Casio XW-P1 Performance Synthesizer

[Anderton]

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.

[skyy1985]

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

[Anderton]

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!

[deanmass]

Just for reference, in your opinion, are the fx in this better than say a QS6?

[rockstar_not]

I am still interested in what folks are doing with the Drawbar organ sounds for overdrive? This is my only disappointment with my purchase. Love the Hexlayers for what Craig Anderton calls the 'Pad from the Gods'. There are some features that I'm taking care of with performance mode that would have been nice in the tone mode - for example:

I like to use a pedal input to change leslie speed - you can set this up in performance mode, but you can't do it for the Organ tones themselves - at least that's what it looks like to me at this point in time. Seems like since it's accessible in performance mode, shouldn't it be available in the tone mode for that group of tones?

Also, I started a Yahoo group for XW-P1 owners and about 10 people have joined - I will be posting a link to the newly formed Casio forums shortly.

[rockstar_not]

Oh - Mike Martin - one issue with the Data Wheel - can you ask Casio to make future versions so that the knob stands proud of the surface and doesn't require the fingertip indent control? For data entry for quick spin the fingertip spin is nice, but for fine selection once you are 'close' for me I think it's easier to grasp a knob than to use a fingertip to rotate it. If the knob was just 1/4" taller or as tall as K1-4, it would be great!

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by deanmass

Just for reference, in your opinion, are the fx in this better than say a QS6?

 

I don't have any experience with the QS6, but maybe someone who's used both can chime in.

[deanmass]

It is probably better. The QS6 is pretty old.

[lucabbrasi]

no, old does not mean worst.

The Alesis still has a remarkable effects section, and still works fine for some sounds.

I owned it, and now I play a XWP1: the reverb sounds too metallic, with poor parameters to set. Same concept for delay.

A new firmware, I guess, could solve this issue.

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by lucabbrasi

no, old does not mean worst.

The Alesis still has a remarkable effects section, and still works fine for some sounds.

I owned it, and now I play a XWP1: the reverb sounds too metallic, with poor parameters to set. Same concept for delay.

A new firmware, I guess, could solve this issue.

 

My impression is that the XW-P1 doesn't have a lot of DSP left over for additional effects functionality, and quality reverb requires a lot of CPU cycles. Also, don't forget that Alesis specialized in reverb and other effects for quite some time...I'm sure they had plenty of "off the shelf" reverb chips and algorithms they could fold into the QS6.

How to allocate available processing power is one of the product design decisions a company has to make. It seems Casio put the emphasis on the internal functions rather than effects, which can be added externally. I doubt that Casio will be changing the firmware to update the effects, but as the old saying goes, "never say never."

[bpstudios]

I am having great difficulty using my new Casio XW-G1 as a General Midi (GM) sound source. If anyone can help me, I will be eternally grateful.

I am using Cakewalk, and it recognises the Casio as its USB Midi input and output, so that is good. But when I change GM patches in Cakewalk, sometimes the Casio will respond by changing to a different Performance, or turn on the Arpeggio function, etc. After that happens, the Casio might not play GM sounds anymore on that channel. Is there some setting I am supposed to change to make the Casio strictly GM? I have already set "Local CTR" to [Off], but that does not seem to make any difference.

Is there some better way to record midi tracks from the Casio, and play them back to the Casio? Please help, thank you!

[happyrat1]

I own a P1 and not a G1 but I have no problems with the XW-P1 in Cakwalk. However, I set the keyboard to Tone mode, not Performance mode. That may be your problem.

P.S. Check if you have the latest firmware installed on your keyboard.

[bpstudios]

 

Originally Posted by happyrat1

I own a P1 and not a G1 but I have no problems with the XW-p1 in Cakwalk. However, I set the keyboard to Tone mode, not Performance mode. That may be your problem.

 

Thanks so much for the quick response. I also have the same problem in Tone mode. It will sometimes change the Tone to a different Casio preset, losing GM in the process. May I ask, are you able to use 16 channels of midi? I find that channels 8,9,10,11,12 are all drum channels, wheras I always thought only channel 10 was for drums.

Are you using GM sounds, or is there some way to just use the Casio presets instead?

PS. How do I check the firmware version?

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by bpstudios

PS. How do I check the firmware version?

 

Press the [POWER] button to turn on the XW-P1, then press the "SETTING" button to display the setting screen.

If you can not find "INFO" under "MIDI" in the list, the firmware version of the instrument is less than 1.10. You need to download this update software and install it.

If you can find "INFO" and press [ENTER] to display the version confirmation screen, the firmware version of the instrument is the number which is displayed.

You can get more info on updating here.

[happyrat1]

Again there are some fundamental differences between the P1 and the G1. In the P1 Channel 1 is reserved for Synth and Drawbar Organ and Hex Modes.

