Revisiting the Casio PX-560

[allan_evett]

Last summer I replaced a Roland FP-50 with an RD-88. I'd taught on the FP-50 for several years, but brought it home after the studio went mostly virtual; since then the owner has condensed the piano spaces and put in a Yamaha digital.

 

The RD-88 was appealing as a replacement, and with a more developed sound engine appeared to be good addition as a lightweight 88 for stage. And for a limited number of gigs late last year it worked well - mostly covering piano and some synth duties beneath a Stage 3, 76. Prior to that I'd often covered smaller gigs with the Stage 3 alone.

With the addition of new, established band gig - with steady rehearsals and bookings starting up - I've had some problems pop up with the RD-88. This gig has a least a dozen songs on which I'm doing extensive splits and layers. Lots of patches flying around as well as control changes of internal sounds, and that's where the RD wears thin: The assignable knob section is heavily slanted toward external use; that's great for heavy Mainstage users, but this is not a gig on which I want nor need to bring my MBP.

 

So other than capable piano tones, stellar synths and pitch/mod control the RD is rather deficient at real time control of its own sounds (For further explanation I posted about this in the RD-88 thread of our MPN GearLab Reviews). A similarly capable instrument, but with a far better display and internal control capabilities, is the Casio PX-560. It's still lightweight, and looks to have more-than-capable sound design resources. It also has a far stronger and more useable display. Appears to be a good, live gig resource and other than the Nord I can still leave my multi-engine heavier-duty boards at home (Don't really need extensive MIDI control live). Who among you here use the PX-560 live (or PX-5S, for that matter - since the internal sounds/registrations are interchangeable), and how has the synth engine worked out for you? My Stage 3, 76 is already covering a lot of heavy lifting, but having a stage piano with healthy synth tones - and good control of those - would be most helpful.

[Mike Martin]

Who among you here use the PX-560 live (or PX-5S, for that matter - since the internal sounds/registrations are interchangeable)

 

Quick clarification Allan. The sounds and registrations are unfortunately not interchangeable. This has been a big challenge and there isn't a solution. The sound engines are the essentially the same although the PX-560 does have additional samples that the PX-5S does not have (most importantly new stereo ensemble strings). So a Hex Layer tone on the PX-5S can be recreated on a PX-560 but there is no way unfortunately to directly transfer from one instrument to the other. In addition the PX-5S "Stage Settings" and the PX-560 Registrations are different. This is the most significant area where the two instruments differ. The PX-5S has 4 Zones with no rules in terms of overlapping, velocity switching. The PX-560 on the other hand has a two-upper, two-lower tone configuration. This makes it faster to do splits and layers on the fly...as opposed to the PX-5S where you'd want to have most of those things set up in advance.

[bfields]

The controllers are also different between the 5s and 560--the 5s has more controls overall, though it lacks expression pedal support. Anyway, that's easy to look up in the specs.

 

I have a 560 that I've used with a cover band a few times.

 

I find the 560's registration storage/recall limited. There are 24 banks of 4 registrations, and 4 dedicated buttons for choosing any of the 4 registrations in the current bank, but for switching banks you need to step through them with up/down buttons. There's no way to switch registrations over MIDI. I have one registration for each song, and write down the bank/registration number on my chart for the song. Switching songs means checking the next chart, stepping to the right bank, etc., then also changing presets on my other keyboard (DeepMind 12), and I've found I'm usually the last player in the band to be ready for the next song. I don't know, maybe I just need to rethink my organization.... I'm switching to a PC4-based setup where I can control everything with a setlist app and I think that will be easier in the end.

 

The 5s and 560 can't import user samples, but they have a pretty good variety of built-in samples--I'm no connoisseur, but I felt like I could usually get in the ballpark of what I wanted. It supports portamento but doesn't have real monophonic mode, if that matters to you.

 

It's definitely compact and light, and I like the keys and the action for piano. (It's kinda noisy, but that seems par for the course for this kind of board.)

[wd8dky]

Have you considered the Yamaha CP series?

