NEW FANTOM-G - THREAD #2

[Mauro Rosati]

Hugo has it right: 128x128= 16384.

[Quinnx.]

heres a solution to any ARX or SRX
the best add in card for the Fantom Range is

The VSynth XT

it can be programmed to with unimaginables sounds
and you can not only trigger them directy with the fantom and route them back throught the fantom or visa versa..
but you can also use it to create your Own (out dated)
samples, (of course i realy mean original and not so outdated samples too)

[PauloF]

jrevenko said:
"-Its quite weak in Arpeggio Area.(but not so important issue for me) "

This item was already covered, but...
What I understand that you are saying is the the ARP section is weak, because there is just one ARP, not more like the 4 simultaneous on the XS ?

For me that is a secondary item, as the ARP section in the Fantoms is indeed quite powerfull, altough only one ARP is allowed at very one time. But, like Artemio said before, you can always mess around with the sequencer, and do something very similar to what XS does.

Salu2
PF

[jrevenko]

PauloF said:
"What I understand that you are saying is the the ARP section is weak, because there is just one ARP, not more like the 4 simultaneous on the XS ?"

-Exactly, but the same as you, its a secondary item for me, (as i also explained).


V-CeeOh said:
"Outdated is a very relative expression."

-Exactly too. What is outdated for someone , is a CLASSIC for another. (just a matter of taste).


Resumed (again):
The Fantom G, could've been all i wanted in a workstation
but... (Please replace the points with everything i said about the sounds).

Anyway, just curious: anyone else feels this way???

[DaZzA]

It's an absolute disgrace that in 2008 we have a synth with all these sounds, all this polyphony, all of these effects, and we have NO EQ per part to make use of any of it.

Seriously, what are these guys on? Do people really mix multiple tracks without EQ?

Sorry, I know it's my first post and it's a negative one, but this is pathetic.

[thekeymaster]

Sorry but do you rely on EQ to get a sound......if so you're philosophy for using it is wrong.

If we are saying that the Fantom G is worthless without per track EQ then.........there's no hope is there,c'mon.

[DaZzA]

No I don't rely on EQ to get a sound. I get the sound, then mix/tune it using EQ!!! I guess the people paying $$$$ for outboard/plugin/DSP card based EQ don't need it either?

If it wasn't important, then mixers would have gain and effects sends, and no EQ!

It's absolutely shocking that they couldn't add sufficient DSP power to implement per track EQ, when the V-Mixers from almost a decade ago (when computers were over 30 times slower than they are now) had 40 channels of full EQ and dynamics on every channel.

For a synth playing one sound it's not important, but this thing is supposed to be a workstation, with everything in one box. When you're mixing a full production, you NEED EQ.

Take care!

[thekeymaster]

I hear what you're saying but I'll go back to what I've said all along about modern workstations.

There is enough processing power,effx,sounds and facilities to get a decent result.We always want more,we are never happy with what we have,its human nature to demand more for our money but I bet most people on here don't get 40% out of their purchases,including myself.

I don't see the EQ as a drawback but its just my opinion,you are entitled to yours and I will respect it.

Peace.

[The Audacity Works]

Uh... I don't know how many times I have to say it, but you CAN have an EQ per part. The thing has 22 FX processors, and EQ is one of the types. If you REALLY need EQ, you don't need, say, a separate reverb on every instrument (which just muddies up a mix anyway).

"As I understand, there are 128 arpeggio patterns, each with 128 variations. That should equal 16384 patterns"
Sorry, guys, but on Sunday, I checked again and I think I may have been mistaken. Turning the VALUE dial for some arps resulted in 5 or so variations—However, pressing ENTER to open the list displayed 128. I'm not entirely sure it's 128x128. At worst, it might be 128x5 or 128x6.

Sorry for the (possible) misinformation. We'll know for sure in April.

And didn't someone post a link to a patent for generating multiple arps at once? That would explain why the Roland only has one. It's never been a big deal for me; I'll just track the arp into the sequencer, quantize it, and then apply a different arp to the next part. Not the same while performing, but it's worked well when producing.

[Jimknopf]

I'm still not sure if I got the MFX thing right:

Let's assume Live mode, 8 parts.

Then I can have
- one MFX insert per part, as I understood (not more from the 22)
- plus Reverb/Delay and Chorus-Variations
- plus ??? common MFX for all parts (like reverb and chorus)???

Could anyone clarify or do we not yet know for sure?

[V-CeeOh]

Yes
We get 1 MFX (Now called PFX) PER PART, then we have 2 Global MFX, then Global Chorus and Reverb, then finaly, the Mastering effect section.

The only dobt so far is IF it's possible or not to route more then 1 PFX to the same part (living other parts without any)

[BigBrotherMotown]

In the Video with Warren Harris (Hanna)....

When he recorded his bass to the audio tracks it was the SAME VOLUME as when he played it originally!!!

Remember on the fantom X there was an issue with audio having a LOWER volume than the original piece. Roland responded that we should NORMALIZE to make up for the loss of gain but after seeing the video it kinda makes me think that it really WAS a flaw that was corrected and that Roland was keeping TIGHT LIPPED about it all the long....


What do you all think????

[V-CeeOh]

As to me, this talk about EQ is just worthless. Those comparing the several EQs at the several stages of the sound generation in the Motif just proove it. Whats the point of "adding +2db" of "treble" then "taking it back -2" at the next level. Again, the G is NOT A DAW. If you rely on EQ per part to get your sound right then something is wrong. . And yes the Mixers have EQ and Effect sends per channel. But wich one has 1 Effect Processor (wich can be a EQ), Filters and Envelopes per Channel?
Even if not working as a EQ, all algorithms in the Effects processor in the X has some sort of EQing in the effect. I'll assume (well for now, yes I'm just assuming) it will be the same in the G.
So, please, forget about it. IF 1 PFX per part, 2 Global MFX, 1 Global Chorus, 1 Global Reverb and 1 Mastering Section is not enough, you have serious problems

[MINDKeys]

Yes, Roland effects have many options to configure and in most of them you can choose to boost the treble or bass as you want so the lack of a multi EQ per part does not seem like much of a problem.

[BigBrotherMotown]

I always felt that EQ best left in the hands of those who REALLY know how to use it. I think EQ is the single most ABUSED/MISUSED aspect of recording.

I personally am GLAD that there is NO EQ on the fantoms....that way you get the sounds the way the SOUND DESIGNERS intented you to get them. I am not that big on creating my own sounds although I HAVE been dabbling with it lately...LOL

I used to work with a guy who used the motif and quite honestly I HATED mixing his stuff. It was a pure BYTHC taking out all the EXCESSIVE bass that he would put in everything...

He was not an engineer...his ears were not developed for engineering and the only thing he did with the EQ was make things WORSE....

It was like putting a shotgun in the hands of a 5 year old...LOL!