CairnsFella

Oh I see. So they are 'Bargains' now then

Hi all, Anyone else seen the "Dee & Ricky" G1's on Ebay ?? I'd personally never heard of them (until I looked them up after seeing the listing). If I give you a clue that the artwork from these guys has added a little to the price, I challenge you to have a guess before you look the listing up!.

Chas, Whilst I haven't retained all of the information from reading the PD1 specs, I do recall there are many functions that exceed the XW's including the scope of the sequencer (more tracks being one thing I seem to recall). However, is what is being done on this video (which I agree is one of the better vids on the PD1 I have seen) really unachievable on a G1 (or perhaps I should say, couldn't you get close enough that there would be no discernible difference). I do admit some of my prejudices are somewhat petty, and I do honestly congratulate you on your purchase and hope the PD1 meets and exceeds your expectations. I am certainly not a gear snob, even though my previous post may suggest otherwise. Ultimately, if you enjoy it and it makes music, then it wouldn't matter if the rest of the world didn't like that piece of gear as it obviously would be a good choice for you. In fact one could argue that there are plenty of people - though obviously not on this forum- that would look down their nose at my purchase of the G1. As it happens, whilst I am not really into the seemingly narrow band of genres of music usually produced with these groovebox type instruments, I am interested in how they may be used in the creation of other dance music styles (I should clarify that I am not really 'up' on the differences between some of these genres, and I like the beats produced, but I feel they often lack a melodic element, so it's not a blanket dislike). To this end I have just purchased (though not yet received) an old Roland MV 8000. Although very old, and dated in some respects, they still seem to be very very powerful instruments. I'll be interested in your seeing progress with the PD1 whilst I tackle the MV. Although I ordered the G1 first, this is a Christmas present so I will have to wait until then to pair the two together (Because I can midi them directly LOL ... just pulling your leg). And Scott. Whilst I do not wish to be rude, I will conveniently ignore your comments that the XW's remain current in some locations . If I were to take your comments on board it would mean that my issues with Casio's comments would remain, so it's probably best that I blindly believe they have been discontinued but they havent told us!!). Florent. Haven't had time to look through those links as yet, but I will later today. Thanks.

florent, Thanks for your contribution. And I am happy to note (though I am assuming a little) that you do not necessarily see my comments as a flaming exercise. The particular point that you made that I would like to seize upon is that the XW's are discontinued (Though I appreciate that you said In Europe). The whole focus of my latter points - which were not really about the support, but about the implied negativity shown by Casio toward their own XW line - assumed that the product was still current. I could 'make a case' that they are current, as I have never read anything that confirms discontinuation, and there are indicators to the contrary ). But if we assume they are no longer a current product, then the detrimental narrative from Casio makes much more sense. Indeed, as I previously noted, many companies will say how much better a newer product is than those past or superseded. So in the interest of peace and harmony I think I will adjust my understanding and assume that the XW's are indeed discontinued in all but name, and as such will be much more tolerant of any further comments I read from Casio as to how the XW cant do this, or cant do that. So with that concluded (I hope)..... I would agree with you re: the PD vs the G1. As much as I realize there are many features which are similar, and even acknowledging that my reasons for buying the G1 are more for the 'groovebox' functionality which I am sure some people will point out is better (in some areas) than the G1, I really really do not like the PD. If you gave me one I would sell it or give it away (No offense to those that like it, as if something fulfills a need, then it cannot be questioned I guess). I suppose I feel the G1 is quite unique and covers a number of bases well enough that there is limited competition anywhere near the price IF you happen to want/need a number of those features (I mentioned in another thread for example, that if I was purely after the synth sounds then I would have gone for a Roland JD-Xi, bu the synth element was quite low down in my priorities, and given that, the solo synth on the G1 is quite a bonus). The PD, however, seems like a poor mans MPC or Electribe. On top of that, whilst it shouldn't matter, it looks as though it is designed as a toy. If I wanted to be extra petty I would even say the built in speaker puts me off (though I can thankfully avoid anyone still trying to pitch it to me given that actual old fashioned MIDI ports are essential for me). If (IF) it is indeed true that Casio does not intend to pursue the XW line into updated versions, that would indeed be a big shame. I wont list all the things that I think could easily be improved as many others have already done this. But I do believe that there is margin to make the keyboard more expensive and still represent great value in order to achieve some of the more costly features that would be so welcome. Oh well, maybe in another 20 years eh

