having a Casio in my hands as yet, it looks as though these values are set at Midi values, dividing the maximum values up in 128 increments. I dont think it is relative - though it could be, and before I confuse matters by making more guesses, I will move on to my main point. Whilst I can understand your desire to know exactly what it is (and indeed I am curious myself now), the fact is that by making changes to the envelope, you should be able to establish for yourself the effect on the sound, particularly at the extreme and near extreme settings. With this in mind, knowing the unit if measurement really doesn't make any difference, as the number then just provides you with a guide to the results you should expect with the values in between. Equally, as you become more familiar with the unit, you will begin to judge quite accurately the effect of small incremental movements. As I say, I do not really think knowing the figures will improve this process very much.

I'm with you guys re: the aesthetics. Haven't come across the gold variant (although as I primarily look at the G1 it isn't that surprising). Having said that, I did see a limited edition Chrome Orange P1 for sale here in Aus for $499 brand new (that's around 356 USD) !!! *** Just checked and they still have them at that price. https://www.keyboardcorner.com.au/casio-xw-p1-performance-synthesizer-limited-chrome-orange/

Seems like everyone already knew about these. Sorry. I must confess I didn't search the forums to see if they had been mentioned. I guess I presumed they were 'new' to ebay.

I am wondering that if I ever end up with an inevitable 'Coffee Mug' ring in the 'rest' area of my G1, if that will enhance its value ??