Roland Fantom G...didn't see this posted anywhere else...

[elambo]

Originally Posted by pabloman

Windows 3.1 with Cakewalk 2.0. It just arrived here in Norway. It crashes all the time!

Cakewalk 2 isn't compatible with modems of 300 baud or higher and it ALWAYS crashes when loading from a 5 1/4" drive. Use the 3.5" disk and unplug your modem from the serial port then you'll have smooth sailing.

[pabloman]

In my experience, it's really the dot-matrix printer that makes my system crash. My 300bps modem (which uses a telephone handset to connect "online") is fine with Cakewalk. I used to have a 2,8" QuickDisk drive, but after I upgraded to 3,5" my computer finally boots MS-DOS 4.1. I'm now interested in updating to Windows for Workgroups and run Cakewalk 3. Any good deals on an upgrade?

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by pabloman

In my experience, it's really the dot-matrix printer that makes my system crash. My 300bps modem (which uses a telephone handset to connect "online") is fine with Cakewalk. I used to have a 2,8" QuickDisk drive, but after I upgraded to 3,5" my computer finally boots MS-DOS 4.1. I'm now interested in updating to Windows for Workgroups and run Cakewalk 3. Any good deals on an upgrade?

Nice. Real nice...

[Bastitch]

Originally Posted by ryst

Roland has refused to truly enter the software instrument market and with every new release of a hardware keyboard, they look more and more behind the times. Why not embrace the future, come out with some killer software synths, and bundle them with midi controllers?

don't they do it as edirol?

[A-List]

Originally Posted by elambo

Which software is crashing?

damn Kontakt 3. Got rid of my triton and bought kontakt 3 because of the better quality patches and because i thought it was time to start leaning more toward software. Slight mistake. I found that *writing* on a workstation is much more fun and easier because of the fewer hangups, no mousework, no load times, no weird midi host autoassigning, a piano damper that works(for piano patches in kontakt with a lil phatty as a controller isnt working for me). Now when it comes to the final product and actually putting the shit into protools, sure i might replace the workstation patch i wrote it with;with a software patch from the PC.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by A-List

damn Kontakt 3. Got rid of my triton and bought kontakt 3 because of the better quality patches and because i thought it was time to start leaning more toward software.

I'm less familiar with K3. I've been happy with K2 so I never upgraded. K2 has been really stable - maybe K3 has a few new bugs.

[mikeynyuk]

Originally Posted by ryst

Roland has refused to truly enter the software instrument market and with every new release of a hardware keyboard, they look more and more behind the times. Why not embrace the future, come out with some killer software synths, and bundle them with midi controllers?

This is a silly point. There are those of us out there who much prefer hardware synths to softsynths, and who even think they can sound better.

The disscussion is about what Roland are doing with there hardsynths. They definetly need more Ram, less patches. Having siad that I believe that the combination of modelling and S+S is the way to go for workstations right now.

Personally the piano on my (for sale) Nord Stage sounds more realistic than Ivory which uses 1000 times more memory.

So in some ways having tons of memory isnt nessecarily the answer to making great sounding workstations. E.G. Modeling = B4, Lounge Lizard etc . S+S =Nord stage piano sound which I know has very little memory but distributes its over only a handfull of good, tweakable sounds.

[kpaw]

Originally Posted by ryst

Roland has refused to truly enter the software instrument market and with every new release of a hardware keyboard, they look more and more behind the times. Why not embrace the future, come out with some killer software synths, and bundle them with midi controllers?

I have yet to hear any software synth that sounds as good as my V-synth. Comparing workstations to good synths is a bit like comparing SUV's to high end sports cars. Different animals here. While the best software can match or exceed my X6, they pale in comparison to a V-synth.

Also, if you're playing live, it's nice to have a keyboard that never breaks. In over 30 years I never had a Roland product go down live. The average person in the audience doesn't know a Roland from a Korg from a Casio...it's the way it is.

