Juno-G vs. Fusion (Both @ $1000)

[acoustictones]

So, for about a $1000 why would someone choose one over the other?

Juno-G at American Musical Supply for $995:

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i- ... -juno.html

Alesis Fusion at American Musical Supply for $999-$50 Rebate:

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i- ... usion.html

***See the Alesis Link to read more about the v1.03 update***

Personally: I will most likely not be getting either, but I think that the Juno-G vs. the Fusion for about $1000 is an interesting discussion.

DJ Breckheimer
My music: www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=DJ
My Business: www.YourMLSandMore.com

[wereboar]

Hmmm, if the fusion retails for the same prace of a Juno-G, I'd get the Fusion 10 times

Too bad in Italy it is VERY expensive, I was almost going to buy it, but they asked something like 2500€ for the 88 key...

[lavis]

The Fusion demosongs sound pretty horrible.. Don't know what music you like to do, but for rap, r-n-b and stuff like that Alesis products have exactly nothing to offer.

[Artemiy]

I'd go for the Juno-G anyday because [1] it bases on the sound engine which has been in development since 1990 [2] the user interface is way much easy to use and logical.

[Radek]

Yes I agree too...

The Fusion is certainly more capable synth wise but from usability standpoint Juno-G should be far better. The Roland's GUI in synths are best imho.

[sambasevam]

I'd go for the Fusion. I've played one in person.

1). It has 4 synth engines. Juno has only one.
2). Has a 40 gig hdd.
3). Sounds are easily expandable. You can load soundfonts (thru the free conversion software alesis provides)
4). Better upgrades/updates : Alesis is a fantastic company especially with the Fusion, they've been churning out updates by the week.

5). 88 note GH version available.
6). Physical modelling brings some realism with woodwinds.
7). Mod matrix - VERY powerful.

Cons :
1). Design takes some getting used to
2). 88 keybed version - not the best in the world.
3). There's a way to change this i think, but when i tried changing sample-based patches, it said "loading patch. please wait" for less than a second, every time i turned the dial.

BTW, imho, the fusions gui is not bad at all. Its very workable.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you dont succeed, then skydiving is definitively not for you.

[Radek]

"I'd go for the Fusion. I've played one in person.

1). It has 4 synth engines. Juno has only one."

Every rompler is basically substractive synth with pcm based oscillators. Roland is even better at that bacause of its structures in the synth patch. So Juno-G has really 2 "synth engines" and only real advantage for the Fussion here is the FM. Physical modeling can be interesting but it's nothing what can not be substituted with decent samples. Unless of course you are into experimenting or have a breath controller.

"2). Has a 40 gig hdd".

Doesn't matter much. I prefer flash based drives because they are smaller, totally quiet, almost invulnerable to shock and big enough.

"3). Sounds are easily expandable. You can load soundfonts (thru the free conversion software alesis provides)"

Yes but how many samples you can load into Fussion? It has only 64MB of flash ram for it (Alesis said there will be 128MB upgrade available, is it?). And what about the stock multisamples then?
This isn't clear for me (and Alesis person couldn't answer it to me clearly) how all those samples get managed?

And the flash memory for sample storage in Fussion - what is it exactly? Does it wear off after certain number of write cycles like other flash memories do?

"4). Better upgrades/updates : Alesis is a fantastic company especially with the Fusion, they've been churning out updates by the week."

That can be good and bad. Someone might prefer to get something solid enough from the start and don't worry with constant upgrades/fixes and changes."

"5). 88 note GH version available."

It's quite compact!

I don't know why most companies fail at making smaller synths with more keys. Yamaha's Motifes are far to big even with 61 versions...

"6). Physical modelling brings some realism with woodwinds.
7). Mod matrix - VERY powerful."

Interesting but not for everyone.

"Cons :
1). Design takes some getting used to"

As with every new synth.

"2). 88 keybed version - not the best in the world."

It is supposedly to be more like semi-weighted one. It could be plus for me actually.

"3). There's a way to change this i think, but when i tried changing sample-based patches, it said "loading patch. please wait" for less than a second, every time i turned the dial."

So it's constantly reloading the sample memory at every patch change because it could not load whole sample set at once?

