turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Hello! I just got an XW-P1 and was trying to record slider movements into Sonar 8.5 while in hex layer mode, and the NRPN data is...unusual. 
This picture shows the data from moving the nine sliders in hex layer mode. I moved them all from the bottom to the top, but you can see the first six sliders (individual layer levels) put out data that starts in the middle and then wraps around. This is a problem while the XW-P1 is in local off mode and receiving the data from the computer because the levels of the layers become unusable, as a volume of 0 ends up being in the middle of the slider's movement.
I hope I am not overexplaining this. The sliders work fine in solo synth and drawbar organ modes. I should add that controlling the levels in a hex tone locally work fine, it's just the MIDI data the sliders send is messed up. And I think it behaves the same whether sending over USB or the 5-pin MIDI port.
Is this a known issue or is it something that could be addressed in a firmware update? Or am I just doing something wrong? Oh, and if it matters, I have a gold XW.
Thanks for any help!
This picture shows the data from moving the nine sliders in hex layer mode. I moved them all from the bottom to the top, but you can see the first six sliders (individual layer levels) put out data that starts in the middle and then wraps around. This is a problem while the XW-P1 is in local off mode and receiving the data from the computer because the levels of the layers become unusable, as a volume of 0 ends up being in the middle of the slider's movement.
I hope I am not overexplaining this. The sliders work fine in solo synth and drawbar organ modes. I should add that controlling the levels in a hex tone locally work fine, it's just the MIDI data the sliders send is messed up. And I think it behaves the same whether sending over USB or the 5-pin MIDI port.
Is this a known issue or is it something that could be addressed in a firmware update? Or am I just doing something wrong? Oh, and if it matters, I have a gold XW.
Thanks for any help!
Originally Posted by voice of truth
ok Casio here goes, XW-P1 I think this is a slammin keyboard for the price!! hands down. I like the 6 layers hex, solo synth stuff, step, phrase seq, arp is cool.I'm a pro of 40 years and know programming synths, been using Roland since I was a kid. I just got the keyboard a couple of days ago in the UAE (Dubai) and am looking to program it. I know the tones are good cuz in the PCM melody tone their clean, but wen I go to program the hex its really distorted. So the other person in the harmony central forum was right, except that he couldn't find a way to program it like me. I have gotten it to where it wont distort or crackle. If you guys can somehow fix this, and make a row of buttons or pads to directly access the user/presets sounds your on your way to a excellent pro keyboard!!! You already have achieved a great success here with the XW-P1. Resonance filter in the hex layer would also be nice, stacking the tones through midi in the mixer section would also be good, access to the preset PCM tones in hex mode would also be very good.
I'm very glad to have purchased this unit and am looking forward to making music with it, kudos to you Casio (Mike Martin) you guys rock!!! I stumbled across your board by accident, cause in the UAE there isn't really a big market for Roland so I went down to my local shop where Casio was and they had this unit for sale. I have programmed some very good sounds and will post them in Harmony Central for others to enjoy. Thanks Casio!!! Happy Camper
I'm very glad to have purchased this unit and am looking forward to making music with it, kudos to you Casio (Mike Martin) you guys rock!!! I stumbled across your board by accident, cause in the UAE there isn't really a big market for Roland so I went down to my local shop where Casio was and they had this unit for sale. I have programmed some very good sounds and will post them in Harmony Central for others to enjoy. Thanks Casio!!!
Happy Camper
Originally Posted by skyy1985
Hi Travst,
This is a top notch unit. I do have all pro gear and I'm glad I bought this unit. It takes some time to get used to, but all in all it is a very good board and I'm looking forward to making music with it, if you need some tips I will be glad to help, just hit me up
This is a top notch unit. I do have all pro gear and I'm glad I bought this unit. It takes some time to get used to, but all in all it is a very good board and I'm looking forward to making music with it, if you need some tips I will be glad to help, just hit me up
Hey Mike - good to see you here again after the forum meltdown. I'm glad most of the review was done before those problems occurred, but at least things are working well now.
Speaking of which...after more than 225,000 page views and almost 600 posts (!), I think we’ve pretty much covered everything there is to cover about the XW-P1. With Casio now establishing a user forum, it’s time for this review to wind down, although like all pro reviews, it will remain open for the three or four people left on this planet who haven’t heard about the XW-P1, or for any follow-ups that relate to the thread.