[JesseJ]

Originally Posted by threesixty

You guys have no idea what you are talking about
Size isnt EVERYTHING! How long does it take to load those
multisampled piano's? Reason Piano's take about 1 minute per patch.
Kontakt takes at least 20 seconds -40 seconds for one of their piano's.

A Fantom loads the sound instantly. The thing is Roland know how to create
a convincing sounding instrument patch in a fraction of the memory that
these lazy "multisamplers" do. It makes their machines faster to use and
ultimately can be more creative. For live players it's essential to be able to recall patches instantly and have a machine that will NEVER crash.

Exactly why I ordered a Fantom G.

It takes about 15-20 minutes to boot PC/mac + Cubase/Logic + A drumkit (like Ezdrummer) + bass (like trilogy) + piano (like a bösendorfer). And I am not talking about some old junkyard machine, but newest and fastest with RAID drives etc.

Meanwhile I have made 1 song on the Fantom G and I am smiling as I do it. Boot time is 5 seconds and patches load instantly (yes instantly) while the old sound is playing in the background...

It's a total turnoff to sit and watch grass grow when you have an musical idea in your head. With the fantom I can be recording it instantly, that is what I am paying for + it is a very compact & portable package.

Secondly, that 256Mb is a Sample ROM with 2,153 waveforms (plus you can use your own). How many Mb waveforms does your softsynth have? Propaply a lot less since the whole installation file is less than 256Mb, right?

Third thing. It's not a competition to a PC/Mac. It is an addition for creative people.
Probably 99% will use the Fantom WITH a PC/Mac. I know I will get Omnisphere and then use that AND the Fantom.

Fourth thing. Why the negative attitude towards something you have almost no knowledge of and have not done any reasearch on?

Fifth thing. I don't want to be that dude on stage with his mac looking like he is checking his email. That is just plain sad.


- Jesse -

[JesseJ]

Originally Posted by kpaw

In over 30 years I never had a Roland product go down live.

Same thing. My Roland JP-8000.. have played it every day since 1998 and it has never ever once malfunctioned in any way. Toured, gigged, made hundreds of song with it, still going strong and showing no problems.

Now let's see.. I've had propably 6-7 different PCs (and 2 intel macs die on me) during the same period. 4 MAJOR hard drive crashes, one small fire, one small explosion.. W95 Win98 SP1 SP2 reinstall reinstall XP XP reinstall XP SP1. 6-7 mice and keyboards, 4-5 different monitors. And never took the equipment on tour cause we all know it would have died.

If the Fantom G will give me 5 years of joy, it is not in any way expensive. It's dirt cheap, go take a (real) look at the features!


Oh yeah and for comparisons I would like to present the real bike and the exercise bike.
If you like stay at home, you get the exercise bike with the built in radio and web.
If you wanna go places, see the world, have fun and meet people you get the real bike.

If you're really into it, you will get both.

Bye,

- Jesse -

[elambo]

Originally Posted by JesseJ

Secondly, that 256Mb is a Sample ROM with 2,153 waveforms (plus you can use your own). How many Mb waveforms does your softsynth have? Propaply a lot less since the whole installation file is less than 256Mb, right?

Most of my soft synths are sample-playback, equaling in total about 400-500 gigs, or roughly 1000 times more data than the Fantom G. On an 8-core 3.0 Mac the load time is negligible, and it doesn't load the entire sample anyway, just fills the buffer with the beginnings of each sample while the rest streams. Quick. Sounds amazing. Saves every edit and routing configurations that I make within the ProTools session. I can have as many channels as the CPU can handle, which is more than I'd need in a practical session when using this CPU.

[JesseJ]

Originally Posted by elambo

Most of my soft synths are sample-playback, equaling in total about 400-500 gigs, or roughly 1000 times more data than the Fantom G. On an 8-core 3.0 Mac the load time is negligible, and it doesn't load the entire sample anyway, just fills the buffer with the beginnings of each sample while the rest streams. Quick. Sounds amazing. Saves every edit and routing configurations that I make within the ProTools session. I can have as many channels as the CPU can handle, which is more than I'd need in a practical session when using this CPU.