[allan_evett]

Mike, thanks a lot for clarifying that. And just so I'm clear: Will a PX-560 Registration be limited to having only two sounds layered across the full 88? Still prefer the PX-560 (for also having a portable piano with speakers), so limits on layers/splits are still workable. I did create one, 3-zone layers on the RD-88, though getting there was somewhat convoluted - compared to the much better display on the PX-560; but I could rework that to two zones on the PX-560, if necessary.

 

In the meantime I'll check out the Casio user forum for synth edits/new programs. Having some additional resources for classic, older synth tones would be great. The band covers anything from Deep Purple, Rod Stewart, etc.. to Alt and current rock/pop.

[allan_evett]

Have you considered the Yamaha CP series?

 

 

Yes, and discovered that the YC-88 was an even better fit. Unfortunately it's well beyond budget right now; we're fixing up a house, and it's turning into a minor money pit

[BluMunk]

I've been gigging with a PX-5S (bought from a forumite) for a few years now. It replaced a Roland RD700-GX, which had piano action and sound I liked better than the PX-5S, but it was super heavy, long and difficult to transport (and add a case that can stand up to a board that weighs that much, and man was it a pain to move).

 

Things I love about the PX-5S:

 

-The action is fine as a piano action, without getting in the way of non-pianistic playing. There are better piano actions out there (at higher price points, generally), but this one feels "right" to me without being perfect.

 

-Size. I know the newer PX-S Casios are even smaller (and have onboard speakers), but the PX-5S is as small and light as I'd ever need an 88 to be. Easy to carry one-handed, easy to lift into and out of the car and up and down stairs. I also use the fitted Casio gig bag which is mostly unpadded, so it's super light. Because the board isn't heavy, or expensive, and because I move my own gear, that's enough protection for me. And it keeps it light and small.

 

-Sound. The samples and patches for acoustic emulation (piano, strings, etc) are not going to win awards in 2021 (my apologies to Mike Martin and Casio if they have ), but everything is gig-able and nice to play. You mention being interested in the synth engine. I have to admit that for my purposes I haven't tried to learn to roll my own, so can't speak to it that much. It seems very flexible, and I imagine that the software editor makes it easier to edit (and to find the samples you want to work with) than the on-board screen and menu navigating you have to do on the board itself. Maybe the large screen on the 560 is wildly different, though. And, the presets sound great.

 

-MIDI capabilities. Very powerful with lots of control for internal and external zones. And, considering that programming the board is done through a small screen and a series of menus, it's all really straightforward and intuitively organized. It's no Kurzweil, but IMO it knocks the socks off of Roland's MIDI controller implementation. And, four assignable knobs and six assignable (short) faders is great.

 

Things I don't like:

 

-When I want to be truly focused as a pianist, the action underwhelms. I'm planning on buying a second board (Yammy P-515 or the new Kawai, or something) to have set up in my home as a practice board, and using the Casio as purely something to gig with.

 

-Non-keyboard sampled sounds (orchestral, etc) are limited in quantity and are of limited use.

 

-Editing the synth requires a lot of learning and menu diving. However, is there another rompler at < $1000 that gives you the kind of synth that comes with the PX-5S? I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here.

 

-One expression pedal input short. To get three pedals into the board (sustain, patch advance, and expression), I had to go buy an additional piece of hardware with 1/4in > MIDI out, and use the MIDI in of the board for the expression pedal.

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line, it's a joy to gig with in most contexts. If you want to practice piano (or are just gigging piano gigs), there are probably more satisfying options (though maybe not at quite as low a price point), but as an affordable all-arounder, it really ticks most boxes. All of the negatives I have to say about it are not really negatives as much as they are reflections of choices made to hit a price point and/or form factor. It's a super smart board with a lot of power, designed for a gigging musician.

 

I know you were primarily asking about the PX-560, so this all may be of limited use.

[vortmaxx]

I bought my 560 about 4 years ago when I was getting back into piano and wanted something with 88 weighted keys. Having built in speakers was kind of a requirement. I wanted to be able to just push a button, sit down, and play without having to plug in headphones or run cables to my mixer. I looked at the offerings from Roland and Yamaha around that price range, and as you probably know, you just don't really get a lot of board beyond your basic pianos, maybe some strings, and limited to no editability.

 

I got used to the action pretty quickly, which I would say is a bit lighter than the Rolands and Yamahas I tried.