However, there are two pieces of unfinished business: a coda on the XW-G1, and the conclusions. So, let’s look at the main points of differentiation between the P1 and G1. Much of this is excerpted from the XW-G1 review I wrote for the October 2012 issue of Electronic Musician magazine, as my opinions of the G1 haven’t changed since then.
First, there’s a philosophical difference not unlike the familiar synth/sampler dichotomy.The P1 is more about multiple synth engines for hardcore synthesizer fans, while the XW-G1 is for the more groove/DJ/sampling crowd. Although cosmetically they look similar, there are quite a few differences “under the hood.”
The G1 dispenses with the P1’s Hex Layer and Drawbar Organ engines, replacing them with a Sample Looper and a flash memory-based Sample Player with 10 presets. Available RAM for sampling/looping is 19 seconds with mono signals at a 21kHz sampling rate; halve that for stereo or when using the 42kHz sampling rate. Files can then transferred over to Flash ROM as user waves to free up the RAM buffer.
The P1’s assortment of PCM Melody and PCM Drum Tones, which you can think of as a sort of super General MIDI module whose sounds range from adequate to outstanding, remains intact but more importantly, so does the Solo Synth and its “Minimoog thinking on steroids.” A G1 Performance stacks up to four sound engines (one Solo Synth, and the rest PCM Tones or user Waves).
The G1 also adds some control features not found in the P1 like the Multikey feature, which allows using an octave of keys as trigger controllers for various functions. The 16-step Step Sequencer is similar to the P1’s but has a few differences (9 tracks instead of 16, four controller tracks, and a couple additional ways to trigger it) and like the P1, there’s a 16-step Arpeggiator and Phrase Sequencer. And yes, there are the same normal and wacky options for external audio as the P1.
But the main differentiation involves looping and sampling. The looper does what you’d expect, but more—like being able to re-sample sounds from within the G1, although you can also plug an instrument into the back and treat the looper like a stand-alone effect. It can also work with sampling (described later).
Sampling does some things well, some things superbly, and some things . . . not so well. Transposing a sample across the keyboard works great—transposition quality is good, and the G1 recognizes a sample’s loop. If you try to transpose way out of range, it just repeats the adjacent octave that’s not out of range.
However, multisampling is non-standard; a G1 user wave tone has only one sample, so there are no conventional multisampling split points. Instead, you assemble up to five samples consecutively, one after another. Each “split” then specifies the start and end of each section within the sample; in other words, each split plays back a different portion of the sample. Each split can loop from an arbitrary point in the middle to the end but for instrument sounds, you can’t specify the loop points with sufficient accuracy to do short (e.g, only a few cycles) loops. Nor can any sample editor I’ve used generate multiple loop points within a single sample that the G1 will recognize. If you want a multi-sampled cello, this is not the droid you’re looking for. On the other hand I was able to take a single sample from a Paul Reed Smith bass, stretch it over the keyboard, and it sounded great. Note that sampling RAM is not expandable, but I didn’t bump into too many limits, given the G1’s intended application.
While Casio’s approach is a little awkward for conventional multisampling applications, it’s a very different story if you have a sampled phrase like a piece of music. Defining different sections, mapping them to keys, and being able to loop them makes for some great breaks, DJ-style loop mashing, sound effects, stutters, and more. What’s more, the looper can fit this like a glove—for example, it’s easy to record five consecutive step sequencer sequences, shuttle the wave into a tone, and the G1 automatically sets the split points and you can start playing immediately. The integration among all the G1 elements—looper, step sequencer, sampler, arpeggiator, etc.—is a major strength. Like the P1, there’s Editor/Librarian and it’s every bit as good as the one for the P1.
Overall, the G1 is just as much fun as the P1 . . . and for groove fans, perhaps even more so.
Speaking of which...after more than 225,000 page views and almost 600 posts (!), I think we’ve pretty much covered everything there is to cover about the XW-P1. With Casio now establishing a user forum, it’s time for this review to wind down, although like all pro reviews, it will remain open for the three or four people left on this planet who haven’t heard about the XW-P1, or for any follow-ups that relate to the thread.
However, there are two pieces of unfinished business: a coda on the XW-G1, and the conclusions. So, let’s look at the main points of differentiation between the P1 and G1. Much of this is excerpted from the XW-G1 review I wrote for the October 2012 issue of Electronic Musician magazine, as my opinions of the G1 haven’t changed since then.
