The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Roland Fantom 6- 7 -8
Old 21st September 2019
  #811
Lives for gear
 
gentleclockdivid's Avatar
 

LOL we now have BMC processors for the fantom , who comes up with these terms ?
I thought 'behavioural modelling '' was reserved for the integra/jupiter 80 , making use of advanced midi scripts for playing techniques (strum , glide etcc) ..

quote from integra release

The Roland Integra-7 is the ultimate sound module! With the development of SuperNATURAL sound and Behavior Modeling technology,

unquote


Also , if all these models are coming for the fantom , what 's the point in getting the jupiter x ( besides the price ) ?
It seems the fantom will be able to do everything that the jup x can do
Old 21st September 2019
  #812
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Apparently it has an “INTEGRA-7 Reverb” too. Some INTEGRA-owners who could tell what is special about it? Just sounds good or what? Big reverb? Clean/transparent or dirty?
Old 21st September 2019
  #813
Lives for gear
 
gentleclockdivid's Avatar
 

Integra reverb is not bad , but it ain't an eventide or vallhalla
The i 7 also suffers from a major routing issue that prevented sns sounds to be totally wet .
The pcm engine doesn't have this issue ( since you can route pre fx into the reverb
Old 21st September 2019
  #814
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid View Post
LOL we now have BMC processors for the fantom , who comes up with these terms ?
I thought 'behavioural modelling '' was reserved for the integra/jupiter 80 , making use of advanced midi scripts for playing techniques (strum , glide etcc) ..

quote from integra release

The Roland Integra-7 is the ultimate sound module! With the development of SuperNATURAL sound and Behavior Modeling technology,

unquote


Also , if all these models are coming for the fantom , what 's the point in getting the jupiter x ( besides the price ) ?
It seems the fantom will be able to do everything that the jup x can do
Well $800 dollars difference in price (for the 5 octave - $1800 for the X-m) is a big deal for a lot of people - so reason enough there. Also the Jupiter X looks to have more real time control. Plus some people will like that design more than the workstation design. But yes, there will be a lot of overlap. Then there may be difference in the sounds as some people have reported. But people wanting the more advanced sequencer and workstation-type features will need to get the Fantom.
Old 21st September 2019
  #815
Lives for gear
 
jjdpro's Avatar
 

I'm going to get an Integra-7. Love the workflow and quick access to my favorite sounds.

But, still feeling a bit down on the Fantom 8. Great promise if Roland continues to develop it. I still think it makes a great front end to any DAW/Live workflow.



Quote:
Originally Posted by studio460 View Post
For those who own one, who's keeping their Integra-7 and also buying a new Fantom?

After thinking about it since its release, I think I've decided to opt-out of getting a new Fantom-7. I simply don't have the space. Trying to fall back in love with my Kronos and Montage again in lieu of getting the Fantom. And, obviously, hanging on to my Fantom-XR/SRX boards and Integra-7 in the meantime.

Initially, I was thinking of selling my Integra-7 and System-8 to help fund a new Fantom. Both are in like-new condition and purchased as "B-stock" (though, they were both actually brand-new), so I wouldn't lose any money. But, I still like both my Kronos and Montage, so I won't be getting rid of either of those (hence, the space problem).

Who's keeping their I7?
Old 21st September 2019
  #816
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
One thing I look forward to is checking out the analog filters. One of the few complaints I had with Fantom G6’s otherwise transparent sound was the filter’s (low pass) extremely digital sound. The range of it went sky high in freqs sounding like an old vsti with bypassed filters. Even a slightly more narrow range could have made it somewhat more “analog” to tweak. In contrast, the digital filter of my MC909 worked fine as just that, because it could make its more raw samples rounded as well as screaming with high res with that signature. Imo, ofc. Now I have analog filters, and unless they have messed up those completely, it cannot go wrong.

Hopefully

Never really knows with Roland but they have my vote of confidence on this.
Old 21st September 2019
  #817
Gear Maniac
 

You know I love this new Fantom, and intend to buy one, but there is one thing I feel they messed up on. That is this concept of the synth operating in just one mode, as opposed to patch, performance, etc. This is really misleading, due to the limitation of the tones being shared among the scenes. So unlike the Yamaha Montage, where everything in a performance is only contained in there, and anything done in that performance doesn't affect any other performances, on the Fantom editing a tone in one scene will affect how it sounds in any other scene it is used in. In other words the whole concept of having everything in one mode - the reason for doing so - is defeated. So while they don't call them different modes, they essentially are different modes. The tone data is separate from the scenes.

