AUDIO SOUNDS FANTOM G PATCHES ON LINE AT ROLAND US NOW!!

[PauloF]

Like was said before by several guys, in respect to sound quality, my opinion is that the only way to compare the X and the G, will be to try them together on the same environment, otherwise it will be always a little bit subjective...

Take care
PauloF

[Synthia]

Hey srut,

No,I don't mean the Fantom series,I'm talking in general here.It's harder for a sound programmer to make sounds which are unheard of or really unusual these days.

Jim,
Where in Germany do you came from?I'm German myself,I was born in Hannover.I have been living in the UK now for 25 years.

[Septimo]

What I'm saying is that if Roland made a new pulsating synth patch for example, with the X and said it was the G no one here would know the difference and think it was a G. And not only think it but swear up and down that it is light years ahead of the X's sound.. The silly masses. and once this G comes out and people start making tracks with it people aint gonna know if it;s a Fantom X or a G... So if the fundamental sound is still the same then there's no difference...clarity and punch can be added in the mix, and that has nothing to do with the fundamental sound. But again, it's not their fault, it's just that there's no place else to go... Yet...

What they sould do is make the final design of one of these workstations and have all the hardware that it'll ever need or have upgradeable hardware and upgradeable software for a fee and for Roland to make Patch libraries to sell us...that's what they did with the G, they gave us a somewhat new patch set, but since the the hardware is limited on the X they built a half new board...But if they made patch libraries I think most if not everyone would buy them....

Use your brains Roland and quit trying to compete with your neighbors...

[Diametro]

In the old days, most of us wouldn't even know a new board was on the way until you went into the shop and there it was ...

... now we get coming attractions in the form of mostly meaningless chatter ...

[keysme]

As I stated previously, the Fantom G is not necessarily being marketed by Roland to Fantom X owners. Personally, I hear a difference in the quality of sound of the Fantom G over the X but it is just a personal opinion; but also one in which my own ears are convincing me is sonically perceptible. I think it does have something to do with the DAC's supporting a higher bit rate/resolution and it also having a better effects section. But any improvement is better than no improvement and I think it has been already demonstrated, at least to a degree anyway, that the Fantom G will be a sonic improvement over the X. Maybe not in all areas and in all categories but hopefully in many of the categories of the patches it will.

One mistake I think Roland is making in the marketing of the Fantom G is not giving consumers more of an idea of what the Fantom G really sounds like up front, before it hits store shelves. The demos have been extremely limited and I think this is one of the main reasons people are having such doubts and misgivings about the G. Because of Roland's poor attempt at giving people a true comprehensive idea of what the Fantom G's sounds like makes it truly frustrating to the average consumer who wants to be convinced beforehand of the Fantom G's sonic prowess before choosing whether or not to upgrade or purchase one. Which in the end only hurts Roland's bottom line in my opinion. In other words, after hitting store shelves it may be too late to recoup some of the potential buyers of the G, who having lost their initial interest in the G because the lack of info and/or sound demos are simply looking at other alternatives where information and demos abound a plenty - like the other two of the Big Three for one. The Fantom G launch has turned into a fizzle and there is no one to blame for it but Roland and company in my opinion. If you ask me they probably should have waited until they had a fully operational OS on the G before they launched it. That way a multitude of demos could have been posted shortly after the launch to better prepare and familiarize people with not only the feature list (if Roland actually chose to be more forthcoming in releasing info and specs on it) , but also to give people a better understanding of its the sonic quality and capability. For all we know Roland engineers could still be fiddling with the OS and dare I say when it hits stores it still could be in beta form instead of a finalized one. Hopefully though, Roland has better sense than to release another half baked product to market as they did when they released the G-70 to the public. I guess we'll know for sure once we get our hands on it huh?

PS: Kurzweil recently shipped its new PC3x in beta form, much to the chagrin of Kurzweil dealers and also the unfortunate people who ended up getting one of them. One guy who purchased one said he had no idea his brand new PC3x had an unfinished OS even though Kurzweil made it a point to try and inform the public otherwise. >> The finalized version of the PC3x won't be shipping until mid May or shortly thereafter. So buyer beware.. If Roland happens to ship the G in beta form I hope the dialogue between manufacturer i.e. Roland and the dealers, and also the consumer, are better understood and aware of it. God forbid it ever happen in the first place right? I for one don't want to be a guinea pig for some manufacturers lack of resolve to finish a product before it ships. On the other hand millions of people around the world are doing just that when they purchase a Microsoft operating system. lol. Oh well, such is life in the big city I guess...

[Radek]

What I'm saying is that if Roland made a new pulsating synth patch for example, with the X and said it was the G no one here would know the difference and think it was a G. And not only think it but swear up and down that it is light years ahead of the X's sound.. The silly masses. and once this G comes out and people start making tracks with it people aint gonna know if it;s a Fantom X or a G...