And Gary, as an aside. I actually have a thing for 'quirky' instruments (although I realize that comment could also be interpreted more negatively than intended). To be honest it was interesting that you brought to my attention that the Venom was still current. The way I had read comments I had formed an - obviously now incorrect - opinion that it wasn't ( I should clarify that I wasn't certain it was obsolete as I hadn't researched it sufficiently, but I did 'feel' that way). But despite that I was still quite keen on buying one as it seems a bargain for what it can do, however it didnt really meet the needs that I was looking for at the time (and the XW does ). I also have a Technics WSA1, which I love to bits, but was amongst the least popular (by sales) synth of its time, and is hardly without its detractors. And also a Yamaha A3000 sampler which wasnt exactly the 'go to' sampler of its day (or after its day). Finally, I should point out that I am a bass player (and not even a very good one)...... so what do I know about keyboards !!!

Gary, I know you didn't mean any malice with your response, but I feel that a number of your comments indicate that either I didnt articulate my point well, or that you didnt understand what I was saying. Whilst I hope it was the latter (as otherwise I guess most people will misinterpret my point), I fear it may well be the former, in which case I will sadly have to reap what people 'believe' I have sown. Whichever it was, I can be clear that as much as all your points may well be valid and well put, they have little to do with what I tried (and obviously failed) to say. Specifically "My advice is to stop staring at the grass on the other side of the fence and start concentrating on producing great music with the gear you own." Suggests that I am personally questioning my own purchase. I can clearly state that I am not. In fact I can put it no simpler that the fact that Casio's own comments suggest that I "should be" questioning it. You also stated "Rather than knocking Casio's support mechanism on a public forum" but my last post makes no such reference aside from a minor reference to agreeing with points I have read elsewhere, but even then I state these are not the issues bugging me. (And even my first post does not intend to 'knock' the support, unless you see that raising it as a question is in itself 'knocking it'. I accept that I could see it being interpreted that way, but only if if one chose to ignore my comments to the contrary. I even highlighted that I am not revisiting the original points in the thread. The whole point of my last post is not 'should Casio be supporting the product still' but 'should they be actively putting it down'. Pure and simple. In fact the logical extension of that is that I am suggesting they shouldn't be. Is that really a bad thing thing. I also commented that this appears to have been occurring for some time, so the 3 year reference is not in context with my comments (though again, your point seems to be focusing on the support provided over this period, rather than the use of the XW's limitations as a marketing 'leg up' for the later products as was the intended focus). At the risk of repeating myself, could I perhaps make the following bullet point a key reference in terms of the nature of my 'complaint' (though 'rant' may be a better term). I am ENTIRELY undeterred by ANY of the limitations, perceived or actual, presented by the XW series in terms of sound or performance. I see the G1 as a positive and exciting purchase. I am however frustrated by the frequent comments made by Casio in numerous threads that highlight the deficiencies (limitations) of this product, when such comments seem unnecessary, and that comments as to what new products 'can do' should be sufficient, rather than what the XW cant in the context of these 'threads'.Further to this I guess I will just have to take it on the chin if people STILL think that I am personally berating the XW. I cant say anymore than I have that I am not. I would also reiterate that your points are quite valid, and a reasonable rebuttal to my first post if I were stating those points as more than a point of consideration (I quote myself from that post "I am not saying Casio are 'in the wrong' here, or that they should be obligated to do any more than they have done.....") Perhaps if you had been reading the discussions that I had you would understand me more? It is only in the context that those discussions exist that what I am saying makes any sense. If however, people still feel I am merely being inflammatory, then I am happy to delete my views regardless of the fact that I have merely tried to reflect the impression that I believe they impart.