Because of this limitation one has to keep track of any tones used in scenes that you are actively using in music and make sure to copy them before editing them to use in a scene for another song. This is so not 2019.

Can't have everything. Other than this and not having 2 insert effects per tone to me it looks like a dream synth. Well I'll correct that and say even with these limitations to me it is still a dream synth, just wish especially the issue I wrote about above wasn't there. Back to keeping a spreadsheet of used tones I guess. At least they included offsets to work around this somewhat.
Old 21st September 2019
  #818
Lives for gear
 
syntonica's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoff View Post
You know I love this new Fantom, and intend to buy one, but there is one thing I feel they messed up on. That is this concept of the synth operating in just one mode, as opposed to patch, performance, etc. This is really misleading, due to the limitation of the tones being shared among the scenes. So unlike the Yamaha Montage, where everything in a performance is only contained in there, and anything done in that performance doesn't affect any other performances, on the Fantom editing a tone in one scene will affect how it sounds in any other scene it is used in. In other words the whole concept of having everything in one mode - the reason for doing so - is defeated. So while they don't call them different modes, they essentially are different modes. The tone data is separate from the scenes.

Because of this limitation one has to keep track of any tones used in scenes that you are actively using in music and make sure to copy them before editing them to use in a scene for another song. This is so not 2019.

Can't have everything. Other than this and not having 2 insert effects per tone to me it looks like a dream synth. Well I'll correct that and say even with these limitations to me it is still a dream synth, just wish especially the issue I wrote about above wasn't there. Back to keeping a spreadsheet of used tones I guess. At least they included offsets to work around this somewhat.
With cheap storage, all they really need to do is save the patches with the project. Very easy fix. Not sure why it wasn't done from the start.

With their new machines with new paradigms, it looks like they are learning as they go.
Old 21st September 2019
  #819
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoff View Post
Because of this limitation one has to keep track of any tones used in scenes that you are actively using in music and make sure to copy them before editing them to use in a scene for another song. This is so not 2019.
You got a point there but then again I remember the bitching over the JD-Xxs because they cannot save the tone (patch) separately from the program, and you have to copy them in from another program to reuse them. On my JP8000, you could do both, but then it could be hard to keep track of which one was the original tone (patch) because you had several modified versions of the same patch spread in several programs, and the one you though was the original was not saved as such. Seems like an ongoing dilemma.
Old 21st September 2019
  #820
Lives for gear
 
gentleclockdivid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Now I have analog filters, and unless they have messed up those completely, it cannot go wrong.

Hopefully

Never really knows with Roland but they have my vote of confidence on this.
You are aware of the fact that the analog filterse are not per voice , iow you won't be able to use them on a partial level , that's where the zen filters come in

ALso the previous fantom g and mc909 have the same (pcm) engine and same filters , there is no audible difference in frequency response / resonance
Old 22nd September 2019
  #821
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid View Post
You are aware of the fact that the analog filterse are not per voice
Yes

Quote:
ALso the previous fantom g and mc909 have the same (pcm) engine and same filters , there is no audible difference in frequency response / resonance
Nope. You are mistaken it for Fantom X, which has the same engine as MC909 and can use the expansion cards accordingly. MC909 has the XV-5050 engine, and this is not compatible with Fantom G’s, which is refined. You cannot use the expansions cards for the G.

Know thy Fantom

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-fantom-g

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-fantom-x
Old 22nd September 2019
  #822
Lives for gear
 
TRSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoff View Post
You know I love this new Fantom, and intend to buy one, but there is one thing I feel they messed up on. That is this concept of the synth operating in just one mode, as opposed to patch, performance, etc. This is really misleading, due to the limitation of the tones being shared among the scenes. So unlike the Yamaha Montage, where everything in a performance is only contained in there, and anything done in that performance doesn't affect any other performances, on the Fantom editing a tone in one scene will affect how it sounds in any other scene it is used in. In other words the whole concept of having everything in one mode - the reason for doing so - is defeated. So while they don't call them different modes, they essentially are different modes. The tone data is separate from the scenes.