As far as accompaniment goes, I also have a Korg TR76 hooked up to my MIDI setup and generally use the drumkits in the Korg instead of the XW so I can't really say offhand whether or not channels 8 thru 12 are reserved for accompaniment or not, however, I had an old Radio Shack Concertmate years back and it also reserved channels 8 thru 14 for accompaniment so it's entirely possible those channels are indeed reserved. I'll run a few experiments this week and get back to you with what I find out about the XW-P1 as soon as I am able to.

The Casio Firmware updates are available at this link

http://support.casio.com/download.ph...&pid=340&rgn=1

Along with complete instructions on how to check and if necessary update your firmware.

P.S. Craig: You gave him the link for the P1 firmware, not the G1!!! Bad Craiggy!!! No Soup for you!!!

[happyrat1]

 

Originally Posted by bpstudios

Thanks so much for the quick response. I also have the same problem in Tone mode. It will sometimes change the Tone to a different Casio preset, losing GM in the process. May I ask, are you able to use 16 channels of midi? I find that channels 8,9,10,11,12 are all drum channels, wheras I always thought only channel 10 was for drums.

Are you using GM sounds, or is there some way to just use the Casio presets instead?

PS. How do I check the firmware version?

 

I've been playing around with Cakewalk and trying to record the step sequencer accompaniment output into the cakewalk sequencer for the past two hours.

I can't even get the output to record. I have a question fired off at Mike Martin over on http://casiomusicforums.com about this one but if anyone here can tell me how to do it I'd be forever in your debt as well.

I've scoured the manuals on this and it turns out that indeed channels 8 thru 16 are relegated to the step sequencer when it's in use, and I think I have all the MIDI settings correctly set on the keyboard, and I have recording turned on in cakewalk for all of those channels, even with some default patches set just in case, and nada, nothing, bupkiss.

As I recall on my old Concertmate there was an "Accompaniment Out" setting that you had to enable to get this stuff working. From what I've googled online about Casio products, their other keyboards also function the same way.

However there is no such simple one touch solution for the XW-P1.

Craig or Mike? If either of you is reading this, can you set me straight on what I'm missing here? The MIDI settings on the XW-P1 are pretty basic, but even so, multiple permutations of even a handful of parameters quickly mounts up to an awful lot of wrong possibilities in search of the right one.

Regards,

Gary

[bpstudios]

Well, I updated my G1's firmware, and it still has the same problems. Just now I opened a GM song in Cakewalk, and the Casio got the patch wrong for every single track. I was able to force the Casio to the correct GM patches by manually re-selecting each patch in Cakewalk while the song was playing.

During the short time that the Casio works properly, I can tell that Casio has chosen to give us drum kits on channels 8,9,10,11, and 12. I actually like that feature, because on my older GM gear there was only one channel for drums, so I was limited to picking the sounds from only one kit. With the Casio, you can use sounds from multiple kits, which is nice.

So my only complaint now is that patch selection is so unstable. I'm not sure what causes this, but after awhile I can see the Casio presets changing on the front panel of the G1 as I choose different patches in Cakewalk. Sometimes the Arpeggio light comes on as a result of selecting a patch. It seems like the Casio can't decide whether my patch changes are meant to reflect GM changes, or some other type of Casio changes. If I could just use Casio's own presets instead of GM, that would be fine too, but right now it seems to be in "limbo" between the two.

PS: By the way, I am not trying to record from the step sequencer to Cakewalk, I am just playing the Casio keyboard with my hands, and recording it to Cakewalk as a midi track.

[bpstudios]

Right now one of my Cakewalk tracks is stuck on Casio presets instead of GM. Here is a list of the Casio presets I am getting as I go down the list of GM presets:

000 Acoustic Grand Piano --> P011 XW LeadSyn 1

001 Bright Acoustic Piano --> P290 VA Synth 6

002 Electric Grand Piano --> P003 XW SolosSyn 3

003 Honky-tonk Piano --> P004 Raw Lead

004 Rhodes Piano --> P050 XW SynthBass

005 Chorused Piano --> P006 XW SoloSyn 5

etc, etc, etc

Maybe some detective will see a pattern there, and figure out what is happening. I suppose I could print a cross reference like this, and use it to play Casio presets within my midi compositions. It would be better if there was a more "proper" way to do all of this.

[happyrat1]

The thing is, there exists a Cakewalk INS file for the XW-P1. There's none for the G1. I'd have to say take a look at your cakewalk MIDI and Instrument options under the tools menu and check to see if everything looks kosher or not.

Without a proper INS file your patch selections in Cakewalk are going to be hit and miss for any synth you try.

If you want to take a stab at creating your own INS file for the G1 here's some links to work with.