 

Not long after I bought it I got wrangled into a yacht-rock tribute, and I really began to appreciate how easy it is to edit tones. For example, there is a string patch I really like, but the attack is just a little too slow for some situations. No problem, just pull up the amp envelope and dial it up a bit, then save it as a user tone.

 

I had to create a registration for "Summer Breeze" set up across 2 zones, with piano + strings on the bottom, and bandonion + toy piano on top. The expression pedal is assigned to fade the strings in/out as well as the toy piano. The whole process took maybe 10 minutes. Tunes like "Africa" "What a Fool Believes" and "Caribbean Queen" were a bit more involved, but I feel like I got close enough for my standards, which are arguably higher than most of the musos around me. I realized that there was just no way I was going to be able to cover even half of the keys effectively with my venerable Electro and Korg R3.

 

25lbs in a gig bag at the end of the night is a nice bonus.

 

My only naggle, as bfields mentioned, is the lack of mono mode for synth. I'll keep quietly hoping that this will come around in a firmware update, but even if it doesn't I'll still feel pretty good about buying it.

[Tom Williams]

Some more PX-5S thoughts, plus a positive if ignorant thought about the 560.

 

5S Good things: four no rules layers. I have several stacks of sounds that I bring in and out using sliders, CC wheel, and even the sostenuto pedal. Not limited to four either -- since you can have two Hex voices, their oscillators can work as layers too. I have one 5-voice stack.

 

Aside for 560 users: Since you have hex layers, you can do the same trick with more than just two voices across the 88 keys.

 

Back to 5S: the USB-based editor helps me a great deal, allowing me to compare voices or hex layers, possibly even more quickly than MM navigates the menu. Welllll, emphasis on "possibly."

I have both the 5S and a Kurzweil PC3 (61 key). Although the Kurz has great versatility -- I am a fanboy thereof -- the sound of the PX5S, though simpler, is bigger. As if the Kurz is designed to fit well in the mix, but the PX is designed to fill the room. At least it has that effect on me.

 

5S things I would like to see different "next time": (1) I prefer a slightly lighter action. I find the 5S fatiguing on my wimpy forearm muscles. (2) More mature FX, particularly (what else?) the rotary speaker model. (3) I'm a klutz, and would prefer a longer throw on the faders. (4) Like everyone else on earth, I would like to have a direct CC pedal input.

 

All in all, the 5S is a monster instrument, meeting my needs like no other, and I am delighted to have purchased it under the guidance of this august community.

[bfields]

MIDI capabilities. Very powerful with lots of control for internal and external zones. And, considering that programming the board is done through a small screen and a series of menus, it's all really straightforward and intuitively organized. It's no Kurzweil, but IMO it knocks the socks off of Roland's MIDI controller implementation. And, four assignable knobs and six assignable (short) faders is great.

 

Just note this paragraph doesn't apply to the 560, which has more limited MIDI features.

[AnotherScott]

I find the 560's registration storage/recall limited. There are 24 banks of 4 registrations, and 4 dedicated buttons for choosing any of the 4 registrations in the current bank, but for switching banks you need to step through them with up/down buttons. There's no way to switch registrations over MIDI. I have one registration for each song, and write down the bank/registration number on my chart for the song.

That last bit points to the other limitation with registrations... they can't be named. So you have to select "2-4" instead of "Uptown Funk" or whatever. So yeah, paper. So 20th century!

 

And just so I'm clear: Will a PX-560 Registration be limited to having only two sounds layered across the full 88?

With a hexlayer, a single (up-to-full-88) sound can, itself, contain up to 6 split/layered sounds. And you can have multiple hexlayers.

 

The biggest limitation is in MIDI. I've never tried it, but since the 4 parts (Upper 1, Upper 2, Lower 1, Lower 2) are set to 4 different MIDI channels, you could conceivably hobble together something that might be workable in terms of mixing and matching internal and external sounds, through the use of dedicating one channel to external sounds and employing silent internal patches.

 

PX5S is lighter and is a better MIDI controller and has a computer editor to offset the lack of a PX-560 style display, and supports more effects.... but it is nice to be able to so quickly select/edit/combine sounds right from the PX560's display, and I think it makes the board more fun to use. Plus the 560's got the speakers and expression pedal. I might recommend the PX5S for people who set stuff up in detail in advance (more versatile overall), and the PX560 for people who work more on the fly.

