XW-P1 vs. Behringer model D or Pro-1

[Jokeyman123]

I am considering one of the Behringer analog modeling replicas to add to, among other Casios my XW-P1.

 

Anyone here have both to compare sound quality? I am  happy with the XW and have spent quite a bit of time learning to play/record/modify tones, hex layers. In many functional ways there is of course no comparison-the XW can do so much more than a sound module of course so the only consideration that might sway me to add a Behringer would be the sound quality compared to the XW. I owned one of the first Sequential circuits Pro-One keyboards and know my way around analog synths and clearly remember its sonic capabilities-pretty impressive for the day but rather crude to play-only if the sound quality of the Behringer's were vastly superior to the XW would I consider adding one to what I already have. Anybody here have both? Youtube videos for critical listening are not going to help me much. I'd like to hear it firsthand from musicians who have played both, I do not have a Behringer supplier anywhere near me, would be very difficult to find any music outlets anywhere near here to play one myself so that won't work.

 

Thanks.

[Mike Martin]

I don't know that they'd compare much at all but I'm sure they'd compliment each other. One of the best things about the XW-series is its unique character. Naysayers dismiss the XW-series because of one reason or another - those are the things to embrace. An analog synth, regardless of brand would be a nice add-on to an XW - plus you could use the XW's sequencer to control it and use it from performance mode in combination with XW sounds. 

[Jokeyman123]

Right-the XW is a deep unique instrument in its own right. Just wondering if the behringer or similar is worth the extra expense-if the XW can measure up to recreating some of these same analog sounds, would certainly not be necessary-although the mid din in/out on both the XW and Behringers would work well, I still prefer din over USB for quite a few reasons.  Many of the fundamental oscillator type raw waves are already there-in the XW, plus effects. It is still a bit of a monster, in the best way-I have only utilized perhaps 25  percent of what it is capable of-despite working with it quite a bit-something like working with FM synth concepts-daunting but deep if one is willing to do the work. Maybe I just need to woodshed -more time on the XW before I decide. Thanks Mike. 

[Chas]

Jokeyman123, I found myself in a similar position to you by wanting to complement my XW's (and other synths) with an oldschool analogue synth.

 

Of course, the thing to bear in mind is that the XW-P1 is a multi-engined digital synth that can do a good VA mono synth emulation with its Solo Synth section. However, it's digital and sometimes it shows (filter stepping/ zipping plus harshness of high filter resonance, and occasionally a digital sounding overall tone for instance). Furthermore, one of the things that really makes the character of a real analogue synth is its filter, and also its amp stage. So much so, that with many legendary analogue synths its the filter design most of all that really makes it stand out, i.e. Moog Ladder Filter (MiniMoog), Korg MS10/ 20 filter, Roland Diode filter (TB303), Roland IR3109 filter (Jupiters, Junos, JX-3P, SH101 etc.), SSM/ CEM filters (SC Prophet 5/ Pro One) and so on. Additionally, the signal path being VCF or DCF can make a big difference too, with VCF's being more fluid though often at the expense of being more unstable compared with DCF.

 

Both the Pro One and the Model D are vintage based mono synths using pure analogue circuitry, everything from the oscillators to the amp and filter (VCO, VCA and VCF). Both are legendary mono synths famous for their unique sounds. The Model D is FAT (it has THREE oscillators!), and has been used on so many recordings as a bass synth, as well as for leads (much of the bass on Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album is MiniMoog). The Pro One isn't as fat sounding, BUT, it has more modulation options, is much more flexible and is capable of a wider variety of sounds. Vince Clarke (Depeche Mode, Yazoo, Erasure) used one extensively in his early career. IIRC, many of the Yazoo songs are almost entirely recorded with the Pro One.

 

Also bear in mind that both the Model D and the Pro One have no patch storage. Every sound you want, you have to program it manually, every time. And you have to remember the settings for each specific sound/ patch you make and reprogram them back in whenever you change one of the controls. This sometimes leads to finding a wonderful patch, experimenting with the controls to design another patch, and then never quite being able to reprogram that wonderful patch you once had exactly the same again. The frustration! Oh, and also remember that when you have a Model D, it is instantly identifiable sonically as a Model D, with the Pro One slighter less so because it's more flexible. This can be an issue when you want to find a "new" sound that doesn't automatically tie it famous recordings from the past.