XW-P1 INS file : http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...7&d=1341648791

XW-G1 Documentation : http://support.casio.com/manualfile....&cid=008013003

Cakewalk INS File Documentation and HowTos. :

http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/kb/r...spx/2007013272

http://tweakheadz.com/how_to_build_a...k_ins_file.htm

http://www.raisedbar.net/InsDef.htm

http://tse3.sourceforge.net/doc/InsFiles.html

With that information and using the P1 file as a template it should be relatively easy to modify the file for the G1.

Mike Martin created the original XW-P1 file but only because I nagged the poor guy half to death about it If you Google around you might alsio find someone else has already created the proper INS file for the G1.

BTW, once again, HUUUUGE thanks to Mike and Craig for their efforts in the creation of the original INS file.

[bpstudios]

Thank you for the links, happyrat1. I could create an INS file for my own XW-G1, but the order of the patch names would have to match the order I hear them, which is P011, P290, P003, etc. That would not necessarily help anyone else whose XW-G1 has the patches in a more logical order such as P001, P002, P003. However, if everyone has the same order that I have, that would be good to know.

If you are using an INS file for the XW-P1, then I assume you are able to make multitrack midi files out of an assortment of Casio XW-G1 presets, rather than just the GM presets? If that is so, then could you please explain to me how you "instruct" the XW-P1 that you want non-GM Casio presets instead of the GM ones? All I have ever worked with in Cakewalk are GM sounds, and that is why I was rather confused as to why some Casio non-GM sounds were coming up mixed in with the GM ones. If I could instruct the XW-G1 to use only one set or the other, it might help me figure out what is going wrong.

Thanks again for all the help so far.

[happyrat1]

OK, in a nutshell, a Cakewalk INS file is a text file that describes all of the patches and controllers of a particular synthesizer. The order doesn't come into it. It's a complete listing of all patches, drumkits and controllers for that particular make and model of machine and the corresponding MIDI MSB and LSB commands required to invoke them in the sequencer.

So if you had a complete INS file for the XW-G1, you'd be able to summon any and every patch available on your synth from within the sequencer window and select them for each and any track.

How they are laid out in any particular MIDI file is totally arbitrary. If you're still not clear on the concept, explain what's eluding you.

PS. BTW, the MIDI standard for drumkits is indeed channel 10, but a lot of synths these days allow you to place drums on any channel you want. There are a few peculiarities with the XW-P1 however. Solo Synth/Drawbar Organs/Hex Modes MUST be addressed from Channel 1. Duuno why the engineers designed that limitation but it's a fact of life with the P1. I dunno how this limitation translates with the G1. I'd imagine there's something funky going on with the sampler channel on that one.

Bear in Mind that if you are sequencing a standard MID file, the channel 10 percussion rule DOES apply. If you are working within cakewalk to create an MP3 or a WRK file, then it is a little more loosey goosey and the channels 8 thru 16 are usable but not required for accompaniment. Also note that standard MID files are limited to GM voices and keyboard specific sysex commands. If you want to save your output along with all the unique patches of your particular synth, you have to save in cakewalk in WRK format or record the audio out as an MP3.

Mike mentioned over at http://casiomusicforums.com today that with the P1 if you wish to record accompaniment out to a MIDI file you MUST record from performance mode and not tone mode and you have to set the output channels of the step sequencer instruments thru the MIDI Mixer function of the XW-P1 in performance mode and save it as a user performance.

I'm still in the process of experimenting with this and will post again as soon as I have a better understanding of the process.

Gary

PPS. As far as creating your own INS file for the G1 is concerned, the voices and all the commands are laid out in the XW-G1 Appendix File PDF I linked with the casio documentation. Adapting the P1 INS file would consist of deleting the HEX MODE/DRAWBAR ORGANS/SOLO SYNTHS from that file and pasting in any added voices on the G1 from that PDF file.

Once such a file is created, it could be uploaded here, and to a few other choice Casio and Cakewalk sites around the web so everyone could benefit from the work.

[bpstudios]

Thanks Gary, (happyrat1), I think you might have solved the problem. In my latest tests, I purposefully avoid having any tracks on channel 1, (assuming CH1 is reserved), and so far everything hs been working Wonderfully! Oh, by the way, the sounds on the XW are freaking amazing!

[happyrat1]

Glad to hear it's working for ya. If ya ever do create an INS file for it though, be sure to upload it here as I think so far no one else has created one.

[bpstudios]

Now I'm playing around with the XW's on-board Step Sequencer...

I've watched all the Casio tutorial videos, and I've even taken it a step further and learned to connect my patterns together using the CHAIN feature. Does anyone know of a way to record a part over a whole chain of patterns? It seems to me that I can only record a part over one pattern at a time. Thanks in advance!

[muf]

I think you can use phrase sequencer. You can chain few patterns into a simple loop, but maybe you should consider to use some DAW instead. That is what I was told :-)