Yeah I have a mac too at the studio, I know how it works. I think we all do.

So from power off to having a running pre-saved project you really feel loading time is negligible? You have that 8-core mac on the road a lot? Where did you buy the flight case for your mac?

How much did you pay for your 8-core mac + "soundcard" + those 400-500gigas worth of sample libraries + monitors + controller keyboard? How much for flightcases for all of the equipment and how fast do you set it up at gigs?

I don't think we are talking about the same things here, or even trying.

We are talking about a fuel-efficient sportscar for roadtrips and you are talking about a huge powerful tractor for plowing.

I think this whole discussion is somewhat stupid, it's like we could be laughing at laptops and telling laptop manufacturers are not where it's at cause laptops don't have 52" screens and you can't have 4 graphics cards in the laptop and it makes a crappy server for a large company.

Here's some uncompressed Fantom G samples (Courtesy of 'gareth' from the roland clan forums)

RapidShare: 1-Click Webhosting
RapidShare: 1-Click Webhosting
RapidShare: 1-Click Webhosting


- Jesse -

[elambo]

We're talking about the same thing - the BEST sounding option - but the argument is changing jurisdictions when the desired response isn't received. It's now becoming a list of excuses for the Fantom. Load times? Flight cases? Irrelevant. My computer stays on. ProTools needs to be opened if I'm using software or a keyboard, so that's not a factor. It's about sound, and after hearing those demos above I hear that this Fantom is only slightly better than the one I already have and still in no way comparable to the sound of good samples. Not even close.

[JesseJ]

Load times are irrelevant? Portability is irrelevant? Ok...

You know what? I will stay away from this Fantom G topic so you can discuss your mac...


- Jesse -

[elambo]

Originally Posted by JesseJ

Load times are irrelevant? Portability is irrelevant? Ok...

You know what? I will stay away from this Fantom G topic so you can discuss your mac...


- Jesse -

For the majority of keyboards sold, no, portability is entirely unimportant because the keyboard (or computer) is sitting in one place in a studio or apartment or bedroom, etc. The added 10 seconds it takes to load a sample vs. a keyboard patch is indeed worth the wait to ME for the improvement in quality of the patch. And being able to search the entire hard drive by typing a keyword is priceless. This is how I work. I'm not asking anyone to adopt my process, just illustrating how well it works for me.

You'll remember that the point that surfaced was that technology has advanced far enough to allow bigger and better things from keyboards. Macs are used as examples of what's being done at present, not intended to steer the focus away from the Fantom but to give some perspective. Korg's Oasys sells for the price of several Macs, so it's not an issue of cost, it quite simply about getting the best from technology. I still feel that Roland shortchanged their potential this time around.

[Trell Blaze]

It seems that what guys are comparing in here is impossible. Convenience of workstation operation vs. the power of softsynths? Come on, guys we're smarter than that.

When I started this thread I thought the discussion would be more along the lines of Fantom G vs Korg M3 (or maybe Oasys). Wouldn't that debate make more sense? How about a discussion of how the G matches up against the X? Is it any better or worse than the Triton or Trinity? Does it have more bells and whistles as the Andromeda? Is it as full and lush as a Kurzwiel 26XX?

There is no issue of convenience or realiablity (at least not much) as these are the same kind of animal.

From my very little research on it, I'm not that impressed. I use my wokstations/synths for studio only so my main concern is it's sound. While I use the Fantom X almost exclusively (don't have much of a choice), I find that not even older machines such as the Triton blow it away but also some of its PREDECESSORS - JV/XP series. (Talking about the X...not the G).

That said, from what I heard, the G is only slightly better than the X. My research on the machine is not complete but I have to say that it's not looking very optimistic.

Now, how about somebody tell me why I'm "way off base" or "right on the money"? Or, if convenience and "gig-ability" are that important to you, how does it match up to machines you've owned in the past?

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

It seems that what guys are comparing in here is impossible. Convenience of workstation operation vs. the power of softsynths? Come on, guys we're smarter than that.