 

With the above in mind, when I decided to add an analogue mono synth to my rig I completely changed my original choice that I'd had for years. I'd always dreamed of having a MiniMoog or an ARP Odyssey having grown up listening to and being inspired by both Gary Numan, and Billy Currie (Ultravox).  Numan used a MiniMoog and a PolyMoog extensively on his early albums, and Billy Currie famously used his Odyssey for those screaming leads and soaring solos. As wonderful as those synths are, the lack of patch memory and their uniquely identifiable sound lacking some sonic flexibility could be a negative. I read loads of reviews and did a bunch of research to look at all the potential mono synth options sub $400, and time and time again, one model kept coming up - the Novation Bass Station 2. Yes, it's a dual oscillator DCO rather than a VCO synth (DCO is still analogue, just under digital control), but it has patch storage and full MIDI CC/ SYSEX control. It also had loads of modulation options,  two switchable filters (Classic and Acid), with switchable slopes (12db/ 24db), plus HP/ LP and BP modes. If also has a variable filter overdrive circuit for pushing and saturating the filter hard. It also has PWM and a load of other features, such as an arpeggiator, step sequencer, velocity and aftertouch keyboard, dual LFOs/ Envelopes, duophonic mode (similar to the Odyssey) and more. It has lots of modulation options making it incredibly flexible and able to create a very wide range of sounds. It can get Moog'ish if you want, and also do Odyssey style screaming, as well as TB303 acid. It really is an incredible little synth, and Novation still support and add features via firmware updates quite a few years since it was released.

Anyhow, if you want THAT Model D or Pro One sound, then get one of the Behringers. If you want a much more flexible mono synth that can easily integrate into a modern DAW set up, as well as have a huge potential range of sounds and capabilities plus patch storage, I can heartily recommend the Bass Station 2.

 

Oh yes, if you do go with one of the Behringers, as Mike said above, you can trigger them via the XW. You can also use  the XW arpeggiators with them, and I did just this with my Roland JX-3P. The XW arpeggiators absolutely wiped the floor with my (Kiwi3P upgraded) 3P arpeggiator and made it sound fantastic!  

[Jokeyman123]

So the Xw arpeggiators can trigger external midi-I did not realize that..hmmm. And ah yes, the hours I spent actually drawing the settings on my Pro-One back then-it actually came with blank pages of the front panel to sketch where your settings were-the good old days!!!!   I need to look at the Bass station again, didn't think there was much to it but i didn't look too closely.. I am aware of all the new analog synths :modelling" VSTs etc. Just seeing these 2 Behringers intrigued me, but my memory of the sound quality eludes me. I also played the original Minimoog, was pretty impressed when it first came out-even then it was pretty costly compared to the Pro-One, but then the quality was better. And I played one of the first "Memorymoogs:-my friend Robbie who was recording with Eddie Offord at the time -I think around 1971-72 got one of the firsts and recorded an album with it at the now non-existent Bearsville Studios in Woodstock was it was being converted from some old barns there. It was actually pretty awful! weighed a ton-cost.....an astounding $10,000 dollars in 1970 US money, and true to form, the oscillators constantly drifted a detuned themselves-and like my Pro_one, had an awful keyboard that constantly false-triggered. Ah yes the good old days!  But then seeing these new repackaged authentic analogs has gotten my attention. And yes the XW filter is certainly not a Moog or any other analog filter. Thanks Chas for the info.

[Chas]

On 2/26/2020 at 7:14 PM, Jokeyman123 said:

So the Xw arpeggiators can trigger external midi-I did not realize that..hmmm. And ah yes, the hours I spent actually drawing the settings on my Pro-One back then-it actually came with blank pages of the front panel to sketch where your settings were-the good old days!!!!   I need to look at the Bass station again, didn't think there was much to it but i didn't look too closely.. I am aware of all the new analog synths :modelling" VSTs etc. Just seeing these 2 Behringers intrigued me, but my memory of the sound quality eludes me. I also played the original Minimoog, was pretty impressed when it first came out-even then it was pretty costly compared to the Pro-One, but then the quality was better. And I played one of the first "Memorymoogs:-my friend Robbie who was recording with Eddie Offord at the time -I think around 1971-72 got one of the firsts and recorded an album with it at the now non-existent Bearsville Studios in Woodstock was it was being converted from some old barns there. It was actually pretty awful! weighed a ton-cost.....an astounding $10,000 dollars in 1970 US money, and true to form, the oscillators constantly drifted a detuned themselves-and like my Pro_one, had an awful keyboard that constantly false-triggered. Ah yes the good old days!  But then seeing these new repackaged authentic analogs has gotten my attention. And yes the XW filter is certainly not a Moog or any other analog filter. Thanks Chas for the info.

