Has anyone read the whole article. What do they say about the FG?
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan09/a ... antomg.htm
Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
They liked the big screen!!! Its the first reaction to anyone that play with Fantom G... Its now time to Fantom gain a software that this wondeful hardware deserves!
-
manishkurup
- Posts: 418
- Joined: 00:19, 23 August 2006
I read it ...
They talked about the sounds and per-part effects, and all the things that we've discussed here on the clan for days on end 
!
Funny how they didnt mention 2 things -
1. Vastly improved sound quality over the Fantom X (Im a little surprised myself - because I did play the G and found it to be better than the X - but probably not worth mentioning - if Sound On Sound did not)
2. ARX technology - I was surprised when a whole page went by without mention of the radically new head turner - ARX. Well- there was a line that talked about 2 slots being available and all that - but no explanations about the modelling etc.
So - IMO - to be fair to the Fantom G - I would probably say that this was not a good review by Sound On Sound - and I thought much more of the Fantom G than they did! But Im hardly a 'pro' so not sure if my opinion counts
!
But here's what confuses me:
Have been a long time sound-on-sound reader - and dont know if it means anything - but they didnt decicate a lot of pages to the review (Which I equate as a mellow review/response to what the Fantom G offers - I trust sound-on-sound for gear purchase decisions - and it didnt make me want to go out and get it - yet - at least!). In the past - Sound on Sound have written some pretty detailed reviews - and they're very well organized - so the reader gets a good feel of the gear that they're reviewing - this one didnt go into the depths that I would expect from a review of such a complex instrument (Probably the reviewer's laziness?).
They did echo my feelings on upgrades to fix some minor irritations - but not too much mention of the issues/discomforts people have with the sequencer or other gotchas in there. In fact, there wasnt much dedicated to the sequencer except a mention of the 128 MIDI channels it supports etc.
All in all - not the best sound on sound review I have read - Not enough detail - and lacked the objectivity that I have read and come to love with this particular magazine. Also being quite familiar with the Fantom G myself - I would even go so far as to call it a bit misleading (the review i.e.). I know that there are issues/discomforts - but all in all I cannot stress enough that the Fantom G has a bright future - provided there is software to take it to those heights.
But you know what they say about opinions, right? I wouldnt make a decision based on Sound on Sound for this one! You've got to try the G out for yourself!
Manish
!Funny how they didnt mention 2 things -
1. Vastly improved sound quality over the Fantom X (Im a little surprised myself - because I did play the G and found it to be better than the X - but probably not worth mentioning - if Sound On Sound did not)
2. ARX technology - I was surprised when a whole page went by without mention of the radically new head turner - ARX. Well- there was a line that talked about 2 slots being available and all that - but no explanations about the modelling etc.
So - IMO - to be fair to the Fantom G - I would probably say that this was not a good review by Sound On Sound - and I thought much more of the Fantom G than they did! But Im hardly a 'pro' so not sure if my opinion counts
!But here's what confuses me:
Have been a long time sound-on-sound reader - and dont know if it means anything - but they didnt decicate a lot of pages to the review (Which I equate as a mellow review/response to what the Fantom G offers - I trust sound-on-sound for gear purchase decisions - and it didnt make me want to go out and get it - yet - at least!). In the past - Sound on Sound have written some pretty detailed reviews - and they're very well organized - so the reader gets a good feel of the gear that they're reviewing - this one didnt go into the depths that I would expect from a review of such a complex instrument (Probably the reviewer's laziness?).
They did echo my feelings on upgrades to fix some minor irritations - but not too much mention of the issues/discomforts people have with the sequencer or other gotchas in there. In fact, there wasnt much dedicated to the sequencer except a mention of the 128 MIDI channels it supports etc.
All in all - not the best sound on sound review I have read - Not enough detail - and lacked the objectivity that I have read and come to love with this particular magazine. Also being quite familiar with the Fantom G myself - I would even go so far as to call it a bit misleading (the review i.e.). I know that there are issues/discomforts - but all in all I cannot stress enough that the Fantom G has a bright future - provided there is software to take it to those heights.
But you know what they say about opinions, right? I wouldnt make a decision based on Sound on Sound for this one! You've got to try the G out for yourself!
Manish-
Igglethorpe
- Posts: 592
- Joined: 09:27, 23 January 2005
- Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
That is really too bad. I was really hoping for a solid review from the Fantom G from SOS (good or bad). I too enjoy their detailed reviews. The first one I ever read was the original V-Synth review. Now that was a good one! Obviously written with a little love behind what he does.
Perhaps workstations aren't the most interesting to write about, rather than the more esoteric / unique synthesizers on the market?
Perhaps workstations aren't the most interesting to write about, rather than the more esoteric / unique synthesizers on the market?
-
rbarkhouse
- Posts: 647
- Joined: 22:57, 9 September 2003
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
Yeah SOS do this for most of their reviews of "new versions" -- i.e. they usually just go in-depth on the high level stuff and distinguishing features, while pointing you to the older reviews to read about common behaviour. If they were really to go into detail about everything the review would probably be 10 pages long
Overall I think the review was quite positive, if not gushing
PROS
- Contains a huge, versatile collection of patches and multitimbral setups, and plenty of space to save your own.
- Excellent Rhodes, pipe organ, bass guitar, acoustic and electric guitar samples.
- Pro-quality reverb.
- 24-track audio recording, 128-track MIDI sequencer.
- Supports user multisamples.
CONS
- Will not import third-party sample libraries, only raw WAVs or AIFFs.
- Sample loop points are not recognised.
- No panning control for individual user samples.
SUMMARY
Roland's Fantom G has something for everyone — a very large range of eminently playable patches for keyboardists, dynamic pads and deep menus for programmers, multitrack audio recording and MIDI sequencing for producers, and advanced slice, dice and loop facilities for sampleheads. Add all this together and you have a sophisticated, well-designed, solidly constructed workstation with great powers of musical expression.
Overall I think the review was quite positive, if not gushing
PROS
- Contains a huge, versatile collection of patches and multitimbral setups, and plenty of space to save your own.
- Excellent Rhodes, pipe organ, bass guitar, acoustic and electric guitar samples.
- Pro-quality reverb.
- 24-track audio recording, 128-track MIDI sequencer.
- Supports user multisamples.
CONS
- Will not import third-party sample libraries, only raw WAVs or AIFFs.
- Sample loop points are not recognised.
- No panning control for individual user samples.
SUMMARY
Roland's Fantom G has something for everyone — a very large range of eminently playable patches for keyboardists, dynamic pads and deep menus for programmers, multitrack audio recording and MIDI sequencing for producers, and advanced slice, dice and loop facilities for sampleheads. Add all this together and you have a sophisticated, well-designed, solidly constructed workstation with great powers of musical expression.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
The best thing a publication/reviewer can do — regarding its credibly and integrity— when tepidly reviewing a product is to keep it brief ...
How can one write extensively about ARX, imo, without trashing it at this point ... ??? So far it's just an incredible waste of options, resources and adds extra cost to Fan-G ... With Fan-G I'd much rather have more on-board ROM with real "best of SRX" than any ARX expansion at all ...
And if SOS didn't mention "vastly" better sound quality — gasp! — like me, maybe they didn't hear it ... In the end, isn't what this what a synth is about anyway ... ???
Just as an aside ... I have plenty of money and unused gears to buy Fan-G ... If I thought it was worth the upgrade, I'd do it ... It's just not better enough nor new enough to pique my interest ... (I'd be all over Kurz PC3x if it had sampling and a more intriguing/up-to-date look and screen, which is too small, imo ... I also believe the K series successor — which hasn't been announced/released yet, is going to be the one to have ... )
Fan-G just isn't there yet ... A couple of choice ARX cards could do something to change it ... ( as well as V2.0 upgrade ... )
However, from reading and auditioning G, it seems like many of the shortcomings of the X are still on G while Roland went off and "improved" things it seems like NOBODY was asking for ... (e.g. EVERYONE wanted more insert effects while NOBODY was asking for live switching ... But it's much sexier from Roland's perspective to talk about live switching rather than just saying Fan-G has equalled — or finally surpassed — the competition when it comes to insert effects ... )
With more inserts, a form of live switching could have been available ... Just not on such a massive scale ... but with so little insert flexibility ... I just ... don't ... want ...
Unfortunately, because of the global economic climate, we may be stuck with Fan-G for longer than I'd like ... I was predicting a quick S to X-like transition, but I'm not so confident anymore ...
How can one write extensively about ARX, imo, without trashing it at this point ... ??? So far it's just an incredible waste of options, resources and adds extra cost to Fan-G ... With Fan-G I'd much rather have more on-board ROM with real "best of SRX" than any ARX expansion at all ...
And if SOS didn't mention "vastly" better sound quality — gasp! — like me, maybe they didn't hear it ... In the end, isn't what this what a synth is about anyway ... ???
Just as an aside ... I have plenty of money and unused gears to buy Fan-G ... If I thought it was worth the upgrade, I'd do it ... It's just not better enough nor new enough to pique my interest ... (I'd be all over Kurz PC3x if it had sampling and a more intriguing/up-to-date look and screen, which is too small, imo ... I also believe the K series successor — which hasn't been announced/released yet, is going to be the one to have ... )
Fan-G just isn't there yet ... A couple of choice ARX cards could do something to change it ... ( as well as V2.0 upgrade ... )
However, from reading and auditioning G, it seems like many of the shortcomings of the X are still on G while Roland went off and "improved" things it seems like NOBODY was asking for ... (e.g. EVERYONE wanted more insert effects while NOBODY was asking for live switching ... But it's much sexier from Roland's perspective to talk about live switching rather than just saying Fan-G has equalled — or finally surpassed — the competition when it comes to insert effects ... )
With more inserts, a form of live switching could have been available ... Just not on such a massive scale ... but with so little insert flexibility ... I just ... don't ... want ...
Unfortunately, because of the global economic climate, we may be stuck with Fan-G for longer than I'd like ... I was predicting a quick S to X-like transition, but I'm not so confident anymore ...
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
SOS is a good and smart publication and they probably left ARX out because they know they will be writing more about ARX and SuperNatural after NAMM...
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
It's titled ''Article Preview - Roland Fantom G''. EI not a full review. They normally follow up at some stage.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
Welcome to the forum Bernhard!
Yeah, it is not a full article. That's why Anton started the whole thread with the line "Has anyone read the whole article?" in the first post. He was referring to the whole article that SOS subscribers have access to..
Yeah, it is not a full article. That's why Anton started the whole thread with the line "Has anyone read the whole article?" in the first post. He was referring to the whole article that SOS subscribers have access to..
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
jessej you appear a little confused.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
I see your point.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
nothhing wrong with jessej!
Follow the link and it will say "article preview" meaning you can read a bit of the full article but not all. You need an e-sub subscription to read everything or buy the current edition of the magazine in a shop.
Follow the link and it will say "article preview" meaning you can read a bit of the full article but not all. You need an e-sub subscription to read everything or buy the current edition of the magazine in a shop.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
Example of a full Preview:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/a ... goasys.htm
Not very helpful them using the word for different meanings
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/a ... goasys.htm
Not very helpful them using the word for different meanings
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
You have to look at who has actually done the review for SOS. They are not all as thorough as they should be. This one realy looks like a walk through the features without any background research.
They also don't indicate for how long the reviewer had the unit. Seems that the longer they have something, the more objectivity and depth they acheive. Not much in this case.
It has 16 pads and a sequencer, yet he doesn't seem to have tried MPC-style sequencing.
It has multi-sampling capabilities, but he doesn't appear to have really tried sampling stuff and making multisamples.
He doesn't mention limitations on USB memory size prior to v1.20.
They also don't indicate for how long the reviewer had the unit. Seems that the longer they have something, the more objectivity and depth they acheive. Not much in this case.
It has 16 pads and a sequencer, yet he doesn't seem to have tried MPC-style sequencing.
It has multi-sampling capabilities, but he doesn't appear to have really tried sampling stuff and making multisamples.
He doesn't mention limitations on USB memory size prior to v1.20.
Re: Fantom G review in SOS jan09 Magazine
It's knowing what you are looking at Bernard, plus the fact that the fantom G is out for 3/4's of a year at least, no magazine could get away with doing a preview on the G anymore.
About the shortcomings of the review, well that's how it works when you have to sell advertising space to the same companies as those you are reviewing products of....just comment on the good and come up with extremely minor issues that are so unimportant on the G-rand scale (geddit)like not being able to pan a sample. Wow, if that was the only problem of the Fantom G
It's exactly that reason I stopped reading those magazines and rely more on my own opinion and those of other users: they burn a product down to the ground if it deserves it. The G doesn't deserve that but a reviews are almost never complete. Let's keep it at that.
About the shortcomings of the review, well that's how it works when you have to sell advertising space to the same companies as those you are reviewing products of....just comment on the good and come up with extremely minor issues that are so unimportant on the G-rand scale (geddit)like not being able to pan a sample. Wow, if that was the only problem of the Fantom G
It's exactly that reason I stopped reading those magazines and rely more on my own opinion and those of other users: they burn a product down to the ground if it deserves it. The G doesn't deserve that but a reviews are almost never complete. Let's keep it at that.