Cameron, I do reiterate I am not a self appointed moderator (I have only just joined the forum myself.... with a list of questions), so if you feel you need to ask questions, you should. I was just giving an opinion that I thought may be beneficial in the long term. Good luck with it all.

I swear I really tried to resist adding to this topic. I was going to yesterday evening, but decided to sleep on it. (Its actually a slightly different point, but I still thought I should make it a continuation of the this one) This morning I decided against. But now after coming across the cause of my frustrations several more times, I just have to get this off my chest. Sorry in advance. Despite how my original post in this thread may have read, it really wasn't intended as a 'rant' or other 'meaningfully negative' comment. Since then, however, my ongoing search for information and research into my now 'purchased' G1 has led me further afield to other more generalised or 'other manufacturer' specific forums and articles. And what I have now more and more regularly read has started to feed my growing negativity towards the way in which Casio go about their marketing. I have also found a number of comments reflecting a similar view (though that does not mean either I, nor those others are therefore correct of course.) Aside for the comments that mirrored my own with regard to the ongoing support given (Im not pushing that one further, just mentioning I was not alone), or failure to provide adequate explanation of functions that have been provided, or indeed that money spent on celeb's may for the XW's have been better spent on more pro active videos (I havent checked the figures, but one poster suggested that you tube videos of Casio workshops were as popular as those featuring celebrity presentations). No. Although I agree with all this, it isn't these that have been really bugging me. It is the fact that so often when an individual mentions one of the newer Casio keyboards in the same breath as an XW (usually, if not always the P1), a Casio rep jumps on the opportunity to mention how much better it is in this way or that way than the XW. Now this isnt only recent, so comments had been made when the XW was (as far as I could see) less than a couple of years old. And I am not talking about specific questions such as "Is X better on the PX than the XW", in which case I could understand the comparison either One can only read so many of these comments before it feels like Casio are actively putting their own product down as a strategy for pumping the other up. Since when does the active promotion of a feature mean it is necessary by direct implication to highlight the shortcomings of other products? I am looking at a post now where the poster is asking about hex layers in a thread about the PX but refers to 'understanding them' in the XW. The response includes "many things that could not be done on the XW-series", and "The XW-series was limited to one". I have read and re-read this and cannot see for the life of me how the essentially unprompted and non necessary inclusion of comments that highlight the XW's shortcomings helped the response in any way. Technology hasnt moved on that much in the the intervening period, so it's not as if they are merely saying we have achieved all this due to huge technological breakthroughs. I find it hard now to read these comments as anything less than "so why would you buy that piece of **** when we can offer you this" or ".. so obviously we weren't trying very hard before, but here is what we can do when we make an effort". Im not making this up. If you cant find a Casio comment about boards such as the PX 5S in less than five minutes that reads similar to ".. such an astounding keyboard compared to anything I have worked on before" and "much improved compared to the XW" , then you are not trying very hard. Then the follow up exercise would be to see how much time there was between this, and the former comment being levelled at the XW. Of course, all the caveats mentioned in responses posted above still apply. Yes, Casio are trying to market their products. And what company doesnt push, nay even marginally exaggerate the features of a new product. I would even say that it isnt uncommon for companies to highlight how much better new products are than older ones BUT unless I am truly going senile, this doesnt usually start with a couple of years of the introduction of the previous product AND does this really 'ever' happen whilst they are still selling the old product. Such self demeaning media is reserved for product replacements isnt it?? I realise that it may seem like an unnecessarily 'high' and perhaps 'odd' horse to be climbing upon when I have just ordered a G1, and - bearing in mind I havent got it yet - I still remain convinced it is the best fit for my personal needs. If anything, the fact that I have ordered a G1 rather than a P1 mitigates my exposure some of the 'degradation' being levelled at P1 features (though there are similar comments pertaining to common features e.g. midi, phrase sequencer, arps). But even though I am happy with my purchase does one really want to keep reading that the very people that make product actually consider it to be outdated, inferior, and outdone?? OK.. Whilst I hope that someone 'gets' what I am saying, I promise that I am done with this subject. My apologies once more.