First, there’s a philosophical difference not unlike the familiar synth/sampler dichotomy.The P1 is more about multiple synth engines for hardcore synthesizer fans, while the XW-G1 is for the more groove/DJ/sampling crowd. Although cosmetically they look similar, there are quite a few differences “under the hood.”
The G1 dispenses with the P1’s Hex Layer and Drawbar Organ engines, replacing them with a Sample Looper and a flash memory-based Sample Player with 10 presets. Available RAM for sampling/looping is 19 seconds with mono signals at a 21kHz sampling rate; halve that for stereo or when using the 42kHz sampling rate. Files can then transferred over to Flash ROM as user waves to free up the RAM buffer.
The P1’s assortment of PCM Melody and PCM Drum Tones, which you can think of as a sort of super General MIDI module whose sounds range from adequate to outstanding, remains intact but more importantly, so does the Solo Synth and its “Minimoog thinking on steroids.” A G1 Performance stacks up to four sound engines (one Solo Synth, and the rest PCM Tones or user Waves).
The G1 also adds some control features not found in the P1 like the Multikey feature, which allows using an octave of keys as trigger controllers for various functions. The 16-step Step Sequencer is similar to the P1’s but has a few differences (9 tracks instead of 16, four controller tracks, and a couple additional ways to trigger it) and like the P1, there’s a 16-step Arpeggiator and Phrase Sequencer. And yes, there are the same normal and wacky options for external audio as the P1.
But the main differentiation involves looping and sampling. The looper does what you’d expect, but more—like being able to re-sample sounds from within the G1, although you can also plug an instrument into the back and treat the looper like a stand-alone effect. It can also work with sampling (described later).
Sampling does some things well, some things superbly, and some things . . . not so well. Transposing a sample across the keyboard works great—transposition quality is good, and the G1 recognizes a sample’s loop. If you try to transpose way out of range, it just repeats the adjacent octave that’s not out of range.
However, multisampling is non-standard; a G1 user wave tone has only one sample, so there are no conventional multisampling split points. Instead, you assemble up to five samples consecutively, one after another. Each “split” then specifies the start and end of each section within the sample; in other words, each split plays back a different portion of the sample. Each split can loop from an arbitrary point in the middle to the end but for instrument sounds, you can’t specify the loop points with sufficient accuracy to do short (e.g, only a few cycles) loops. Nor can any sample editor I’ve used generate multiple loop points within a single sample that the G1 will recognize. If you want a multi-sampled cello, this is not the droid you’re looking for. On the other hand I was able to take a single sample from a Paul Reed Smith bass, stretch it over the keyboard, and it sounded great. Note that sampling RAM is not expandable, but I didn’t bump into too many limits, given the G1’s intended application.
While Casio’s approach is a little awkward for conventional multisampling applications, it’s a very different story if you have a sampled phrase like a piece of music. Defining different sections, mapping them to keys, and being able to loop them makes for some great breaks, DJ-style loop mashing, sound effects, stutters, and more. What’s more, the looper can fit this like a glove—for example, it’s easy to record five consecutive step sequencer sequences, shuttle the wave into a tone, and the G1 automatically sets the split points and you can start playing immediately. The integration among all the G1 elements—looper, step sequencer, sampler, arpeggiator, etc.—is a major strength. Like the P1, there’s Editor/Librarian and it’s every bit as good as the one for the P1.
Overall, the G1 is just as much fun as the P1 . . . and for groove fans, perhaps even more so.