 

Yup, the XW's arpeggiator can trigger other synths quite impressively. The best thing is the accuracy of the XW's arpeggiator when manually retriggering an arpeggiated sequence via the keyboard. The XW quantizes far better than the arpeggiators in my Korg DW8000 and my Kiwi3P Roland JX-3P (the Kiwi3P upgrade adds an arpeggiator, the standard 3P does not have one). Only my Novation Bass Station 2 has an arpeggiator that matches the XW in usability,  though the XW's have many more arpeggio presets as well as user programmable slots.

 

Are you sure it was a MemoryMoog that you played around 1971-2? That model didn't come out until 10 years later (1981/ 2), and they were the last Moog made before the company was sold and eventually went bankrupt in the mid 80's. They were an impressive beast, but somewhat underdeveloped causing all sorts of niggles and instabilities. When working, they did sound absolutely glorious!

http://www.vintagesynth.com/moog/memory.php

 

When you talk about the "sound quality" of the Pro-One and Model D, are you literally asking about the quality of the output sound signal, or the character of the sound? In terms of "quality", with both the Pro-One and Model D being fully analogue VCO synths, there is likely to be more noise and variation in the signal by the very nature of them  being VCO based. Obviously, the Casio XW being fully digital (VA Solo Synth), and more modern, is far more likely to have a "cleaner" signal with less noise or "dirt" in its outputs. 

 

If you're talking about sound "character", that's another factor entirely. The Pro-One and the Model D are famous for their unique sounds that instantly identify them, especially the Model D. A good analogy is to look at guitars, say, a Fender Telecaster, a Fender Stratocaster and a Gibson Les Paul. All three are electric guitars, all three are fundamentally similar with six strings, tuners, a fret board, electronic magnetic pickups and volume/ tone controls. However, each is sonically distinctive when played, each has it's own unique sound character and feel. Thus when you compare the Pro-One, the Model D and the XW Solo Synth, the same applies (though there are more differences in how each operates as a "mono synth"). The Model D is renowned for being fat, warm and pleasantly fuzzy, the Pro-One, despite only having two oscillators to the Model D's three, has more modulation options, a wilder filter and can  do more varied sounds. The XW being all digital can sound much harsher, especially the filter on high resonance, but has more 'oscillators' to play with and can generate sounds that the Pro-One and Model D can't. Even though the XW's filter can be harsh at times, it CAN still sound fat and warm when programmed well.

It really depends if you specifically want "THAT" Model D Moog sound, or "That" Pro-One sound, much the same if you were a guitar player and sought to have a distinctive Tele sound or Les Paul sound. Are you looking for a particular character of sound, or do you wish to have an audio paintbox with more colours? The Model D will sound like a Model D, the Pro-One will have characteristics of the Pro-One plus can do more, and both will have a unique character in a recording. The XW can get close to both, but doesn't quite have the same timbre in its sounds to pass off as either (then again, it also has its own sound characteristics too). Meanwhile, the Novation Bass Station 2 I mentioned in my previous post, that can get closer to both the Model D and the Pro-One and can do more still, plus still has that unique analogue feel about it.

 

Best thing I suggest you do is get on YouTube and watch and listen to demos of all of these synths discussed. Even though YouTube uses compression, you'll still get a good idea of the sound characteristics of each synth. Oh and just to throw a curve ball, also check out the Behringer Crave and Neutron models. Both can sound incredible, and both are semi-modular. The Crave has a very unique sound despite being a single oscillator, and the Neutron is more flexible having two. However, like the Model D and Pro-One, neither has patch storage. That's where the Bass Station 2 scores a big win by being analogue  and having full Sysex/ CC as well as decent patch storage.  

 

I'm curious to see what conclusion you will make! Maybe you specifically wanted a Pro-One or Model D sound,  or maybe like me, you wanted some of the flavour of those vintage synths but despite their legacies, the extra features and control of synth such as the Bass Station 2 wins you over. Time will tell!

