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

[Trell Blaze]

Roland's latest workstation. Looks like the Korg M3 lit a bit of a fire under Roland...

Roland U.S. - Fantom-G8: Workstation Keyboard

[elambo]

Wow, I'm incredibly unimpressed... I've been a Fantom follower since the 1st one, but this is nothing new or interesting. Maybe the feel of the keyboard will be good, but otherwise this doesn't do anything for me. Seems to pale in comparison to software synths and several other hardware keyboards.

[Trell Blaze]

As a Fantom X user (it has it's pros and cons) I agree.

About the only thing I got excited about is that Roland finally turned out some guitar patches that exceed Nintendo (the old ones...lol) quality.

They seem to be stuck on the old JV style which is not bad. A classic soundset actually, but how many times can you revamp the damn thing?

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

They seem to be stuck on the old JV style which is not bad. A classic soundset actually, but how many times can you revamp the damn thing?

Yep!

I like the JV sounds, but I liked them more 10 years ago. I was hoping that this would be an evolutionary step forward for that sound set, but judging by this demo it's definitely not.

[BenJah]

I just don't get keyboards these days. What year is this again? This keyboard has 256megs of ram... What gives?

For $40 I can buy a 4 gig USB stick MP3 player. That has 16 times the memory capacity of this keyboard. It's obviously not the price of memory thats holding them back...

Excuse the rant but I just can't see the reason to put out a 256 meg keyboard when the average computer based sample sets are measured in gigabytes.

[Trell Blaze]

I don't know if the reason is to help the computer hardware companies out or not, but you have to expand the memory in most keyboards yourself these days. If it comes with 250mb then it's likely expandable to 1.5 or 2 gigs.

[Watersound]

Originally Posted by BenJah

I just don't get keyboards these days. What year is this again? This keyboard has 256megs of ram... What gives?

For $40 I can buy a 4 gig USB stick MP3 player. That has 16 times the memory capacity of this keyboard. It's obviously not the price of memory thats holding them back...

Excuse the rant but I just can't see the reason to put out a 256 meg keyboard when the average computer based sample sets are measured in gigabytes.

This is something I don't get either, make no sense. You're paying thousands of dollars to get that?

[elambo]

Originally Posted by BenJah

I just don't get keyboards these days. What year is this again? This keyboard has 256megs of ram... What gives?

And this is what's limiting their sounds - ROM efficiency. They've downsamples their patches so that they can all fit inside the keyboard's ROM, or at least they've strongly limited the number of velocity layers, but why? As you've said, memory is cheap, so why not give it several gig of ROM and fill it up with great sounding patches? The Korg Oasys has done this and it shows. Great sounding keyboard.

[Trell Blaze]

It's mostly marketing I'm sure. This would be appealing to the average consumer: "OVER 1,223,230,222 PATCHES!!! The most powerful synth EVER!!"

Nevermind how thin or weak they sound. There's a shitload of em!! Now I can make thousands of crappy sounding songs before I get bored with this synth!!

[Trell Blaze]

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if, in a few years, they start creating synths using mp3 samples. Think of how many outdated presets you'd have at your disposal then!!

[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?

[Alécio Costa]

I have the Fantom XA and a JV1010. I used the XP80/JV880 for a long time also.
I was very disappointed with the Fantom XA. Lots of DJ stuff, etc. But I find the JV soundset 1010 ( a ripped off JV2080) much more useful.

[epp]

Software synths suck balls.

[deuc647]

Originally Posted by BenJah

I just don't get keyboards these days. What year is this again? This keyboard has 256megs of ram... What gives?

For $40 I can buy a 4 gig USB stick MP3 player. That has 16 times the memory capacity of this keyboard. It's obviously not the price of memory thats holding them back...

Excuse the rant but I just can't see the reason to put out a 256 meg keyboard when the average computer based sample sets are measured in gigabytes.

Are u guys for real? u dont know why hardware is not like software? First hardware has loop points so that they can hold the key and play, not a sample of a man/woman playing a violin for x amount of seconds. its a lot to do with sound design and a lot less to do with multisampling. Dont get me wrong, multisampling works better for somethings but nothing can compare to a good quality keyboard (kurzweil). Do some research on GS and one of the main sound designers for yamaha roland emu and korg was here talkin about it

[steff3]

Well,

the way some people compare software and hardware sample-players is quite interesting and bizarr.

I also think that the new ARX-boards look quite interesting - and if you calculate a sample library, a sample-player, a computer with everything - well, that is not exactly what I would call more affordable (not to speak of reliability). I came across enough big Libraries that are weak, not to mention that for live performance they are just to natural sounding.

and streaming from USB-sticks or whatever this was meant to say - quite an interesting application.

best

[BenJah]

Are u guys for real? u dont know why hardware is not like software? First hardware has loop points so that they can hold the key and play, not a sample of a man/woman playing a violin for x amount of seconds. its a lot to do with sound design and a lot less to do with multisampling. Dont get me wrong, multisampling works better for somethings but nothing can compare to a good quality keyboard (kurzweil). Do some research on GS and one of the main sound designers for yamaha roland emu and korg was here talkin about it

Sorry but I have to completely disagree with you here.