Cameron, Would have loved to help you further, not only to assist you, but also give these other guys a break , but as Gary says, there is a point where you really need to learn the capabilities of your gear / software. Once you have read, then reread, and understood as much as you can it makes formulating any outstanding questions much easier, and in turn any resulting questions more specific, and easier to address. One approach I try to use (I am not saying it is the best, but it has worked for me) is to look every part of the chain separately in order to isolate the points at which your problems may be occurring (sometimes it is more than one thing). For example, I believe there are alternate simpler options for recording the incoming audio, which may confirm or refute whether a stereo signal is reaching your PC. Also - and I really hope that this doesn't sound rude, and I realise it may be a lot to learn - but asking these guys questions such as "Is there a Behringer website that I can go to in order to download a CODEC? (I haven't looked for such a site yet)." just suggests that you dont really want to make much of an effort yourself. I for one have been thoroughly chastised in forums (not this one) for asking questions in situations where I genuinely felt I HAD researched the matter quite thoroughly. I am quite certain that it would actually be quicker to search for a Behringer site and then the specific hardware, than it was to type that question here. Again, I apologise as I am not 'having a go' and you haven't upset me personally, but I am just stating it as I see it. As it happens I have a xenyx 302 (I dont use it as I quickly found it a little limited, but as a very very basic interface it was more than adequate). If I recall, it requires either a Behringer driver or the Asio4all driver (though NOT BOTH). That said, I cannot recall if windows picked up these drivers automatically or not (this should have been observed when you plugged the device in). I do not believe that the microphone device you are seeing is the one you want, but then I cant recall for certain what devices should show up for the Behringer. I would be surprised if a little searching couldn't establish this information your you. Of course, if you feel it is appropriate to ask more questions on this subject, then feel free. I am not voicing the opinions of others here, and I will help you myself if I can. (As well as ask questions myself) However I would reiterate that it may be better all round if you could learn just a little bit 'the hard way'. If nothing else, what you learn tends to stick a bit better then. Good luck.

Yes, I also noticed that you have at least a few bits of quite recent gear. More jealousy, as my meagre collection was mostly obtained in the 80's and 90's. You have indeed listed the reasons I chose the XW over the JD. I realise the JD's sequencer is pretty cool, but because I need my gear to last me a long time (hopefully) I felt the limits were too constraining. I am not even expecting much from the sounds of the XW (Which is in part, why I chose the G1 over the P1, as the sampling 'should' give me a little extra sonic flexibility) though I am perhaps secretly hoping to be at least 'content' with the solo synth. Ultimately I am likely to be using the XW in a purely 'home studio' environment, so my plan is to use the XW as a quick creation tool. If I come up with something I want to work on further, I can use other external sound sources if necessary. Historically I have used computer sequencers, but being the perpetual fiddler I am I feel I have wasted sooo much time tweaking and learning various aspects of PC based DAW's and trying different VSTI's etc that I just wanted to try an alternative that may be a little more 'immediate'. Of course I realise the XW's also have a lot of depth and tweakability but, I hope at least, I can experiment with a lot of this 'whilst playing'. Also (and again it's a hope rather than a certainty) but I do hope the fact that I can just turn it on and jam means I will make use of smaller free periods of time. Nowadays, unless I have a few hours spare, I am reluctant to boot up the PC (and I dont have that many spare few hours). Anyway, we will see. Worst case scenario I will have an entertaining new toy, even if my plans do not play out as hoped.

Congrats. Ordered mine yesterday, but whenever it arrives I wont be using it until Christmas (Pressie from the missus). I see you have a JD-Xi too. That was on my shortlist. To be honest, from my research I felt the JD was most definitely a better 'synth' and I was soooooo tempted. But then I remembered that I wasnt looking for a synth specifically, but something with groovebox capability and sampling, so I decided the Casio was a much better match (But I am still jealous)

I thought I had read the opposite of this. I guess I should check my source, but I have been reading so much about the XW's over the last few weeks I cannot recall where the reference was, so take this with a grain of salt. If I come across the reference again I will come back and update my post (of course if I HAD an XW I could easily check, but that wont happen until Christmas.