There are now eight music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including a cover of "We Gotta Get Out of This Place," which joins "Little Pieces", "Black Market Daydreams," and "When the Grid Goes Down" (complete with disturbing video )
)
Hi Craig in reference to your one button sound selection, thanks for that tip. I also have one, you can use the performance the have 16 parts in any order you wish. press mixer button, set parts 1-8 as you wish save the performance, press the step seq button set the parts 9-16 any way you wish save the step seq in a user slot, select that use slot and save it with the performance. this give you 16 parts in any order you want including multiple kits, and with your one button press that will give us access 160 parts per bank. Also if your in smf mode you can alter the volume levels, rev, chrs, and tones from an external board. I'm using the Fantom X6, I sequenced "Corazon Espinado" and saved it as smf 0 and installed it to my 32 gig card on the P1, it was a mere 64k file. so I can imagine how many of these files I will fit into 32 gigs. It would be nice to manipulate the sounds from the mixer section, cuz wen I take this board out alone im stuck unless I have an external midi mixer also. Anyway I'm glad I bought this board, hopefully they will update the firmware to include the mixer as an option for control in the smf mode, unless its too complicated for the programmers or just not able to function for other reasons.If you have any more tips I would really like to hear about them. Cheers, skyy1985
It would be nice to manipulate the sounds from the mixer section, cuz wen I take this board out alone im stuck unless I have an external midi mixer also. Anyway I'm glad I bought this board, hopefully they will update the firmware to include the mixer as an option for control in the smf mode, unless its too complicated for the programmers or just not able to function for other reasons.If you have any more tips I would really like to hear about them. Cheers, skyy1985
Time for conclusions.
If you’ve been following this review, it’s probably obvious that I really like the XW-P1. But it’s one thing to appreciate it on a feature-by-feature basis, and another to consider an overview about what makes this keyboard special.
Of course, first is the price. There’s a whole lot of functionality, and although at first I thought this might have been at the expense of reliability or construction quality, the XW-P1 has not only been totally reliable, but coped just fine with being carried around. I think it’s stronger than meets the eye. Or at least, stronger than meets the assumption based on price
But another important feature of both the XW-P1 and the XW-G1 is that they are not “me-too” synthesizers—Casio didn’t take the “let’s do something like every other synthesizer, only cheaper” approach. The multiple engines, step sequencer, and editor go beyond the expected, but the engines themselves are different from the norm. Although they have various limitations—this is not a synth programmer’s ultra-flexible design with a zillion modulation sources and destinations—those limitations don’t get in the way of enjoying the synth and making cool sounds. It almost seems like the designers placed a premium on users being able to do things that other synthesizers don’t do.
For example, you could pick on the Hex Layer for having a primitive filter and no filter envelope, but for stacking sounds together quickly to make a Pad of the Gods, it’s easy. If you want to get into really detailed programming, the Solo Synth lets you do that. And while the PCM sounds won’t put any ROMplers out of business, being able to incorporate the PCM tones into other engines adds welcome flexibility.
I kind of dismissed the drawbar organ engine at first—I already have a million ways to produce that sound—but have warmed to it because it does sound good, and I can see where someone who depends on organ sounds and uses the XW-P1 will be a happy camper (remember, though, neither it nor the Hex Layer engines are in the XW-G1).
I also think the front-panel interface is quite easy to navigate—you don’t have to boot up the editor to make tweaks, although clearly, the editor is the quickest and easiest way to deal with edits. Also, the MIDI implementation is such that the XW-P1 slides well into a studio context.
Of course, the XW-P1 isn’t perfect; I think the effects are relatively weak, especially considering what we’ve come to expect in modern synthesizers. For recording, I end up using plug-ins and for live performance, a good multieffects may or may not be a good idea, depending on what type of music you play. There’s also a learning curve, although it’s hard to consider this a disadvantage because its due to the deep functionality. A mitigating factor is you can get a lot out of the XW-P1 even if you don’t dive deeply into it, although the potential to learn more is always there if you want to dig into the parameters.
My final comment is hard to quantify, other than referring to “the fun factor.” There’s something about this synth that has a bit of a mad scientist vibe to it, and an element that makes you want to play with it. It has fun sounds, it’s fun to program, and it’s fun to play. It doesn’t hurt that you can reach over and do step sequencing, tweak the four assignable knobs, or make otherwordly sounds by plugging whatever’s handy into the external input.
I keep thinking that during product design meetings, someone kept saying “Hey! How about we do this, too?” and nobody objected. It would have been easy for some marketing person to say “But a guitar sounds really sketchy going through the external input when you shift its pitch. Shouldn’t we lock out the transposition option?” To which someone else said “No other keyboard can make that sound! Besides, I bet that crazy Anderton guy who writes for that Harmony Central web site will have fun with it! Keep it in!!”
Overall, the XW-P1 has knocked me out. When I first saw it, I thought Casio was on the right track, but didn’t know how people would react. Well, the market has spoken . . . and so has this Pro Review. This has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, but I also have to say that a huge part of that is due to Mike Martin—and he’s also a major reason why this thread has so many views and such great participation. He’s not only a total pro, his knowledge of the product is astonishingly deep. I also appreciate that he never once descended into marketing-speak, but went about sharing his knowledge in a totally open, helpful, and straightforward way.