 

Left hand bass is an area where PX560 is much better, since it is so easy to change just your right hand sound, or shift its octave, or adjust its volume, all independant of what you're doing on the left. From the perspective of left/right independence even just for different sounds (besides just LH bass), that might also make me more inclined to prefer the PX560 if it were going to be my only board at the gig, but the PX5S if it were going to be part of a combination of boards, where I don't typically need that kind of instant manipulation of the sounds on either side of the split, and where I'd prefer that board's greater versatility (and lighter weight).

 

Alteratively, the PX5S is a nice controller for an iPad-based setup... it's a light 88 with a nice action, with 6 programmable sliders and 4 knobs, 10 banks of 10 definable patch select buttons, and free panel space above the battery compartment to place the iPad... and it still has all its internal sounds to use as well or to have available as backup.

 

Here's a good feature comparison of the two: https://casiomusicgear.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/the-definitive-px-5s-vs-px-560-comparison/

[Moonglow]

I don"t have a PX-560, but use a PX-360 mostly for home practice and occasionally for band rehearsals. I previously had a PX-350, which I gave to my daughter, and replaced it with the 360. It represents a substantial upgrade, and I"ve been enjoying it much more than anticipated. I can"t comment on the extra features of the PX-560, but fully agree with Mike Martin regarding the improved strings. I was also pleasantly surprised with some of the other sounds, of which the 560 has more. Overall, I think the 560 would work well on a gig, but would still pair it with another keyboard. I enjoy blending sounds from different manufacturers and would also want something with a synth or waterfall action.

[allan_evett]

Yes, pairing different manufacturer's keyboards is fun and often yields more colorful results. Interestingly enough, the RD-88 has provided several stellar moments so far during band homework. And in a few instances the Zen-Core synth engine has bested the VA in my Stage 3, 76. Considering the rehearsals needed and timeframe before the band's first 'restart' gig, the RD may be starting out as my stage piano hybrid; at least it'll be at next week's rehearsal. But a few areas in which it still lacks are the mostly rehashed sample-based organ Tones, the display/interface - which bears a resemblance to that of the early 1990's U-110 - difficult to navigate without at least one simple, general encoder, and the quirky and very limited assignable knobs when trying to control internal sound parameters (especially effects). Compared to the tools provided to extensively control Mainstage, the internal assignment capabilities are extremely limited.

 

I might wait for the 88-key, mid-grade Fantom spin-off; I'd be happy with a Fantom 'Lite'. An FA-style instrument with solid internally assignable controls plus a tonewheel engine would do the job. Even editing features like the version of KB3 in the SP6 would work; I'm finding that an additional tonewheel engine is very helpful. Heck, if Roland does it well enough I may be tempted to condense my Fantom 7 and RD-88 into a single streamlined instrument. The extensive components of the Fantom are overwhelming; there is much there I may not use fully. Often it seems less a player's instrument and more 'Production Central'.

[AnotherScott]

I might wait for the 88-key, mid-grade Fantom spin-off; I'd be happy with a Fantom 'Lite'. An FA-style instrument with solid internally assignable controls plus a tonewheel engine would do the job. Even editing features like the version of KB3 in the SP6 would work; I'm finding that an additional tonewheel engine is very helpful.

So it what way is the SP6 not satisfactory? You lose speakers, but you'd almost certainly lose them in your theoretical "Fantom Lite" as well.

 

Having made the PX560 vs PX5S arguments above, if you don't need the speakers, I'd probably choose the SP6 over either one of them, because it is close to what I'd have wished for from Casio, a single board that had the main advantages of the PX5S *and* the main advantages of the PX560. It's not quite "the best of both" but it's close to at least having what I think are the most important advantages of both. The display/interface is not as nice as the PX560 for mixing/matching sound combinations, but it's better than the PX5S, while still giving you the 4-zone MIDI controller functions of the PX5S, albeit with fewer simultaneous real-time controls (more than on the PX560, though). What I think you lose compared to either Casio is that in-depth sound editing requires a computer, and the control panel is deeper, meaning that a stacked board above will end up with its keys farther away. (The other main variable is how you would compare the actions, which is subjective.)