Yes, we are looking for the smarter option, and I think that's why we're demanding more from a keyboard in 2008. A combination of both convenience and power, and it's very possible. The Oasys has it, but at a price that's offensive to nearly everyone.

[BenJah]

Yes, we are looking for the smarter option, and I think that's why we're demanding more from a keyboard in 2008. A combination of both convenience and power, and it's very possible. The Oasys has it, but at a price that's offensive to nearly everyone.

This is exactly the point I made earlier.

Roland had the opportunity to offer SO much more with this keyboard. Instead they've turned out yet another keyboard that wouldn't be out of place in the late nineties..

[Trell Blaze]

Originally Posted by BenJah

This is exactly the point I made earlier.

Roland had the opportunity to offer SO much more with this keyboard. Instead they've turned out yet another keyboard that wouldn't be out of place in the late nineties..

Originally Posted by elambo

Yes, we are looking for the smarter option, and I think that's why we're demanding more from a keyboard in 2008. A combination of both convenience and power, and it's very possible. The Oasys has it, but at a price that's offensive to nearly everyone.

That said, what would Roland have to do to sqeeze the Oasys's power out of the Fantom G's considerably smaller price tag? Where should they cut corners? What do you feel is absolutely unecessary about this machine?

I think we can all agree that Roland has yet to progress past 1990 with it's tone set (will they ever?), but besides that, what is keeping this thing from sweeping up the Oasys's trash?

BTW, Korg did manage to salvage most of the Oasys's power and put it into a more convenient and affordable package. They decided to call it the M3...

[kozlikha]

Has anyone actually gone on tour with a PC/Mac based environment? How stable was it running full arrangement with all the blows & whistles (samples, audio tracks, FXs, live performance, on the fly alterations of sounds, etc)?

I've toured with hardware all my life, I do realise that soft offer a better sound, but how realistic is it to entrust it in a live environment?

BTW: Listen To Keyboards

[A-List]

Originally Posted by elambo

We're talking about the same thing - the BEST sounding option - but the argument is changing jurisdictions when the desired response isn't received. It's now becoming a list of excuses for the Fantom. Load times? Flight cases? Irrelevant. My computer stays on. ProTools needs to be opened if I'm using software or a keyboard, so that's not a factor. It's about sound, and after hearing those demos above I hear that this Fantom is only slightly better than the one I already have and still in no way comparable to the sound of good samples. Not even close.

i was talking about ease of writing not best sound. and thats why I ordered a G. me too on PTs being open with either way. I would rather write better songs and worry about the sound quality later than write crappier songs with pristine quality sounds from the jump. to each his own.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by A-List

i was talking about ease of writing not best sound. and thats why I ordered a G. me too on PTs being open with either way. I would rather write better songs and worry about the sound quality later than write crappier songs with pristine quality sounds from the jump. to each his own.

I also write with a Fantom and have been doing so for years, but often times the sound itself affects what I write (I usually arrange as I'm writing) and it only takes a few extra seconds to load a sample. I can wait and that's usually when I take a drink of coffee. I do understand the logic behind quick access to instruments in order to flush out an idea, but I'm not nearly as inspired by the output of a Fantom. Or Motif. Or Kurzweil, etc. The mere quality and realism of an EastWest QLSO arrangement gets the adrenaline going and pushes me harder. I can tell where it's lacking and where it's finished. I couldn't imagine scratching out an orchestra on a keyboard then later adapting it over the samples. The mere changes in articulations alone - getting them fixed - would add at least an hour, if you're quick.

[tapo200]

The new Fantom G has the best sequencer in a Keyboard. But nothing comes close in point of soundquality and varity to the OASYS.

If Korg put a sequencer into the Oasys with features like in the Fantom G
that kills the Music-PC.

On the Oasys runs high optimized Software, the Lac-1 has a better soundquality and more modulations than the PC legacy , AL-1 kills
Massive and Absynth in point of sounddynamic and number of voices ,
the Brass and Woodwind sample library can you play very dynamic
and it sounds very professionell it is not the same like on the Trinity.