Thanks for your replies guys. Scott. I feebly endeavored not to name Mike Martin specifically, although he had obviously been the main driver. You have rather echoed my thoughts (though I am not suggesting you feel the same way) in that the input previously provided was underpinned by the marketing effort. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But I suppose I felt a little ..... hmmm... need to be careful with my words here...... I need something less accusatory than 'suckered', but more explicit than disappointed..... in the manner that the G1 and P1 went from their wonder child, to their 'slightly' disappointing teenager, encouraged to leave home and fend for itself. In other words I previously felt the prior efforts were an equal mix of marketing and passion. Now I am inclined to feel they contained a greater marketing percentage. I am entirely with you that we have it much better than days gone by. I indeed even acknowledged that there are companies that support their product less (I cant recall what specifically, but I am sure I have had products that espouse their ability to be improved with future upgrades only to never have any upgrades at all, and I have certainly had products whose drivers have fallen behind operating systems very early in their lifespan). I am genuinely NOT bad mouthing Casio here, as I agree I have no grounds. Let's just say it would have been nice to be reflecting ongoing praise for them going above and beyond instead. I realize though, this sadly isn't the way the world very often works. XW-Addict. Perhaps it is a bit early in the day for me here, but I am unsure what you are saying . Or at least unsure in relation to my original post. However, I am sure it is intended as a supportive comment as has been your positive assistance with regard my previous questions. Brett. Thanks for looking at my previous questions. When I wrote the opening post in this thread I was conscious of the fact that I thanked only those that responded when I know that there are others that would if they had time, or would but may not have known the answers. I initially wrote my thanks to those too, but thought it looked a little odd, so deleted it. I wish I had left it in now. I love music technology. I often think I should have been a studio engineer instead of 'trying' to be a musician. so yes, I will hopefully get quite stuck into the vast array of options the G1 offers, and will enjoy doing so. But I generally welcome all the help I can get too ! Anyway, thanks again everyone. As I research and research in advance of getting my hands on the G1 I am sure I will be calling on your collective knowledge a couple more times before Christmas (and probably after). So speak to you all then. Cheers.

Hi all, Of course, I can answer the question I posed myself, but I was stuck for a title. I recently joined the forums and posted a few questions. This was the final stages of researching my next instrument purchase and I just wanted a few questions I had on the G1 clarified. I have now decided to go ahead with the purchase, so thank you to all that helped me out. In a more general vein, although I realise that the XW synths are rather overshadowed by newer keyboards from Casio, they are, however, still listed as current on their various sites (both the primary Casio site, and the XW site). It is good that there are still passionate owners and followers to keep driving the forum, but it strikes me (though I could be wrong) that the contributors from Casio itself have all but abandoned the products. It is a little disappointing to read that improvements to firmware seen in the XW's have filtered to newer products only. I dont mean entire new features as such things are more hoped for than expected, but 'improvements' such as sending control data via the arp etc. And I am sure a few of the many little issues unearthed by users and listed in the forums could have justified at least one more firmware update. It is also clear that the manual was never up to scatch really given the depth of these synths, yet these have never been revisited. The workshops were great (and I do want to emphasise that), but they could go on to cover so much more. In fact in at least one workshop it was stated that some of the new sounds etc being posted to the XW site was 'scratching the surface' of things to come, but I dont think a great deal more was forthcoming. I am not saying Casio are 'in the wrong' here, or that they should be obligated to do any more than they have done. Indeed I have owned products from manufacturers (musical and otherwise) that are far less supportive of their products. I am merely saying that it is merely a shame that Casio have not continued it's push of the XW's (after all, they are the only products they actually market as 'synths' even if in practice the newer boards are synths in all but name) and that we do not even see any significant input from product experts anymore. Some of the questions that 'user's are providing the answers for by way of trial and error in some cases, could be much more quickly addressed by the guys from Casio that once seemed so passionate about the product. I mean I entirely see commercially why the primary focus would be elsewhere, but when I re-watch some of the youtubes I remember my original feeling was that '"these guys really love this product", but now (and this really isnt meant to be disrespectful, just an honest opinion) I feel "these guys really gave a good 'impression' of really loving this product". Anyway, as I say, despite my feelings on the matter, I will soon be the owner of shiny new (or maybe 'slightly matt' new) G1. It is actually going to be a Christmas present from the wife, so it will be a while before I can actually 'use' it.. but at least I will have plenty of time to re-read the manual, the forums and re-watch the videos, so I can hopefully hit the ground running.

