So why did i post this, because it keeps amazing me how everyone at Casio is trying their best to not call this an arranger.... Why?
They're evidently not doing a very good job of not calling it an arranger because that is in fact what they call it on the Casio web sites (there are many). Here's one of them:
http://www.casiomusicgear.com/products/menu_mz-x/mz-x500Why do you keep posting about this? I have a theory but we're supposed to remain civil here so I won't say it. But I will say that if the explanations already given in this forum for why Casio is de-emphasizing the arranger nature (not completely surpressing it, otherwise they wouldn't have officially called it that in their literature) aren't convincing you should ask Mike Martin or his counterpart in Europe directly.
I did ask them... They promised some nice arranger demo's ... So far they have not delivered on that.....
I can tell you why i keep returning to this single instrument... And thats because on paper this instrument had everything (except 88 keys with aftertouch) that i would have loved to see in a workstation for over a decade... The usefullness of the pads is incredible...
It looked to good to be true for that price, and now i know why... Guess i am highly dissapointed, how this turned out... Not just soundquallity lacks, but also buildquallity as compared to the px-5s the keys feel cheep and fimly..
They promissed an arranger at first... But its convincing in every other way, but not as an arranger...
Now this is the last i will say about Casio instruments for the comming months.... Also to this instrument the golden rule aplies, you get what you pay for...
Previous Topic
Index