I am a Hobby musican not a studioproducer , i need an Instrument
for Liveperformance with professionell soundquality and different
synthmethodes and the Oasys is the ideal intrument for me. Softwareplugins are garbage for Liveperformance.

VST-Plugins are NON optimized and that is the Reason why they cannot reach the Power of specialized Software/Hardware like Oasys or Kyma.

[A-List]

better than i thought it would be. superfast workflow. great sounds

[Trell Blaze]

I finally got some hands-on play with one today. Un-impressed and uninspired. The operating system is absolutely beautiful as is the screen used to fly through it. The features are plentyful and easy to use.

However, at the end of the day, it's the SOUND that matters to me more than anything else. Period.

That said, while the sounds have improved slightly in quality over the X, they're still - you guessed it - the same....old....roland....tones. Nothing has changed about Rolands soud design in the last 15+ years. If you're looking for a new and improved JV soundset, this is your board. There are a FEW - and I stress "few" - fresh new tones in the board but not NEARLY enough to justify spending the extra 500 bucks to replace the Fantom X.

After about 5 minutes of cycling through the presets I got bored with it - "gee, it feels like I've been here before...hmm" - and went back to the Korg M3 that I somehow end up touching everytime I enter Guitar Center.

Not even the employees are excited about selling the damn thing. They're very clearly dissappointed when discussing the unit. Gonna be hard to sell a "star" product you don't believe in.

For what it's worth, this is coming from a guy who has used Roland his whole "career". A guy who's central production unit is a Fantom X. I'm not suggesting that the Fantom G is a bad product...no no no. It's actually a GREAT unit. But then, so is the Fantom X. The G is supposed to be the next step. It's SUPPOSED to be equivilent to Korgs jump from Karma to Oasis. It's supposed to be THE LATEST BIG THING FROM ROLAND. In some reguards it fullfills these expectations but in the most important category in my opinion - the SOUND - it goes nowhere that past Roland units haven't gone already. Again, the sound quality is slightly improved but still doesn't stack up to the Korg or Kurzwiel line of workstations. There is nothing new and exciting about this machine's SOUND.

I could care less about it's convenience on stage or how quickly it can change modes. I need something that inspires me to dive deeper into it. Instead I got a severe case of deja vu...

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

That said, while the sounds have improved slightly in quality over the X, they're still - you guessed it - the same....old....roland....tones.

That's what I expected. It's a let down.

[Jim Stout]

Here are some sound demos of the new G

Roland U.S. - Fantom-G6: Workstation Keyboard

[fontenele]

Originally Posted by BenJah

This is exactly the point I made earlier.

Roland had the opportunity to offer SO much more with this keyboard. Instead they've turned out yet another keyboard that wouldn't be out of place in the late nineties..

You are right !
Actually it feels like the new workstation generation the M3, XS7, and the G's fail on innovating anything.
I don't know throw in something cool that integrates with software better, put 8 motorized faders on it
( I wish I could trust CME with that VX controller)
Something really extra !

I played the Xs and M on Gc and although they sounded fine they were no. OMG! that is AMAZING!

So, after those upgrades I feel like Omnisphere from spectrasonics is the next bet.
I actually want hardware keys but not workstations.
My wishlist has three hardwaresynths on it.
VsynthGT
Prophet8
Andromeda

[jjdpro]

I totally disagree with your review and accessments on the G. I spent over 4 hours today putting the G8 thru it's paces..All, while a X6 was sitting above the G8 to compare..

First, all of the Detroit -Roseville Pro-Audio staff were very hyped on the G. They were very excited about the product...

Here are my takes on the G..The Rhodes, Grand, Basses/Synth Bass, Leads, PADS, Synths..Are Killer!!! Again, racked up next to the G8 was Motfif XS 8.. No doubt about it, the G's Rhodes are better. The new grands pianos are nice, AND.,Yes, even the old SRX sound sets sound