Because of this limitation one has to keep track of any tones used in scenes that you are actively using in music and make sure to copy them before editing them to use in a scene for another song. This is so not 2019.

Can't have everything. Other than this and not having 2 insert effects per tone to me it looks like a dream synth. Well I'll correct that and say even with these limitations to me it is still a dream synth, just wish especially the issue I wrote about above wasn't there. Back to keeping a spreadsheet of used tones I guess. At least they included offsets to work around this somewhat.

I think the workflow right now is edit, save the new patch/tone- then use it independently from other scenes. Little more work...
Old 22nd September 2019
  #823
Lives for gear
 
gentleclockdivid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Yes



Nope. You are mistaken it for Fantom X, which has the same engine as MC909 and can use the expansion cards accordingly. MC909 has the XV-5050 engine, and this is not compatible with Fantom G’s, which is the refined. You cannot use the expansions cards for the G.

Know thy Fantom

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-fantom-g

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-fantom-x
I wan't talking about expansion cards
The (pcm) filters are the same in every roland rompler since the xv5080 , and every groovebox since then ,the integra added the VA filters for the sns part and now the zen filters for the new line -up
Old 22nd September 2019
  #824
Lives for gear
 
daviddever's Avatar
Got to try one briefly earlier–keybed is high-quality (a la Jupiter-80) and super quiet. Sound quality is top-notice; it's a shame I don't have a need for an all-in-one workstation.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #825
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid View Post
I wan't talking about expansion cards
The (pcm) filters are the same in every roland rompler since the xv5080 , and every groovebox since then ,the integra added the VA filters for the sns part and now the zen filters for the new line -up
Sir, I owned the MC909 and the G at the same time, and they do not sound anyway near each other. Actually I bought the G cheaply because the seller thought he could use his X programs on the G by virtue of a software converter and trial and error. He had to give up. Your filter theory does not apply unless you want to explain the big differences in sound by osc, env, etc. alone. I do not know what insights you have into Roland gear that make you sure the filters are the same point by point, but I am not reaching suspension of disbelief, so I need more than your word for it.

Quote:
ALso the previous fantom g and mc909 have the same (pcm) engine and same filters , there is no audible difference in frequency response / resonance
This has to be proven, thx.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #826
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
You got a point there but then again I remember the bitching over the JD-Xxs because they cannot save the tone (patch) separately from the program, and you have to copy them in from another program to reuse them. On my JP8000, you could do both, but then it could be hard to keep track of which one was the original tone (patch) because you had several modified versions of the same patch spread in several programs, and the one you though was the original was not saved as such. Seems like an ongoing dilemma.
Oh yea, this issue has definitely been around for a long time. Which is why I figured they would have resolved it, especially with advertising one mode.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #827
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRSC View Post
I think the workflow right now is edit, save the new patch/tone- then use it independently from other scenes. Little more work...
Which we all like to do sometimes, you know build the tones first and then combine into scenes. But it is also so nice and even impertitive sometimes to work in the context of the scene when layering several tones and to hear your edits there, without then having to worry about overwriting things that will mess up other scenes. I mean, one can create a patch that seems perfect, but then could use some adjusting in the context of the scene. I guess that is why they included the offsets. We'll see what depth the offsets go into.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #828
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid View Post
Also , if all these models are coming for the fantom , what 's the point in getting the jupiter x ( besides the price ) ?
Price and a completely synth dedicated control surface. I guess you could say the same thing about the Jupiter Xm, though. But in that case it would be price and compact size/weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
You got a point there but then again I remember the bitching over the JD-Xxs because they cannot save the tone (patch) separately from the program, and you have to copy them in from another program to reuse them.
Related to this, if you come up with, say, a new Rhodes sound you like better than what you'd been using (maybe something based on a new yet-to-released sound update for the board), a common library means you should be able to change one patch, and every setup you had that used that Rhodes sound will now have your new improved Rhodes sound. By storing each component sound completeoy within its own setup, if you wanted to change dozens of setups that included your Rhodes wound, you'd have to manually modify dozens of programs instead of just one. Pros and cons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Not as I get it from my JD-Xi. The supernatural synth part of the engine is modeled and can among other things do PWM, which the PCM part cannot. The PCM engine is a plain rompler.
Supernatural can use short cycle PCM waves in its synth... but the fact that you use a PCM rather than a VA modeled (or true analog) waveform doesn't mean it's a rompler. You can't play back a complete sampled instrument, which is what a rompler does. Instead, the PCM-based synth uses a tiny bit of a sampled sound, and then uses synthesis/programming to generate the rest of the sound. So you'll find that the piano sound (for example) of a JD-XA is pretty unnatural, compared to rompler pianos.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #829
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherscott View Post
Supernatural can use short cycle PCM waves in its synth... but the fact that you use a PCM rather than a VA modeled (or true analog) waveform doesn't mean it's a rompler. You can't play back a complete sampled instrument, which is what a rompler does. Instead, the PCM-based synth uses a tiny bit of a sampled sound, and then uses synthesis/programming to generate the rest of the sound. So you'll find that the piano sound (for example) of a JD-XA is pretty unnatural, compared to rompler pianos.
You know I am from the time when romplers were associated with the introduction of workstations that absolutely were defined by their recycling of short snippets of PCM waveforms the way my JD-Xi and countless others do it. Multisamples were introduced much later with larger memories, so that would not amount to a rompler synt to me, but rather a sampler or sample player. Case is, JD-Xis VA and PCM engines are two different engines sharing filter, envs and so forth. Call them what you like, but I see no reason to consider one basic osc engine a part of the other.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #830
Lives for gear
 