As mentioned, this thread will stay open for additional comments, and if I come up with any amazingly interesting new techniques I’ll post them here. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone for your comments and tips. What a great ride!
If you’ve been following this review, it’s probably obvious that I really like the XW-P1. But it’s one thing to appreciate it on a feature-by-feature basis, and another to consider an overview about what makes this keyboard special.
Of course, first is the price. There’s a whole lot of functionality, and although at first I thought this might have been at the expense of reliability or construction quality, the XW-P1 has not only been totally reliable, but coped just fine with being carried around. I think it’s stronger than meets the eye. Or at least, stronger than meets the assumption based on price
But another important feature of both the XW-P1 and the XW-G1 is that they are not “me-too” synthesizers—Casio didn’t take the “let’s do something like every other synthesizer, only cheaper” approach. The multiple engines, step sequencer, and editor go beyond the expected, but the engines themselves are different from the norm. Although they have various limitations—this is not a synth programmer’s ultra-flexible design with a zillion modulation sources and destinations—those limitations don’t get in the way of enjoying the synth and making cool sounds. It almost seems like the designers placed a premium on users being able to do things that other synthesizers don’t do.
For example, you could pick on the Hex Layer for having a primitive filter and no filter envelope, but for stacking sounds together quickly to make a Pad of the Gods, it’s easy. If you want to get into really detailed programming, the Solo Synth lets you do that. And while the PCM sounds won’t put any ROMplers out of business, being able to incorporate the PCM tones into other engines adds welcome flexibility.
I kind of dismissed the drawbar organ engine at first—I already have a million ways to produce that sound—but have warmed to it because it does sound good, and I can see where someone who depends on organ sounds and uses the XW-P1 will be a happy camper (remember, though, neither it nor the Hex Layer engines are in the XW-G1).
I also think the front-panel interface is quite easy to navigate—you don’t have to boot up the editor to make tweaks, although clearly, the editor is the quickest and easiest way to deal with edits. Also, the MIDI implementation is such that the XW-P1 slides well into a studio context.
Of course, the XW-P1 isn’t perfect; I think the effects are relatively weak, especially considering what we’ve come to expect in modern synthesizers. For recording, I end up using plug-ins and for live performance, a good multieffects may or may not be a good idea, depending on what type of music you play. There’s also a learning curve, although it’s hard to consider this a disadvantage because its due to the deep functionality. A mitigating factor is you can get a lot out of the XW-P1 even if you don’t dive deeply into it, although the potential to learn more is always there if you want to dig into the parameters.
My final comment is hard to quantify, other than referring to “the fun factor.” There’s something about this synth that has a bit of a mad scientist vibe to it, and an element that makes you want to play with it. It has fun sounds, it’s fun to program, and it’s fun to play. It doesn’t hurt that you can reach over and do step sequencing, tweak the four assignable knobs, or make otherwordly sounds by plugging whatever’s handy into the external input.
I keep thinking that during product design meetings, someone kept saying “Hey! How about we do this, too?” and nobody objected. It would have been easy for some marketing person to say “But a guitar sounds really sketchy going through the external input when you shift its pitch. Shouldn’t we lock out the transposition option?” To which someone else said “No other keyboard can make that sound! Besides, I bet that crazy Anderton guy who writes for that Harmony Central web site will have fun with it! Keep it in!!”
Overall, the XW-P1 has knocked me out. When I first saw it, I thought Casio was on the right track, but didn’t know how people would react. Well, the market has spoken . . . and so has this Pro Review. This has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, but I also have to say that a huge part of that is due to Mike Martin—and he’s also a major reason why this thread has so many views and such great participation. He’s not only a total pro, his knowledge of the product is astonishingly deep. I also appreciate that he never once descended into marketing-speak, but went about sharing his knowledge in a totally open, helpful, and straightforward way.
As mentioned, this thread will stay open for additional comments, and if I come up with any amazingly interesting new techniques I’ll post them here. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone for your comments and tips. What a great ride!
There are now eight music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including a cover of "We Gotta Get Out of This Place," which joins "Little Pieces", "Black Market Daydreams," and "When the Grid Goes Down" (complete with disturbing video )
)
Help Desk