Is there a definite answer how really sample management works in Fussion? I'm very confused about that.

"BTW, imho, the fusions gui is not bad at all. Its very workable."

I think so too but Roland's ones are better for my taste.

And Juno-G might get firmware upgrades too (once Roland will get rid of Xa). After all technically it's not different than FantomX. You can add one SRX card already to it and perhaps the multisample ram capability will get unblocked too.

The Juno-G has also D-Beam and is far lighter than Fussion 6HD
(6.2kg against 13.8kg) and somewhat more compact in depth.

[randelph]

decisions, decisions. even though this is referencing the x7 and not the Juo-G, i'm posting it here because the juno vs fusion comparison is what started this whole line of thought.

I’ve been saving to buy an x7 through ebay, can get in around $1.5-1.7k, which is steep for me but worth it if it's THE ONE. Hadn’t even been seriously considering the Fusion until their dramatic price drop and OS update, and now it’s given me pause for thought.

i want one keyboard that I’ve poured my time/effort into that satisfies at home and at gigs, is not too heavy, has user friendly onboard editing and is performance capable/friendly. I find I end up spending countless hours tweaking patches, setting up multi-timbral set-ups, etc., so whatever board I have is as much an investment of time/energy as it is money.

I’ve been pretty sold on the whole fantom concept, especially the big emphasis on being user friendly, as well as the pads, the large color display, the fact they have a 76 note version, some degree of computer editing/librarian; and the onboard audio recording definitely sweetens the pie.

the one thing I’m really hesitant on though is that it uses usb 1.1. and has no hd. If I want to load several songs I’m working on from the computer or recordings I’ve made from the band I’m in, even if they’re on an onboard Flash card, the load times are REALLY SLOW, USB 1.1. I’ve read a bunch of the user comments, and there's no way around it- loading large samples into memory is a drag.


The shoot-out here is between the Fusion 88 key, and the Fantom 76 key, 61 keys doesn't cut it for me.

Fantom:
Pluses: Looks cool, has those great pads, a decent librarian / editor, weighs only 30 pounds, extra large color display, the whole system tweaked for friendliness, expandability of soundz, some audio track recording capability, smart features like skip back sampling and easy assignability of just about anything to pads, mature system from a company that’s been building workstations for years

Cons: USB 1.1, slow sample load times, recording capability linked to sample memory and not h.d., more expensive, adding new wave data requires expensive boards

Fusion
Pluses: Open-ended system, unlimited expandability of new sounds that can be loaded into Wave RAM; less expensive than Fantom; built in hard drive with true h.d. recording to 8 separate tracks; 4 synthesis types; uses usb 2, fast loading times; high polyphony

Cons: heavy, weighs 60 pounds; less mature product, far less experience in workstation keyboards; no editor / librarian; no pads or other alternative expression controllers (like D beam or ribbon); looks like a toy; expandability of Flash RAM is $200 and requires service work by Alesis to install this option.

===========================
As excited as I can get at the prospect of all the amazing sounds that the fusion is capable of generating because of it’s easily updated OS and wave data, powerful synthesis engines, sample converters, etc.; as well as having a true 8 track hard disk recorder on board, songs that will play off the hard drive and not have to be loaded into sample memory

- as exciting as all that is, with some of the features like the HD recording seeming like must-have features; still, I’m leaning towards the Roland.

Being on the realistic side, how much time am I willing to invest in these fantastic synthesis modes? Knowing myself, and how slow all of that goes, I’m willing to trade some of that possibility for user and live performance friendliness, as well as the pads, and even the D beam (an unknown quantity- will I actually use it?) and all the smart ways Roland has made it a satisfying, integrated playing experience (which I’ve come to understand from reading what others have written about it).

All of this makes me lean towards the Fantom X7. That and the fact that the Fusion 8HD is twice the weight. The two things i would regret the most in this purchase is no h.d. recorder and having to deal with USB 1.1

Whaddayatink?