Kraut's Avatar
 

Rompler plays samples, single or multi, from read only memory.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #831
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
You know I am from the time when romplers were associated with the introduction of workstations that absolutely were defined by their recycling of short snippets of PCM waveforms the way my JD-Xi and countless others do it.
Not the same... A rompler could loop its sound, but but the "snippets" are still substantial in length, as in the Korg M1. There is no "artificial" extension of a super-tiny wave. The idea of using only a tiny portion of sampled sound and then using synthesizing/processing to generate the rest actually came later, with the Roland D50. The PCM processing of the SuperNatural Synth is closer to D50 in approach than M1.

Basically this comes down to answering "JD-XA is a really crappy rompler" with "that's because it isn't a rompler at all." ;-) Kind of like saying how the back end of a screwdriver is a really crappy hammer. They share some very basic attributes, but they are fundamentally different in design. If you want a Roland with true rompler capabilities, you'd be much better off with a Juno DS or FA (though the FA *also* includes the SuperNatural synth of the JD-XA... and you can easily tell the "rompler" side of it from the "synth" side of it, even though you can use PCM waves in the synth).

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Call them what you like, but I see no reason to consider one basic osc engine a part of the other.
I don't understand what you're saying there. But JD-Xi has two engines (plus drums):
Digital Synth Tone (SuperNATURAL Synth)
Analog Synth Tone
They are two completely different engines, neither is a part of the other, so if that's what you're saying, I agree. I'm only saying that the Digital side of it still isn't what would typically be considered a rompler, even though it uses PCM tones.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #832
Lives for gear
 
realtrance's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post
Rompler plays samples, single or multi, from read only memory.
Yes und so.......?
Old 22nd September 2019
  #833
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherscott View Post
I don't understand what you're saying there. But JD-Xi has two engines (plus drums):
Digital Synth Tone (SuperNATURAL Synth)
Analog Synth Tone
They are two completely different engines, neither is a part of the other, so if that's what you're saying, I agree. I'm only saying that the Digital side of it still isn't what would typically be considered a rompler, even though it uses PCM tones.