[allan_evett]

Good points, Scott. Re the SP6, I'd like to get my hands on one and spend some time with it; also want to compare it with the PC4 - as I have a resource for an excellent deal on that one. The PX-560 is also still a option.

 

Once the next small block of songs are charted and noted for the RD88, I can explore alternatives more actively. The first gig will probably be on the RD - for the piano and additional synth parts; my Nord will be carrying the lions share of zoned programming for now, so eventually swapping out the RD wouldn't be too difficult. Though I must admit that the Tones and Scenes - both factory and some of my own do work very well.

I wish Roland would offer a performance oriented OS update - extensive improvements for internal, assignable functions; another sound expansion or two... Granted the pandemic has sometimes affected product support, but I expected more from Roland for the RD88. In comparison to other current products it's had minimal support, but maybe Roland's niche for it is to be a Mainstage controller. It's a shame if that's the case, as the instrument has a lot of potential power under the surface.

[AnotherScott]

Good points, Scott. Re the SP6, I'd like to get my hands on one and spend some time with it; also want to compare it with the PC4 - as I have a resource for an excellent deal on that one.

Oh man, if you can swing the PC4, that's going to pretty much blow all these other options out of the water, other than not having speakers, and that the board is full depth rather than slab style, which means that your Nord above is going to have to be further back and/or further up. (And again, subjectively, whatever you think of the actions.) But if you can get by those things, you may be wasting your time considering whether to get Burger King or McDonald's, when you can get a filet mignon.

 

I wish Roland would offer a performance oriented OS update - extensive improvements for internal, assignable functions; another sound expansion or two...

There's an awful lot already via Zenology, what kind of other sound expansions would you want?

[allan_evett]

Good points, Scott. Re the SP6, I'd like to get my hands on one and spend some time with it; also want to compare it with the PC4 - as I have a resource for an excellent deal on that one.

Oh man, if you can swing the PC4, that's going to pretty much blow all these other options out of the water, other than not having speakers, and that the board is full depth rather than slab style, which means that your Nord above is going to have to be further back and/or further up. (And again, subjectively, whatever you think of the actions.) But if you can get by those things, you may be wasting your time considering whether to get Burger King or McDonald's, when you can get a filet mignon.

 

Yeah, the PC4 would be a lightweight monster for a bottom-tier 88.

 

I wish Roland would offer a performance oriented OS update - extensive improvements for internal, assignable functions; another sound expansion or two...

There's an awful lot already via Zenology, what kind of other sound expansions would you want?

 

Last I checked, there were two expansions that were RD-88 capable. I'd like to be able to load in some stronger tonewheel organs, too. Have done a few, Zen-Core-based organ edits in the Fantom, then ported the Fantom's SVZ files over to the RD; so a couple additions there. I did convert and import a strong, Soundfont drawbar set sample to the Fantom, and it works well for now - in the Fantom. Though the Roland Soundfont converting app does produce an SVZ file, it only works in the Fantom; the RD-88 does accept SVZ files, but apparently not ones that are Soundfont converts.

 

Still perplexed by RD-88's mostly missing internal destinations for the eight assignable knobs (it does have attack, release, cutoff, resonance, sustain-soft-sostenuto, volume/expression; nothing really for effects parameters - save the separate MFX knob, which is oddly 'hardwired' in a few instances; it's like they started assigning it, then stopped...). Yet through external routing each of the eight knobs can be assigned to CCs 1 - 128.

[AnotherScott]

Last I checked, there were two expansions that were RD-88 capable.

They don't make this info easy to find, but the page you want is https://www.roland.com/us/support/by_product/rc_zenology/support_documents/319ed642-8e1d-4b0b-a6ec-5d730f30cd8d/

 

For the RD88, they list 64 SDZ expansions and 13 EXZ (SRX) expansions.

 

Yeah, soundfont import would be nice!

[allan_evett]

Last I checked, there were two expansions that were RD-88 capable.

They don't make this info easy to find, but the page you want is https://www.roland.com/us/support/by_product/rc_zenology/support_documents/319ed642-8e1d-4b0b-a6ec-5d730f30cd8d/

 

For the RD88, they list 64 SDZ expansions and 13 EXZ (SRX) expansions.