The reason hardware uses loop points is in order to save space. Now that's really crucial given the typical memory size of a modern keyboard. Now I've used good quality (expensive) keyboards and have yet to hear anything anywhere near approaching good quality software multi samples. This is especially apparent with piano patches. The only thing nice keyboads have going for them is that their often nice to play.

The fact is, keyboard production is trapped in a 90's time warp. There is simply no valid excuse for offering a 256meg joke of a sample set. Especially for the prices they charge.
"one of the main sound designers for yamaha roland emu and korg " may disagree with this but he has a vested interest in doing that.

You are right about sound design playing a big part in how good a patch sounds. There are some truly stunning multi sampled software libaries available that are genuinely on a different level to those sounds available on a standard modern keyboard. They make use of not only good sound design, but great big beautifully recorded samples.

The time truly seems ripe for an upstart company to release a keyboard with a decent sound set (both size and quality).With any luck it just might wipe out all these 90's paradigm based dinosaur corporates.

End of rant

[dylansmale]

Originally Posted by BenJah

I just don't get keyboards these days. What year is this again? This keyboard has 256megs of ram... What gives?

For $40 I can buy a 4 gig USB stick MP3 player. That has 16 times the memory capacity of this keyboard. It's obviously not the price of memory thats holding them back...

Excuse the rant but I just can't see the reason to put out a 256 meg keyboard when the average computer based sample sets are measured in gigabytes.

lol. a hard drive (your usb flash memory of 4 gigs) uses different memory than ram. the technology also differs in size and recourses. You can't really even compare the the two on any level what so ever.

[dylansmale]

i heard this product is well rounded in the suck section. I played it and didn't really care for a lot of the samples. It would be nice to have in a low budget studio, but I don't care for all the software jarggin it encompasses

[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.

I could loop a 4 bar groove and create an 8 track song scrolling from tons on instruments in minutes on a workstation. After clicking and waiting for the right patch to load on a computer I'm already bored! Spontaniety is what music is about for a lot of people, so the faster you can call up patches the better.

Also, ergonomics is a key factor with workstations. They are designed soley for creating music so you generally are only a finger away from all your functions.

Finally, the sound engine is ridiculously powerful if you know how to program. 4 stereo layers per patch with filters/asdr/filter envelope/analog feel/random playback etc.. and can work with any sample. Plus integrated sample editing etc.. the list goes on.

It's expensive yes, but so is an aston martin... But there is a reason for an aston martin just like there is a reason for the Fantom. You've just got to open your mind a little.. I'm not saying it's better than logic/mac combo etc.. just that it serves a different purpose and some people appreciate that more than others..

[BenJah]

At the end of the day, the patches don't sound that good. In Fact they sound fake and sterile. The technology does (and has been around for quite some time) exist to provide a far larger and superior soundset without the load times associated with soft samplers.

Why hasn't it been implemented??

[elambo]

Originally Posted by BenJah

At the end of the day, the patches don't sound that good. In Fact they sound fake and sterile. The technology does (and has been around for quite some time) exist to provide a far larger and superior soundset without the load times associated with soft samplers.

Why hasn't it been implemented??

Now that's thinking on the grander and more relevant scale! The bar talk jibber jaber in this thread about loop points and available memory, etc. are just excuse to help justify old technology. The plain truth is that musicians are looking more to their computers for sounds and less at hardware keyboards and I've been waiting for companies like Yamaha and Roland to make some changes to keep up. This latest Fantom doesn't include any groundbreaking changes that I can see.

I played a Korg Oasys a while ago and it's the first time I've felt an evolution of any sort from keyboards in quite a while.

[Trell Blaze]

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.

I could loop a 4 bar groove and create an 8 track song scrolling from tons on instruments in minutes on a workstation. After clicking and waiting for the right patch to load on a computer I'm already bored! Spontaniety is what music is about for a lot of people, so the faster you can call up patches the better.

Also, ergonomics is a key factor with workstations. They are designed soley for creating music so you generally are only a finger away from all your functions.

Finally, the sound engine is ridiculously powerful if you know how to program. 4 stereo layers per patch with filters/asdr/filter envelope/analog feel/random playback etc.. and can work with any sample. Plus integrated sample editing etc.. the list goes on.

It's expensive yes, but so is an aston martin... But there is a reason for an aston martin just like there is a reason for the Fantom. You've just got to open your mind a little.. I'm not saying it's better than logic/mac combo etc.. just that it serves a different purpose and some people appreciate that more than others..

So convienience is more important to you than how it sounds? No wonder the sound quality is going backwards in music nowadays.

I've owned my Fantom X for about 3 years. I've done great things with it and it's the center of my studio because, quite frankly, it's all I've got.

That said, it simply DOESN'T SOUND THAT GOOD. Period. Convienent? Hell yea. I've never come across a board that was easier to get around. Editing is simply brilliant. But at the end of the day I'd rather take the long way around with something that sounds GREAT than take shortcuts with something that sounds PRETTY GOOD.

The Korg M3 (and pretty much all their other synths) simply blow Roland out of the water in terms of sound quality. Software synths beat them all.