[IanB]

I don't know the Behringer versions, but I owned a genuine Pro-One back in the day (it was stolen, I still weep) and it was a phenomenal monosynth. It had many more features than the Minimoog which (at the risk of heresy) I think is overrated just because it was first and used by so many great musicians of its time, similar to the aura of magic surrounding the Fender Strat. You'll run out of interesting things to do with a Moog well before you do with a Pro One. And, the Pro-One just sounded marvellous. Vince (Erasure) Clark describes it as very musical and I humbly agree with that. And these new remakes don't have the original's build quality issues.

Do I need to say which one I would get?

[Sol]

Hello everyone!
I bought this year an XW-G1, after selling a Minilogue and a Behriger Model D.
Yes, I went through financial problems and had to sell both, and now decided to take the G1 as compensation for the huge loss.

 

If I can hope that G1 will be as good in the Clock as it looks in its arpejeador, and can give some MIDI CC/ SYSEX control to be the Master to control a Behringer Pro1 Clone, I will have made a good trade.

 

But i have many doubts about the Midi power of the XwG1, and I would like the experienced colleagues to enlighten me if they know something about your Clock, how many Pulses Per Quarter we are talking about when it comes to the power of control of the XW's Sequencers, etc.

 

Instead of the Model D Clone, today I preferred a Pro1, that has a paraphonic option, and a Roland SE - that can save patches and get close to the Minimoog. And if I can put them in a Midi Chain whose controller is the five octaves XwG1, with the Slave Racks emitting their own potentials, I will have made a big upgrade...

 

It seems that P1 can do it. But the G1 have different sliders parameters to give a mixer midi control.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKbCdE4Jic#t=19m26s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKbCdE4Jic#t=21m59s

 

 

[mike71]

On 2/27/2020 at 12:34 AM, Chas said:

Also bear in mind that both the Model D and the Pro One have no patch storage. Every sound you want, you have to program it manually, every time. And you have to remember the settings for each specific sound/ patch you make and reprogram them back in whenever you change one of the controls. This sometimes leads to finding a wonderful patch, experimenting with the controls to design another patch, and then never quite being able to reprogram that wonderful patch you once had exactly the same again.

A bit OT: this was the first 45 made by PFM featuring one of the first model D arrived in Italy.

https://youtu.be/9zIKxwg3fQk?t=76

They decide to make a 33 (and cassette) but the master tapes they used for the 45 were mistakenly deleted.

https://youtu.be/tpOybQsDzoM?t=84

So they got another studio session to rerecord the track, but they can't quite recreate the exact sound.

 

Having the G1, is a Virtual analogue and compared to a real monophonic analogue synth has differences due for instance to aliasing, stability and the parameter simulation, oscillator type and so on. a quick LFO sweep made on a true analogue will sound different in anagoge or digital.

[Jokeyman123]

An update to this older post. I now have the Behringer Poly D, which is beautifully constructed, sounds as i expected-but the Behringer (or original as I recall) Pro-One has some mod capabilities that are not in the Poly D, I remember doing some pretty complex sounds with my original Pro-One. I also restored an old Alesis Micron which is pretty remarkable in its own way. I still find the XW-P1 unique, and I have been studying every Akai MPC, Elektron etc. The more I look elsewhere, the more I go back to the XW.

[Jokeyman123]

And Chas yes, it was the original Memorymoog-way before it was on the market-RobEone had a prototype-not sure how he got it, he did have Eddie Offord there at the recording session-what a trip to be at Bearsville when it was being built! I remember Robbie was saying when we visited his recording session there (was so loud I thought my ears would be permanently deaf_ how he go the first one. I did not realize this until I saw pictures of the same model years later-I never tried buying one so had no idea when it came to market. Robbie is now a big supporter of the Moog Foundation, has been for a long time, and an amazing keyboard wiz, i have just re-discovered our original demo tape pre-synths from 1968 with Robbie on the Hammond recorded in Echo Sound studios in Long island, so I go back a bit. Still have my original TEAC-A-3340 tape deck from 1970, just had it restored and is fully working. I had  gotten hold of this machine also before it came to market from a private music studio somewhere in south NJ, I think around Brick through another musician friend who lived near me and was doing alot of studio work back then-the owner had a few direct from TEAC and he was willing to sell me one of his-for 1000 dollars-was alot of money for a 20 year old aspiring not too wealthy working musician back then but now i could do multitrack recording, overdubbing direct to tape. So I was following the progress of keys and technology very carefully even then. It weighs over 50 pounds, I needed to put heavy steel anchor case handles on it to carry it around which I have-thats roughly the weight of 4 XW synths!