Here’s a link to a review of the fusion with the latest OS- sounds like most of the bugs have been worked out and the patches are really good now-

www.carbon111.com/fusion.html

[Diametro]

Fusion vs. Juno-G: Fusion

Fusion vs. Fantom X7: X7. What I like about the X7 -- I have one -- is that it's a FLAGSHIP instrument. Quality, solid, sounds great, ready to go, and still expandable. The Fusion is exciting, but the Fantom is about being the best ROMpler becuase it's Roland making the sounds, doing the programming. It's not the be-all and end-all in synthesis, but the Fantom X7 is something special.

The Fusion is more like an amazing test run.

But then again, I really like Alesis. I have a Micron and love it almost as much as my Fantom.

But now that I finally have some other synths, it's still the Fantom I find myself coming back to -- almost forcing myself to use the other synths.

The Fantom isn't perfect, but it's very well integrated, and in the hands of someone who knows hiow to use it, sounds great. (BTW, I have the SRX-06 Orchestral Collection, and truly it's a classic. A must have for any Fantom owner inclined in that arena, and something that truly sets the Fantom apart from other workstations because these samples just sound great IN THE MIX.)

But the Fusion is butt-ugly -- I find the Fantom stunning in its -- hate to call it this -- but it's macho simplicity esp. in comparison to the Fusion's wind-swept look and its cheapy faux-chrome knobs.

The Fantom is a tactile pleasure while the Fusion is a bit offensive in that regard, which is odd because my Micron is also a tactile delight ('cept for da keys -- but I play it alot using MIDI from my Novation X-Station25 which has a keybed almost as nice as the Fantom X7, which is certainly among the best on synths today.).

But the Fusion has A LOT of features over the Fantom -- 8 track HD recording! HD sample libraries -- 4 synthesis types.

But other than that, it doesn't have many performance features, which is what really sets a board apart. Of course, with the Fantom, it's the pads. With Fantom owners, first you want to like the pads, and when they actually meet your expectations, you love them.)

As much as I like the idea of d-beam, I still haven't gotten around to really using it yet -- though I'm not sorry it's on there.

However, skip back sampling becomes a way of life once you've gotten used to it ... I just wish it recorded even longer than 40 seconds ...

To me, I could never get a Fusion as my main synth because it's only 61 or 88 keys. I'm a sucker for 76. 88 is crazy big and 61 is just not enough keys if you're going to town on the piano.

Which is another strike against the Fusion. I've gotten very used to The Fantom X's UltimatGrand, and that's one area where the Fusion just can't compete. (In fact, in a recent comparison of sampled pianos on Harmony Central, the Fantom X piano patch was the highest-rated of the workstations (although the Motif ES piano patch wasn't resprsented, but people say it's brittle anyway). Maybe someday they'll have a better piano. It's very possible with the HD sample library (truly a terrific feature).

The other thing is that sure the Fusion has Virtual Analog built in- which is good, but without all the knobs and sliders, it's not so good. So if you get a Fusion, you get VA, which you don't on the Fantom, but are you really going to settle on your ONLY VA with no knobs and sliders. (That's why I have the X-Station 25 -- getting an A-Station to double the polyphony).

So you're going to end up buying another synth anyway, if VA is important to you.

But either way, it's not what you have but what you do with it.

I think the Fusion is the slightly more exciting product from a spec view-point.

But when it comes right down to it, I think you'll enjoy USING the Fantom more (the pads, which I use ALOT, the big color screen is truly great to use -- and I'm glad it's not a touch screen -- one less thing to break.

As for the Juno-G, I still think it's a neat board, but the main thing to keep in mind, it's not a sampler. NO SKIP BACK SAMPLING. You can record audio tracks, yes, and that's really great, but that's as far as it goes.

So if all I had to spend was $999, I'd go with the Fusion, esp. if sampling was important. If it's not, though, that may be something you can live without.

Again, it's the Roland sound and name that's the ticket here.

But the Juno-G and Fantom X are not really that comparable. The Fantom is much more solid and quality.

In my mind the Juno-G is just another good-if-not-great-sounding synth while the Fantom is an instrument for the ages. You will always be able to fire it up and WANT to make some great sounding music.

I just wonder when Roland is going to do something dramatic with the Fatnom line, though. Is this the final evolution of the workstation ROMPpler?

Or are we going to see more stuff like the $2k Neko, which is a very compelling product if you don't need alot of keys.

I'd actually prefer a two-octave version of the Fusion, cause once you have a big board, you can play any of your synths from it. Your rig can only occupy so much space, I'd rather spend it on more DIFFERENT synthesizers than just bigger ones.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic ...

Oh ... one more thing .. about the slow load times, yes, it's true, and a little annoying, but the truth is, it's workable ... anyway, I have a laptop, and if I was going to do anything with long samples, I'd probably use that anyway.

It's probably the biggest thing Roland needs to "fix" with the Fantom X, but truly, that feature is not an area where I find I spend too much time when actually using/perming with the Fantom.

And anyway, Fantom is 1000x coller a name than Fusion. What is it a car, a drink. Too trendy, like last year trendy.

[randelph]

Diametronics,

Wow, I'm impressed, that's a lot of good info/insight- exactly what i was asking, what's it's like on the ground, does it inspire for music making-

Though you have to admit, not owning a Fusion, you're probably a bit biased- I've heard various things from some Fusion owners, esp. with the new OS update and soundz, that it's a reasonably "friendly" synth.

I guess it's where you're at in the life-cycle of these boards- i've been buying boards since the early 80's and am blown away with the quality these days- i get so inspired by the soundz.

So on some level i know i'd probably be satisfied with either one of these boards for the all important sound quality- but then it's a matter of:

? Does the interface inspire more than it hinders? Being able to easily tweak individual voices and then blend them with others across the keyboard is the GOD POWER of owning a pro syyth (that and a good sound system); but it does get very tedious, i'm very big on having the smart controls that make you more of a sound designer than a sound programmer.

? Are the more techinical aspects, like sequencing / recording / arpeggios / sampling / phrase sequences / etc. implemented in a throughtful, performance friendly way?

I pretty much agree with most everything you said-

thanks,
Randelph

[Diametro]

I've been using the Fusion often at GC. I like it (although I seem to like it more when I'm just thinking about it -- like now.)

And in fact, I would get one almost as much just to be different. It's to the Fantom X as the Fantom was to the Motif and Triton. A breath of fresh air. But it's amazing how many people have gotten/are getting one.

Unfortunately, the Fusion just doesn't cut it in several inspirational areas. A lot of it is aesthetics, but an instrument
should inspire the hands, ears, eyes and mind.

In that, the Fantom delivers while I think the Fusion makes unfortunate compromises that hinder a great sound engine and feature set from being a great musical instrument.

That's the dif between the two.

I think the follow-up to the Fusion is going to be the one to get.

. . . . . . .

as far as most of the features on the Fantom; they are generally full-features, generally sophisticated, easy-to-use and in a way just a little different from the other guys to make it worth having and using. That goes for just about everything: the arp (one? why? my micron can do 8 or send even more out through midi) ... but then again, it's a good one, if you knwo what I mean; sequencer, check; audio track recording, check.

Although there is a bit of a learning curve involved to do it "the Roland way." Even with the screen. It's worth it, though.

[analog_]

Hey Diametro!
Your comments had given full inspiration to me.
Were you dreaming in front of your Fantom X7 when you wrote that message?
Maybe you typed the Text on the Fantom PADS and sent it over Midi into your Computer?
You wrote...

""Fusion vs. Juno-G: Fusion

Fusion vs. Fantom X7: X7. What I like about the X7 -- I have one -- is that it's a FLAGSHIP instrument. Quality, solid, sounds great, ready to go, and still expandable. The Fusion is exciting, but the Fantom is about being the best ROMpler becuase it's Roland making the sounds, doing the programming. It's not the be-all and end-all in synthesis, but the Fantom X7 is something special.

The Fusion is more like an amazing test run.
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
And anyway, Fantom is 1000x coller a name than Fusion. What is it a car, a drink. Too trendy, like last year trendy.""

Im excited, I want GO HOME just to have MY Fantom in front of me (now im at work).

Yam TX816, SY77, TG77; Kurz PC88; Rol Jv2080, VS1680, Fantom X6; Event 20/20; and my old MPC2000XL returned as midi MASTER

[lhm1138]

Sambasven, is there a manual online for it yet? I'm curious as to what kind of sample format Fusion can load, as I get tired of using software to do multisamples with. Plus it'd be nice to have a big controller keyboard and extra synthesis options.