Not exactly, what I am saying is that the digital synt has two engines, one modeled with analog like waveform and the other PCMs. PCMs cannot be PWM'ed but the analog like Pulze waveform can. These two different osc engines are sent through the same filters and envs. Thus they share the rest of the digital engine.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #834
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post
Rompler plays samples, single or multi, from read only memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Multisamples were introduced much later with larger memories, so that would not amount to a rompler synt to me, but rather a sampler or sample player.
As Kraut said, rompler = sample player... but the samples were permanently burned into ROM instead of what most earlier devices did, load samples from floppy or hard drive into RAM in order to play them. But even early models could do "multisampling" -- i.e. you could trigger different samples over different ranges of keys, within a single instrument sound. (And this concept was also extended to being able to trigger different samples on a *single* key, by playing at different velocities.)
Old 22nd September 2019
  #835
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Not exactly, what I am saying is that the digital synt has two engines, one modeled with analog like waveform and the other PCMs. PCMs cannot be PWM'ed but the analog like Pulze waveform can. These two different osc engines are sent through the same filters and envs. Thus they share the rest of the digital engine.
There is a single digital synth engine. That single engine has two kinds of oscillators... modeled analog and PCM. At least that's how Roland would describe it. The fact that a certain function only works on a certain kind of oscillator doesn't mean there's a whole different sound generating engine involved.

Of course, you can call something anything you want, but communication is generally facilitated when people use the same terminology to describe the same things. ;-)
Old 22nd September 2019
  #836
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherscott View Post
There is a single digital synth engine. That single engine has two kinds of oscillators... modeled analog and PCM.
yes, so therefore one should distinguish about which we are talking about and I was talking about the PCM part when you objected way back by mixing them up as far as the digital synth goes.


Quote:
The fact that a certain function only works on a certain kind of oscillator doesn't mean there's a whole different sound generating engine involved.
I did not say it was whole different but that they shared the filters etc. It was you who started the discussion by mixing them up.
Here they are:




Quote:
Of course, you can call something anything you want, but communication is generally facilitated when people use the same terminology to describe the same things. ;-)
You know, this is why I am not into semantics games. I rest my case. There is nothing to disagree about but semantics and that is all yours.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #837
Lives for gear
 
gentleclockdivid's Avatar
 

I tink incanate x is talking about the jdxa and another scott about jdxi .
The jdxi can NOT use the sns synth through it's analog filters , the jdxa can
Old 22nd September 2019
  #838
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
yes, so therefore one should distinguish about which we are talking about and I was talking about the PCM part when you objected way back by mixing them up as far as the digital synth goes.
...
I did not say it was whole different but that they shared the filters etc. It was you who started the discussion by mixing them up.
Here they are:
I'm familiar with the SN Synth engine having modeled and PCM oscillators. I don't remember mixing anything up, I just didn't think it was appropriate to call the SN synth a "rompler" by virtue of it having PCM oscillators... i.e. if someone said "I'd like to buy a rompler" I think they would be disappointed by a JD if their intent was to play what most people think of as rompler sounds (i.e. acoustic instruments).

I think the post you're talking about is #797 , where I said, "JD-XA doesn't really have any rompler functionality, though it does include PCM waves in its supernatural synth section." And I still think that's true, I don't think there is anything "mixed up" there. If by "semantics" you mean we are using the term "rompler" differently, then maybe that's the source of the "mixup." But I wouldn't want someone to read the posts and think they're going to get what most people consider Roland rompler (XV-5080, Fantom/JunoDS/SonicCell, whatever) acoustic instrument sounds out of a JD. That's why the FA has a whole separate bank of sounds that are not SN Synth tones, which cover its acoustic instrument emulations. The JDs do not have an equivalent of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid View Post
I tink incanate x is talking about the jdxa and another scott about jdxi .
The jdxi can NOT use the sns synth through it's analog filters , the jdxa can
Thanks for that info. I do have more familiarity with the XA. But the "rompler vs. not rompler" distinction appears to be the same for both.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #839
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Never mind, guys. Everything is fine. I am about to withdraw from these threads and prepare my mind for the arrival of my new wonder. We will need some time alone to bond and then off we go.

And Roland: You started my venture in electronic with the JP4, my first synth. Now we have come full circle once again. And between the two of us, just for the sake of it, I will give you one thing: Yes, at the end of day, who gives a flying F about a Jupiter 8 when you can have a Fantom.

Old 22nd September 2019
  #840
Lives for gear
 
realtrance's Avatar
 

Enjoy the Fantom, IncarnateX, and don’t give a fig about what others say and think!
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5216 views: 423345
Avatar for alfiedotwtf
alfiedotwtf 9 hours ago
replies: 242 views: 11664
Avatar for grabme
grabme 2 days ago
replies: 3736 views: 199000
Avatar for SFH
SFH 1 minute ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump