NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Radek - nice take on the "G". Your comments may have come just at the right time to prevent this thread from going too negative. Although I can't agree with "much better than MotifXS or Korg M3. Actually perhaps even better than Oasys in many regards.", nevertheless it's nice to have some variety in opinion. I for one will consider your comments well.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
The only defence I can come up with regarding the 128 Tracks v 128 Poly is that the 128 tracks are not intended exclusive for internal voices and you can assign half of them or more to external devices.
Where as at the moment you have 16 track and 16 channles, which if you assign any to external play you loose a track to play internaly.
So is that it?
-1) a change from srx to Arx (making your srx obsolete)
+2) usb (storage/audio?)
+3) more mfx
+4) 24 audio track (can/could have been done with the X)
What is the file management like?
same as X?(forget it, its not worth the bother)
Is there realy any thing here that is strikingly inovative?
to put the X out of bussiness?
The only prediction here is, they will stop production of the X in favour of the G
So no more support for the X
Where as at the moment you have 16 track and 16 channles, which if you assign any to external play you loose a track to play internaly.
So is that it?
-1) a change from srx to Arx (making your srx obsolete)
+2) usb (storage/audio?)
+3) more mfx
+4) 24 audio track (can/could have been done with the X)
What is the file management like?
same as X?(forget it, its not worth the bother)
Is there realy any thing here that is strikingly inovative?
to put the X out of bussiness?
The only prediction here is, they will stop production of the X in favour of the G
So no more support for the X
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
I think the "G" will price out significantly higher than the "X", and thus the two models will stay in production. Like Korg did with the Triton.
Regarding 128 tracks, I've never seen the need for so many. Unless you're doing some type of orchestral mock-up or something. And at that point you'd be using a computer anyway.
I would have been happy with half the tracks and twice the polyphony, although that decision would certainly have made the unit more expensive. That's okay. I'd rather pay for something great than save on something only nearly great.
Regarding 128 tracks, I've never seen the need for so many. Unless you're doing some type of orchestral mock-up or something. And at that point you'd be using a computer anyway.
I would have been happy with half the tracks and twice the polyphony, although that decision would certainly have made the unit more expensive. That's okay. I'd rather pay for something great than save on something only nearly great.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
"The only defence I can come up with regarding the 128 Tracks v 128 Poly is that the 128 tracks are not intended exclusive for internal voices and you can assign half of them or more to external devices. " YEP - spot on
Roland have concentrated far more on the 'production' side of this workstation than the sound engine/synthesis side. There is an argument which suggests the new ARX plug in cards SHOULD have been incorporated as the new sound engine, which you can still add too via additonal plug in cards.
Having no new wave ROM as currently indicated is poor - since there won't be any new material to work with. Hence if you're already kitted up with some SRX cards you'll just get a duplication of patches.
Roland have concentrated far more on the 'production' side of this workstation than the sound engine/synthesis side. There is an argument which suggests the new ARX plug in cards SHOULD have been incorporated as the new sound engine, which you can still add too via additonal plug in cards.
Having no new wave ROM as currently indicated is poor - since there won't be any new material to work with. Hence if you're already kitted up with some SRX cards you'll just get a duplication of patches.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
For my needs this all looks like a big step in the right direction.
Excellent - Live Mode/Effects, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Of course it all depends upon implementation but achieving anything close to this is a bit of a pain on the X. The quote from Jordan Rudess (OK so if you get a free one youv'e got to say something good about it): "When I perform on a keyboard I need to be able to cycle through many layered and split patches. Roland has reached a new musical height with their Live Module. No matter how complex a Live Mode patch and its effects happen to be, I’m now able to seamlessly change from one big layered or split patch to the next, without any interruption in the sound. This is the first keyboard instrument to make this dream of mine come true."
Excellent - The ARX expansions also sound interesting, much more flexible than SRX - sounds like no reason they couldn't do a 'virtual analog' expansion for more fun in the future. Personally for me I would hope for a 'modelled organ' expansion, Please:). Look how many people with Motifs are moaning about Yamaha's decision to drop the PLG boards.
Indifferent - As far as ROM sample size, for me I don't see this as an issue. I already think the Fantom sounds are really good. How much better can they get. The SRX board sounds to me are just different, but not necessarily better. Certainly live in mix I cannot tell the difference between the Fantom and a Giga sample on my laptop.
Not so Good - I am slightly dissapointed the G doesn't retain some SRX slots, so that we can use our top two favorites, for example (wouldn't want waste an ARX slot even if they were compatible).
Excellent - Looks like the G probably keeps backwards compatibilty with the X patches. We already know it sounds good:)
Excellent - Bigger Screen, could it ever be two big:)
Indifferent - Polophony, I cannot play that many notes anyway:), and the audio tracks make up for any shorfall here. Maybe if you work differently it's a problem.
Not so Good - Weight, both the G6 and G7 are a few pounds heavier.
Wait and See - File storage/manager, loading times etc.
This new G certainly floats my boat.
Paul.
Excellent - Live Mode/Effects, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Of course it all depends upon implementation but achieving anything close to this is a bit of a pain on the X. The quote from Jordan Rudess (OK so if you get a free one youv'e got to say something good about it): "When I perform on a keyboard I need to be able to cycle through many layered and split patches. Roland has reached a new musical height with their Live Module. No matter how complex a Live Mode patch and its effects happen to be, I’m now able to seamlessly change from one big layered or split patch to the next, without any interruption in the sound. This is the first keyboard instrument to make this dream of mine come true."
Excellent - The ARX expansions also sound interesting, much more flexible than SRX - sounds like no reason they couldn't do a 'virtual analog' expansion for more fun in the future. Personally for me I would hope for a 'modelled organ' expansion, Please:). Look how many people with Motifs are moaning about Yamaha's decision to drop the PLG boards.
Indifferent - As far as ROM sample size, for me I don't see this as an issue. I already think the Fantom sounds are really good. How much better can they get. The SRX board sounds to me are just different, but not necessarily better. Certainly live in mix I cannot tell the difference between the Fantom and a Giga sample on my laptop.
Not so Good - I am slightly dissapointed the G doesn't retain some SRX slots, so that we can use our top two favorites, for example (wouldn't want waste an ARX slot even if they were compatible).
Excellent - Looks like the G probably keeps backwards compatibilty with the X patches. We already know it sounds good:)
Excellent - Bigger Screen, could it ever be two big:)
Indifferent - Polophony, I cannot play that many notes anyway:), and the audio tracks make up for any shorfall here. Maybe if you work differently it's a problem.
Not so Good - Weight, both the G6 and G7 are a few pounds heavier.
Wait and See - File storage/manager, loading times etc.
This new G certainly floats my boat.
Paul.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
1. Concerning sound:
- one open question is what ARX really does.
It really looks like they didn't change the 4 tone/4layer concept.
If ARX is capable to add to dynamic play without having more velocity layers in a comparable way with real dynamic range is at least questionable, even if the new technique is useful otherwise.
So all in all sound development does not at all look revolutionary so far, and at least for the start we will hear ,more or less the same sounds as since years from the Fantom
- the second open question is their file system and sampling management. Got no clue so far, but it seems they have not done any remarkable things here. Or have I missed something?
2. Concerning usability:
- here they really *shine*. Besides the old Multi-structure now called studio mode they finally offer extremely useful specs for live mode: it offers switching between 8 sounds without abrupt stopping of the previous sound/effects. We don't need time consuming programming of workarounds any more. Together witrh finally being able to use the pads immediately for switching on/off the 8 live patches you really get things going in live play. This is extremely important for any live playing, and I guess in the end even more important than new sounds.
- I am also extremely satisfied about their new pitch bend concept. I must say say really hate sticks altogether, and will never regard them as a useful replacement for wheels.
Nevertheless things like bending one note against another which does not change is an essential guitar playing techique, introduced by Jan Hammer in the 70s with the help of handmade custom gear not available in industrial production (special forms of Moog Liberation). It is definitely innovative if this will be available on a standard Roland workstation.
- Add sliders and more flexible pad concept, and you can do much more with the good old Fantom than you ever could...
All in all they did quite a good job from my view.
Even if nothing spectacular happened to their sounds and even though two heavy desiderata seem to stay - the basic file architecture (which is a pain really) or the sampling features (much too slow loading time, need of Nexoe Yase to work at all in any acceptable way) - the positive things are *much* better than I had expected! With this level of usability they got back the lead among the big three workstations: Neither Yamaha nor Korg can compete with what they offer.
Price Tag???
Availability???
- one open question is what ARX really does.
It really looks like they didn't change the 4 tone/4layer concept.
If ARX is capable to add to dynamic play without having more velocity layers in a comparable way with real dynamic range is at least questionable, even if the new technique is useful otherwise.
So all in all sound development does not at all look revolutionary so far, and at least for the start we will hear ,more or less the same sounds as since years from the Fantom
- the second open question is their file system and sampling management. Got no clue so far, but it seems they have not done any remarkable things here. Or have I missed something?
2. Concerning usability:
- here they really *shine*. Besides the old Multi-structure now called studio mode they finally offer extremely useful specs for live mode: it offers switching between 8 sounds without abrupt stopping of the previous sound/effects. We don't need time consuming programming of workarounds any more. Together witrh finally being able to use the pads immediately for switching on/off the 8 live patches you really get things going in live play. This is extremely important for any live playing, and I guess in the end even more important than new sounds.
- I am also extremely satisfied about their new pitch bend concept. I must say say really hate sticks altogether, and will never regard them as a useful replacement for wheels.
Nevertheless things like bending one note against another which does not change is an essential guitar playing techique, introduced by Jan Hammer in the 70s with the help of handmade custom gear not available in industrial production (special forms of Moog Liberation). It is definitely innovative if this will be available on a standard Roland workstation.
- Add sliders and more flexible pad concept, and you can do much more with the good old Fantom than you ever could...
All in all they did quite a good job from my view.
Even if nothing spectacular happened to their sounds and even though two heavy desiderata seem to stay - the basic file architecture (which is a pain really) or the sampling features (much too slow loading time, need of Nexoe Yase to work at all in any acceptable way) - the positive things are *much* better than I had expected! With this level of usability they got back the lead among the big three workstations: Neither Yamaha nor Korg can compete with what they offer.
Price Tag???
Availability???
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Hmmm...I thought there would be alot more to it....It seems that the X will still be quite current or it could be that the G is a bit behind...not sure..They should have a whole new sound set not just the old one with one new bank full of most likely a "best of" or a "SRX Greatist hits" of the srx series.It seems like a better deal to buy SRX Cards if you don't got 'em already... I still have three empty srx spaces..I wonder if they have EQ per part..I wonder if they improved their Arpeggio section? Only 128 poly? With 24 audio trax? What was their intention?? Sound like a nightmare.....I'm not sure I'll be juming head first into this purchase like I have in the past...I'll have to dip my toes in first to see what it's like, but from what I see in the specs they took a half step froward and a full step back. Bummer....But we'll see though...It does at the very least looks really good!
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
"Neither Yamaha nor Korg can compete with what they offer."
Soundwise:
If the G is using the same sample rom with some SRX (untouched and untweaked) of the X, i Assure even Yamaha ES wins handsdown (Neither to say XS).
Had them both, stayed with the ES.
But i must insist... Love tha 8.5" LCD.
Again, Soundwise, Im really disappointed with the G.
Soundwise:
If the G is using the same sample rom with some SRX (untouched and untweaked) of the X, i Assure even Yamaha ES wins handsdown (Neither to say XS).
Had them both, stayed with the ES.
But i must insist... Love tha 8.5" LCD.
Again, Soundwise, Im really disappointed with the G.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Surely if there are no slots for SRX cards, that might mean that they are not compatible with the new system.
In other words, the new system might not be based on the old 4 tone structure (unless I've missed that somewhere). Certainly it appears that there will be a new effects system, which again would make the SRX cards incompatible.
Just because they are using the old samples, doesn't mean that they are going to be the same sounds.
Cheers
James
In other words, the new system might not be based on the old 4 tone structure (unless I've missed that somewhere). Certainly it appears that there will be a new effects system, which again would make the SRX cards incompatible.
Just because they are using the old samples, doesn't mean that they are going to be the same sounds.
Cheers
James
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
"Just because they are using the old samples, doesn't mean that they are going to be the same sounds. "
Well fundamentally, yes it does. It'll only sound different thanks to the new DSP (which should be punchier and clearer) and if the FX are improved and/or new. More FX as implemented just means you don't have to compromise in performance mode any more. Roland wouldn't be promoting the ROM as a 'best of' SRX if people didn't already know the quality and sound of the SRX boards. Details will eventually come through about the things we really want to know about.
Well fundamentally, yes it does. It'll only sound different thanks to the new DSP (which should be punchier and clearer) and if the FX are improved and/or new. More FX as implemented just means you don't have to compromise in performance mode any more. Roland wouldn't be promoting the ROM as a 'best of' SRX if people didn't already know the quality and sound of the SRX boards. Details will eventually come through about the things we really want to know about.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Kind of humorous - many of us have sort of passed judgment on the soundset without even hearing one note coming off the "G". It will be interesting to see if the Roland demo reps address this issue. Maybe they've secretly visited this forum already, or will before they get to work demoing today.
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
"Just because they are using the old samples, doesn't mean that they are going to be the same sounds. "
Well yes - perhaps not a good way to put it - but if there were different ways of using the same samples - more velocity layers perhaps, you might be getting something very different at the end.
Well yes - perhaps not a good way to put it - but if there were different ways of using the same samples - more velocity layers perhaps, you might be getting something very different at the end.
-
Solitary man
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 15:44, 24 October 2006
- Location: England
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
2 questions;
1. How much will it cost?
2. How much will we in the UK get ripped off again?
Send your reply on a stamped addressed envelope to;
Jim'll Fix it,
Coporation house,
BBC inc,
Teddington Lock,
London,
NW1 1QT
1. How much will it cost?
2. How much will we in the UK get ripped off again?
Send your reply on a stamped addressed envelope to;
Jim'll Fix it,
Coporation house,
BBC inc,
Teddington Lock,
London,
NW1 1QT
Re: NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE
Fantom G: "ARX SuperNATURAL™ expansion bay."
RD-700GX: "SuperNATURAL electric pianos for unprecedented realism"
Not sure if that means the sound engines are similar between the two instruments. But the RD seems to have two SRX slots, so this may imply some level of compatibilty and similarity between old and new?
RD-700GX: "SuperNATURAL electric pianos for unprecedented realism"
Not sure if that means the sound engines are similar between the two instruments. But the RD seems to have two SRX slots, so this may imply some level of compatibilty and similarity between old and new?
-
acoustictones
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 21:14, 17 June 2005
- Location: Lakeville, MN
- Contact:
Me Like!!!
Well, the G6 is lookin' good to me And the screen REALLY looks big on the G6. Very sexy in deed!!! And I love the mouse feature. Simply wonderful. 16 track of audio recording...very big for me...can function as a basic sound card with say Sonar, Logic, Garage Band...PERFECT...Pads are still there, also important to me...Although some would have hoped for ALL new sounds, this will work just fine for me as is, not saying new and improved would not have been welcomed, BUT I really can't say that I mind the sound of the Roland X, so I'll be fine here...
And now the BIG questions...how long will it take me to save up for this bad boy???
Me like!!!
And now the BIG questions...how long will it take me to save up for this bad boy???
Me like!!!