 

Yeah, soundfont import would be nice!

 

 

Thanks for that! I'd been nosing around the Roland site a few moments ago - checking for articles and support related to the RD-88, then got kicked off by a connection interruption; so we were likely in the same neighborhood.

Going to head back there now.

[DaveMcM]

I purchased a Casio PX-560 about 2 years ago. Prior to the PX-560, I've had a number of other 88 note weighted boards from Korg, Kurzweil, Roland and Generalmusic (still have my Promega 3 which is still near and dear to my heart). They all have their strengths and weaknesses. And I'm not saying this just because it is what I presently own, but the PX-560 is a pleasure to gig with. Besides the weight factor, which is great, navigation is very easy and fast, and it sounds very good. On the fly splits or layers, easy. The Hex Layer section is touted as something really special. The reality is, it is extremely useful, and very similar to Korg's Combinations, Generalmusic's Performances, Kurzweil's Multi, etc. As an example, I needed a setup for the Boz Scaggs tune Lowdown. It took all of 10 minutes to create a multiple split with various sounds spread over the keyboard in the proper pitch range, sustain and expression pedal settings, effects settings, knob assignments for effects and volumes, etc. The advantage the PX-560 has over the others is ease of navigation due to the touch screen not being overly crowded.

 

The PX-560 will not work as a master controller for external gear, the sequencer leaves a lot to be desired and it would be much nicer if registrations were namable. But it does what it does quite well at a very friendly price and weight.

[skipeb3]

A couple years ago I had a gig with a load in from hell, so I ran down to GC to snag a light, inexpensive basic DP. I got a PX-160, and much to my surprise & delight, it has become one of my favorite keyboards. And I've had plenty.

I then went out & got a 560, and I like it a lot, for all the above mentioned qualities.

My only snag is the 560's action is totally different from my 160. It's not the best, most realistic action, but it works for me. I know that Casio says they use the same action in the 160 & 560, but they're radically different. At least, they are in my 2 boards.

Other than that, it's all good, The sounds are fine, and the lightweight factor is a major plus.

[JDBlackhawk]

Zombie post but anyway.

 

After getting a little tangled up in the virtual analog world recently (Alesis Micron, Akai Miniak and now a Poly D) I decided to do more programming with my PX560 again. Design scheme-since there is a good array of PCM samples in the 560-but can only be accessed in hex layer mode for programming-I decided to focus on the basic waveforms used for many analog recreations floating around lately. Sine, square, sawtooth, triangle and pulse are all in the 560. Trying to keep edits clean-only using filter and amp envelopes plus LFO's, no other effects. The main limitation I am finding-modulation routings, but still experimenting and open to suggestions, I still might not know enough about the possibilities there. Wheels and 3 control knobs are useful-but those settings must be saved as part of a registration, not with the Casio "tone" or program.

 

Envelopes are very easy to work with-I wish this had the 8-step envelopes of the old CZ's-which enabled some really interesting time-evolved programming I still can't quite get with the 560, but its early on. I have been able to get a slight "morphing" effect bringing in various waveshapes using filter and amp envelopes, but still need more practice in getting the delay settings right for attacks and release envelopes. many hex layers already achieved this but are not limited to the basic waveshapes I am using. There is some power here. The other hitch-when changing programmable settings within a hex layer-stepping through screens to get where i want-not a major problem, the workflow is a little challenging since only one screen is visible at a time-have to do a bit of screen jumping as some programmable settings are available "globally" for the hex layer, and other settings can only be reached in the "layers" menu setting, takes some getting used to. Casio's way of doing these things is a little different-like the difference between Yamaha algorithms for programming FM and almost everything else....And yes, it would have been nice to be able to name the registrations, or at least have software that can be set up to save all the registrations at once with names. Which brings me to another topic-sysex availability within the 560-for possibly developing a software front-end for creating a way to name and save the registrations-there are a few clever programmers that have done similar things for other Casios, based at the Casio Music Forum user group-have managed to open up and create features for some of the CTX series, that were not accessible otherwise. Guess I have another post to bug people with, over there. I'll leave this alone for awhile anyway.