I guess we are all entitled to our own options. Do I like this sort of stuff. No. Not at all in fact. But, as much as it isn't 'music' that I like, I think it is unfair to suggest it isn't music, or an art form, or something that requires skill. The latter point is reasonably indisputable, as it isn't just my opinion, but a fact that there are those more talented at that type of thing than others. The first two points are more subjective, though it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that if people danced to it, that would be one fairly big argument that it is music. However, I put it this to you. Would it be fair for me to state categorically that any 'style' of painting or sculpture that I do no not like is not art. Or is it more reasonable to state that as an individual I do not see it's artistic merit. Lets not forget that at various points in time, musical styles that are now well accepted were once frowned upon. I'm fairly sure I recall reference to the likes of the Beatles music being thought of less than favourably in terms of its musical content. What baffles me more is that here, in Australia, the cost of a G1 is not a great leap from the price of a PD1. I would be fairly certain you could do the same stuff (if you were so inclined) with the samples assigned to keys, and much much (dare I add another much) more than you can with the PD1. I realise 'size' is an issue, but you'd have to be dead set on space optimisation and portability to go for what I se as a massively more limited product.

"....and it doesn't give me nosebleeds it qualifies as music" I must confess that I was expecting "Beatallica" to fail on that criteria, but I guess it wasn't that bad.

Thanks to you both. I must sadly say that without yet owning an XW it is sometimes hard to follow through the various 'terms' as easily as I'm sure it would be if the keyboard were in front of me. I 'think' I follow though..... and at the end of the day, 'no' means 'no' However, the multi-function key solution on the G1 does appear to 'maybe' be even better !!! (Both options would have been nice of course, but that's just being greedy). As always, your assistance is much appreciated. PS. XW-Addict. Did you really have to use the names 'Samba 1' 'and Samba 2' as your examples !!!! Sounds too much like a 1980's home electric organ auto-accompaniment, and does nothing for the XW's image. Perhaps you could edit and replace with, errmmm .... for example "Brazilian HARDBeatz" !!! ... Only kidding

And sorry, but I probably SHOULD have put this one in the XW forum (not G1).... then again if they are different it is the G1 that I am most interested in so I guess I have a - feeble - excuse.

Sorry. Me again. Just re-re-re watching the A G1 workshop with Mike Martin. It was stated that chains could not be saved within performances. Assuming (Perhaps wrongly) that this is an XW common feature, I then read the same question being answered by Mike as both yes AND no (Not picking on Mike, merely that it was he that stated this.). Taking a democratic approach, the 'No's would have it, but thats clearly not a very scientific approach. Anyone have a definitive stance on this?

Gary, I believe your response answers what I am asking albeit 'slightly' indirectly. So whilst I am not quoting you verbatim, I think it is safe to conclude that there is nothing significantly different between HEX tones on the Casio and tone layers by any other name on other synths that can perform such functions. That's all I wanted to know. As I say, I thought there was some fundamental difference because in all the references I read and hear about hex tones, there seems to be little or no reference to conventional layering so I was convinced I wasnt understanding some whole new concept whose underlying premis appeared to be some massive secret. By the same token I do not wish to belittle the usefulness of this on the P1 at all. It's obviously massively beneficial to have that tone layering facility. In fact, I feel more positive toward the P1 now I am more comfortable with what HEX actually is. Thanks again.