So we can say the same about the S - X doesn't has that much sound wise over it. Silly masses may make similar assumptions then just like with G.

Does it mean X is worthless?

Just by a fact you will not need to resample to have all timbres effected makes G much more convenient tool than X is. Sounds are important but they don't make alone a workstation. If so then racks would be dominating market what isn't the case.

[Septimo]

So we can say the same about the S - X doesn't has that much sound wise over it.

You're right, the jump in sound quality from the S to the X was slight as is this jump from the X to the G.. To me they've gone up in the G in the same incraments as they did from S to X...

Hell no the X will not be worthless for another 8 to 10 years and even then not worthless...but for now the X can do anything sonically as this G and that's a good thing...even the S can still compete in this arena.


2tim asked, what is it supposed to sound like, cus some of us are saying that it sounds like an X... What is it supposed to sound like? Hmm, I don't know,,,, maybe a G and not an X... But they hit the wall when they made the X. so going futher than the current will take a bit longer so they take steps by halves. It seems since they hit the wall, going foreward seems impossible at this time so instead they start going sideways by retooling patches.. But it's not to say they aren't heading in the right direction... Everything else seems like it's getting close to what they are trying for and that's certainly good news for the next workstation after G.

[Solitary man]

Not impressed at all I'm afraid. As I have stated before I want to hear some descent choirs, VA leads and pads, organs etc. The mega synth demos a joke it sounds just like everything we've heard before.

As regards to sound quality I think some people are putting too much emphasis on this subject. People still listen to the music from the 70s and 80s and love the quality of the music and how it was recorded 20-30 years later the Fantom X sound quality is great. If you think the G is punchier clearer sounding then this could be down to simple things like EQ, compression etc which can be added by outboard gear. There is nothing new here in the Fantom G. It's just not inspiring and if you have to shell out £300 for an expansion board just to get the sounds you really want, ala Fantom X, Then It's just not happin................

[Jimknopf]

Let's face it: we are just passing time waiting for the G.
It's boring, it's totally uninformative from Roland's side,
it's just time spent for nothing!

The G's sound quality will not be decided by any talk here, but *exclusively* by later practical use:
- then either music done with the G will prove crispier and punchier than that from the X or not
- then either some more or less new patches will sound significantly superior or not
- then either the overall soundset will look poorer (too many important quality SRX sounds missing, while too much old crap is recycled) or richer (good SRX choices, limited recycling, good new sounds).

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all this arguing back and forth about a device which will come in 3-4 weeks, while we got nothing but very few second-rated demo stuff from the obviously *very* *weak* worldwide Roland demo resources.


I for one will surely not need any demo stuff any more after the device will be in my use. But of course I will still be holding my breath to see the extremely exciting video "coming soon" since months, and finally supplying us full insight into the Namm booth demo action
))

[bobbybland]

Yes where is that coming soon video after all this time.. :]
As far as the Fantom G it's just one of those things you'll have to hear in person I guess.Some will like some will not. Who even cares,there's so many more options out here to even post a negative comment about it.
Thank goodness for software is all I can say!

[SRUT, BUT...]

Jim said:

But of course I will still be holding my breath to see the extremely exciting video "coming soon" since months, and finally supplying us full insight into the Namm booth demo action
))

Jim, according to how long it took Roland to release these (yet unreleased) demos:

These demos will be of such unfathomable beauty, of mere divine euphony and of sheer stunning gorgeousness that simple life forms like us, will undoubtedly be incapable of comprehending anything of it.

We will die from bliss!



It's...
T-H-E-B-I-G-P-L-A-N

[Jimknopf]

I hope this revelation won't hit me while browsing for useable patches ...

[SRUT, BUT...]

I hope this revelation won't hit me while browsing for useable patches ...

...would you prefer to be hit BEFORE or AFTER you browsed for usable patches?

Jim, it's late, bed time for (us) Germans...

Gute Nacht!

[Quinnx.]

Roland are using there Stock sounds from both the X and there SRX cards.
Assuming these sounds are the same sounds and not re sampled using the 96k 24bit DA

How can this be sound better, your still coming from the same 16bit
stock samples?
So you library is not any better..

I have not touched a G yet but I will agree that for live performance, layering etc.. there is going to be a difference right out of the box simply because of PFX per patch.

However thats only as far as it goes.
If you using the X in the studio you will achieve just the same results.

And if you are creative when constructing patches on the X an don't rely too heavily on MFX or have been using Re sampling to hold your patch together you can achieve the same results anyway,.,.

Long and short..

G will do out of the box what the X cannot
The X Can do just as well as the G with a little more patience.

[nielshs]

The Fantom G´s OTB sound is better than the X, because of the new soundgenerator. The sound is punchier and you will hear more depth in the sounds too.