Why Do we buy workstations?

[Quinnx.]

Do we buy workstations for all the wrong reasons these days?

Everyone Dreams of the ultimate workstation but everyone has a different idea of what it should be.
At the end of the day its all about making music.
do we really need a workstation to make music?

something as simple as a controller and a computer-DAW will do more than any workstation.
so why do you need a workstation to make music?


Live performance is a different side of the coin and workstation is something to use for that reason
and the fact that its more compact that a computer DAW setup and is less likely to crash if that is your
main fear.

If you already have one (fantom G)
and are already seeking to get a new one.. does then not make the workstation to become obsolete
much more quickly than the computer/DAW since cost of upgrading a computer DAW is fractional cost compared to splashing out $2999+ every upgrade.
And dont forget the personal cost that goes with moving to yet another platform of workstation
which is you leave behind time effort and work that you put in to your old workstation and with all that experience you now have to start al over again with another learning curve and deal with new bugs and workarounds etc...

Is it all worth it just to have the latest and greatest or should we now be taking a more sensible approach to having a workstation and making it a more long term investment should we choose to get one?

[Chrisk-K]

1. Workstations capture musical ideas on the fly. You come up with something while noodling with a patch. You press a rec button and record it.

2. Workstations give an instant gratification to novice users.

3. Workstations appeal to guitarists/bassists who just need to record some simple backing tracks.

I'm not interested in workstations unless Roland or Yamaha combines sampling + rompler + VA + audio/MIDI sequencer with 256 voice polyphony.

[Quinnx.]

What is a workstation these days?
Usually the central part of what make a board a workstation is having a sequencer with more than one track.
and access to an instant library and real and synthetic sounds.

Is having a synth required to make it a workstation?
and these days what is the definition of a synth.
Gone are the days when synths where your basic 2xOsc + waveform
Do people these days want synths or a vast library of sounds? which is more important when getting a new one?
Alot of people have got a synth, and their biggest complaint is not the quality of the synth or its sound making abilities, its always its patches, and then they think, this is a true representation of the actual sound limitation of the device.
So they get the board and realy the 1st thing they want is instant gratification in library sounds..
should they not have 1st got a dedicated sound module?
Its all a bit confusing at times

[howardS]

I definitely agree with the question you posed, Quinnx: "Is it all worth it just to have the latest and greatest or should we now be taking a more sensible approach to having a workstation and making it a more long term investment should we choose to get one?"

It seems to me that many keyboard players seem to see their workstation as just a great board with tons of great sounds. Many use them just in patch mode and dont tweak the patches at all. It seems that to them it is just a great place to go and grab some awesome sounds. I looked recently at the Kronos and all it's synth engines and wondered if many people really care about that firepower. I know lots of people love the sounds but how many of that group who like the board actually tweak the sounds or even know how to tweak them. I think many wouldn't care how the sounds were generated so long as the basic functionality was there. They want great sounds and lots to choose from. A rompler with great sounds and all the functionality as far as effects firepower would be just as exciting for many.

Of course the problem though is that what I want in a workstation is different from what the next person wants so the hardware manufacturers keep adding features to try to bring in more users as they want to have keyboards that appeal to the most number of people and get the most attention. At some point, however, the cost to add features outweighs the projected added sales so presumably that is where they stop. ...and perhaps why these boards stop short at times in delivering what we want.

[Mystic38]

I have no requirement for the latest and greatest anything.. I would be happy with something that a) works as advertised, b) does not get in my way c) has a good UI and d) build to a high quality level..

When that workstation appears, I will buy it.

[Quinnx.]

Well lets look at the X v G.. there was not a dramatic reason to move from X to G
they are very close to one another but people did it anyway..
Then we find that What we where use to on the X did not translate very well in regards to workflow
and resources.

The only reason i went to the G was because the i received it as a Gift.
even so.. i was frustrated by having to change workflow.

I still have the X and have often thought about going back but its too late now since all resources are now
invested in the G. Now its a case of having to use both now.

So if a new workstation came along just like the Kronos or if roland re-invented the Fantom
we have the same problems as X v G.

Lets look at the Integra..
imagine it was released with a keybed, controls and DAW.(the new G)
Yes it would be different and have resources the G dont have but would it justify the cost
financially and personal.
Once again if you went down that road your again making your previous investment obsolete.
Luckly the fantom G build can accommodate expansion around it so in that respect there is no need to invest in another workstation as an upgrade path you can add on sound modules or computer daw/vst etc and control them all from there. Even the synth engine of the G has expansion possibilities through sampling.

So where is the real case to get yet another workstation.

[howardS]

The only reason I see to get a new workstation at this point is work flow. I am currectly looking at some Korg gear because you can control the splits on the M3 module and on the Kronos which would be played by a remote controller. You can't do that on the Fantom X and I dont think you can do that on the G either. On Roland gear it seems you set the keyboard ranges for parts played remotely at the patch level as the performances key ranges only work when played locally or with the remote keyboard turned on. I am looking for a solution whereby I can bring a rack or one keyboard back and forth to my practice space and home or elsewhere and play the patches from controllers without needing to program the splits on the controller. Of course, there are pluses and minuses to all the workstations so I am just reviewing whether the pluses would outweigh the minuses for me.

[Quinnx.]

Once again no new workstation controller or synth required..
many computer DAW allow you to do this directly. all you need now for portability is a Laptop
and even then you dont need a DAW I cant be sure but maybe midiOX allow you to create splits
either way there are plenty of free options out there (google is your friend)
And yes the G is quite capable when it comes to making splits upto 32/64 per studio set
save your money you dont need more Gear or workstation to achieve your goal. ;-)

[howardS]

I appreciate the tip, Quinnx, although I was aware of this option. I hadn't tried it though as I had heard of many complaints about the latency when playing fast parts and using MIDI translation. What is your experience in this regard?

[Quinnx.]

Cant say i have noticed any real problems with latency using the G as a controller.
if you intend using it as your Audio device make sure its not sharing the usb port as bandwidth is a premium.

[howardS]

Ok, time to do some testing! :-)

[thunderkyss]

I still like the idea of a workstation. I hate the idea of tying my studio to a computer.

The only thing I think Roland needs to improve on, is midi outs. As a workstation, the idea should be that it will control several midi devices, one midi output is very limiting. 4 would be great.

[Quinnx.]

Usually only one is needed since you daisy-chain all other devices from your master to each device in the chain. However, if you do need more there is always the option to purchase a mulit port midi hub
and we know the G can interdependently control upto 16 external devices.

[howardS]

Hey Quinnx, Midi-ox worked great to convert Midi data coming in on one channel from my controller into 4 channels without any noticable latency. This is great but now I need something that will also filter events and thereby create the splits for me. In addition, I would love it if it could load the performance or song file on my Fantom when I select the preset on my computer. I was looking at Cantibile sofware and as it may performs all or most of these funtions. I am happy to try and go down this path and test various solutions and see how close I can get but some people would rather sell the old stuff and get the new gear and leave this testing to the keyboard programmers. I am happy to explore alternative solutions though because I am keenly aware that with the new hardware comes other issues which often require work-arounds. That said, I know it is attractive to sometimes start with new gear and build it from there especially if you have a good return policy with your retailer so you can do appropriate testing.

[jur451c]

on windows you can use 'Bloxpander' by 'Eareckon', I have tried a load of different hosts and this one is great, both for price and functions. If you are on a Mac you have to go a long way to beat 'Mainstage', especially at it's current price on the appstore...