Sorry if I sound a bit dumb BradMZ, but I have read that (and indeed have read it again following your post in case I missed something), but I am still not seeing what it is that makes this anything different to a standard layering / velocity switching type setup. To give my understanding some context, I have only really owned one decent hardware synth... my quirky old Technics WSA1 (Though I have a yamaha sampler rack unit, and have used many soft synths) so my understanding is obviously based upon my own experiences. As such I realise there is no 100% match between the XW (in the context of HEX tones) and my WSA1 for example. But I am struggling to see how the results I could achieve through multiple driver tones, or combination tones in my WSA1 would be much different 'in principle' to these HEX tones. I havent got a problem if there isnt much of a difference (as I have noted, I am more inclined toward the G1 in any case) however, it just bugs me that I feel am missing something. If there is a 'new thing' going on here, I am unsure why the standout elements cant be described in a few words. Perhaps I should run a "25 words or less" competition... "The HEX layer tones in the Casio XW represent an innovation in synthesis because........................................"" LOL .. anyway, thanks for trying to assist me there BradMZ.

BradMZ, LOL.. yes I had seen that one, and strictly speaking it does fall within my stated remit, though - without suggesting you should have known otherwise - rather tenuously. To be fair, this isnt an aspect that is effecting my potential purchase decision, more just an area I am curious about seeing as the feature was much touted in some of the promotional and tutorial videos. If there are any other vids around with 'external' sources being used, then I'd still love to hear, but otherwise I guess it will be something to look forward experimenting with if I manage to get hold of a G1. Thanks for the input BradMZ.

XW-Addict Your responses are, as ever, appreciated. Unfortunately I feel that my attempts to be quite specific with my questions end up having the opposite effect so I am obviously not really asking what I intended. Sorry. This point is probably closest to what I want to find out. But even more I wanted to know what limitations there are in comparison to an 'actual', or as you say 'typical' groovebox. I already realise, for example, that for real time tweaking of a sixteen step pattern you have to toggle between steps 1-8 and 9-16 before using the faders, and this (in combination with what parameter you select to tweak) means two things. 1. The faders will not reflect the actual parameter values when changing group or parameter, and 2. 'near' seamless live tweaks across the sixteen steps will take a lot of practice and dexterity. So it is this type of experience - i.e. 'live' limitations vs a real groovebox - that I am most keen to learn about. I have seen a few videos and workshops using the different XW sequencers, but nothing that really compares to some of the 'live grooves' being laid down by some 909's and RS7000's. I do not mean by this that the G1 cannot do some comparable work, but that there just isnt that 'type' of video around. Having said that, I do also like to learn about what the G1 CAN do, so thanks for the additional information. As for moving this to the sequencer area... you are probably correct, however as I am really asking about the comparison between the G1 and 'sampling' grooveboxes rather than generic sequencer capabilities I thought here would be the correct place??

Hi... Last of my outstanding G1 questions. Does anyone know of any youtube (or other) video demos using the external oscillator function. I feel I must have seen the majority of G1 centric youtube videos (as now every time I think I have discovered a different one it turns out I have seen it) but if any of those actually demonstrate this, I must have zoned out. I have, for example, seen instruments plugged in (such as the Japanese demonstrator playing a looped live guitar), but not to my knowledge an input source as an oscillator. Note:- This question is one from an original list in post:- http://www.casiomusicforums.com/index.php?/topic/8029-a-list-of-g1-questions/ but as that thread ulrtimately focused upon a sampling question I have seperated these out

Hi again, Another of my outstanding questions:- Hex Layers. I know these are a P1 only element and I am 99.9% sure the G1 is a best fit for my needs, but it would be foolish to dismiss that last 0.1 percent without understanding one of the 'main' features of the P1 and one that many many people seem to talk about. I guess that I dont really see what these Hex Layers offer over and above conventional velocity layering. I believe there are additional parameters that can be controlled via hex layers that you would not be able to access otherwise, but then this limitation may only be specific to this keyboard anyway, might'n it. What I am saying is what is the difference between Hex Layers on the Casio, and theoretically Velocity Layers on a different synth that may well offer more control over each layer. I guess I feel I am missing a fundamental point that must exist for this feature to be worthy of it's own 'Name' and such avid discussion. Note:- This question is one from an original list in post:- http://www.casiomusicforums.com/index.php?/topic/8029-a-list-of-g1-questions/ but as that thread ulrtimately focused upon a sampling question I have seperated these out