I guess if you perfer shortcuts then the Fantom G is perfect for you but I'd only use it as a secondary unit if I could afford to do so...

[Trell Blaze]

By the way, the convience is pretty much null and void when you have to double the effort to make up for thin and lifeless sound.

On a side note I recently hooked up my old Roland XV 5050 and compared it to my Fantom X. To my surprise the old XV was WAAAY more lush and full sounding than the newer "improved sound engine" of my Fantom X. Go figure...

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

On a side note I recently hooked up my old Roland XV 5050 and compared it to my Fantom X. To my surprise the old XV was WAAAY more lush and full sounding than the newer "improved sound engine" of my Fantom X. Go figure...

I think I know what you're talking about. The X stuff sounds a little MP3-ish in comparison. A little hard to describe, but it's true there is a difference.

[steff3]

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

So convienience is more important to you than how it sounds?

no, it is not - it is as important as sound quality.

Originally Posted by Trell Blaze

No wonder the sound quality is going backwards in music nowadays.
.

yes, for software libraries - whereas the hardware definitely sounds better than the precedents ....

I hardly know any piano library that would cut through in a stage situation - of course it depends on the style of music, etc.

I have never had problems with my K26 or have heard of problems of Roland users that this thing crashes and blows your ears away. All the DC-bs lately in software land really is ridiculous. are they not able to test sufficiently or can' t they. And of course the hardware has it much easier - it the soft-devs chose that by themselves - so no reason or excuse to deliver that semi-bakes, buggy and unreliable stuff they do since a couple of years.

I remember someone whining on a forum that he is not able to use a specific soft-sampler in an interactive installation because it will not function of a minimum of time without failure - and therefore losing a contract. the probability that this had happened with hardware is pretty much neglectable according to my experience.

As the others said - hardware is not better or worse in general - it has different purpose. Use what you fits you best.

best

[elambo]

Originally Posted by steff3

no, it is not - it is as important as sound quality.



yes, for software libraries - whereas the hardware definitely sounds better than the precedents ....

I hardly know any piano library that would cut through in a stage situation - of course it depends on the style of music, etc.

I have never had problems with my K26 or have heard of problems of Roland users that this thing crashes and blows your ears away. All the DC-bs lately in software land really is ridiculous. are they not able to test sufficiently or can' t they. And of course the hardware has it much easier - it the soft-devs chose that by themselves - so no reason or excuse to deliver that semi-bakes, buggy and unreliable stuff they do since a couple of years.

I remember someone whining on a forum that he is not able to use a specific soft-sampler in an interactive installation because it will not function of a minimum of time without failure - and therefore losing a contract. the probability that this had happened with hardware is pretty much neglectable according to my experience.

As the others said - hardware is not better or worse in general - it has different purpose. Use what you fits you best.

best

This is almost too surprising to comment on. I would have expected this 4 years ago, but not with the current crop of software synths. Maybe in pop music, where the sound quality of a given instrument doesn't matter so much, outboard synths will hold up, but nearly all sound like toys when compared to the really good software synths. As someone who has invested a ton of money in keyboards, it's not easy to admit, but undeniably true. I think it's better to take advantage of this newer stuff than to call it witchcraft.

[steff3]

Originally Posted by elambo

This is almost too surprising to comment on. I would have expected this 4 years ago, but not with the current crop of software synths. Maybe in pop music, where the sound quality of a given instrument doesn't matter so much, outboard synths will hold up, but nearly all sound like toys when compared to the really good software synths. As someone who has invested a ton of money in keyboards, it's not easy to admit, but undeniably true. I think it's better to take advantage of this newer stuff than to call it witchcraft.

What are software-synths for you? Zebra, Absynth, Massive and suchlike or sample-players aka Kontakt etc.?

Accordingly you should also compare that to the hardware. Fantom is a sample-player, V-synth (e.g.) is a synth.

Personally I have some highly rated softsynth (Massive, Absynth, Zebra) and some good hardware-synth (K26, Prophet T8). My experience with softsynth is - often the filters are IMO worse than that of hardware synth and also the low end sounds sound very grainy - which is not the case with my hardware.

For the sample playerVSTis - well, I do not find them reliable enough that I would use them on stage (except exs). for studio they are great.

The piano samples that came with Kontakt 2 - they are huge compared to hardware but to my ears they sound - well, nothing special and I would prefer a recent Roland or Kawai hardware. Sure there are heavyweight sample libraries and players.

Next, hardware is - well hardware - the price is not just the samples but also the hardware.

To me it always appeared that romplers are more reliable than samplers (hardware) which is still more reliable than software-samplers.

For synths I think - best current analog synth is Minimax and maybe the Moogs, and best digital synths are V-Synth, Absynth, Zebra.

Well, about toys - I do not know - to me many acclaimed softsynth sound like faked, doped synths that miss basement. But that is personal taste.


just my two cents :)

[A-List]

im sick of my software crashing and load times for patches.. cant wait to try this new Fantom.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by A-List

im sick of my software crashing and load times for patches.. cant wait to try this new Fantom.

Which software is crashing?

[pabloman]

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