Fantom G sound thread

[Jimknopf]

BBMotown,

I agree completely that there is nothing like the real thing, and I love it. But I have three reasons for not using a real Rhodes:

a) the weight of a real Rhodes. For rehearsals and gigs you can carry a suitcase 73 some meters alone, but not more: the weight/size requires two people to carry it. I can put my Fantom X7 plus my Access Virus TI keyboard into a normal car without any problems and put them on their stand within minutes without any help: all not possible with a real Rhodes plus other (vintage) gear.

b) the keyboard action: over the years keyboarders did a lot to enhance it, but even enhanced it still has a very stiff kind of action. I prefer having (most of) the sound, but playing it on a semi-weighted keyboard.

c) output and effect routing. When playing with a band you need a lot of fast switching between different sounds, even within songs. With a real Rhodes this means you have to carry it plus find a way to level its output signal plus add (manually operated!) effect gear, perhaps plus send it into real tube gear like a Twin Reverb. And then you still need other keyboards and have to build the typical keyboard 'castle'.

If you can have all this together with many of the other sounds you need in a device with fine live settings, it is clear why workstations are that popular. And concerning horn section: I simply have none

If I had room and money for a fine vintage studio, you can bet that before anything else a Rhodes Mk I and a Minimoog would be part of it!

P.S. Just saw that Arjan already answered: I agree with every word he said...

[V-CeeOh]

just curious...
What did you used for Rhodes sounds before Roland had the SRX-12?

[Mauro Rosati]

All of you are right, I was just saying that judging something from these few (and let me say it, CRAPPY but REAL CRAPPY) resources it's not right, and I'm not a Roland promoter, also 'cause my next workstation maybe very probably will be a Korg (M3 or Oasys, but I can't decide since the new Fantom is arrived and I want to wait), or Fantom , so my talking isn't for defending Roland, but only to be realistic and don't have prejudgement, also because I have still an XP-80 and I love it.

[thekeymaster]

Well Jim after all the points you have made in regards to owning and carrying a proper Rhodes and Wurly there comes a time when the word compromise comes into the equation doesn't it.

I think we have to compromise a "slight" difference in tone for all the other benefits a workstation or emulator bring,i.e. portabillty,flexibility etc etc

Best thing is to be patient and hear the G and the ARX board for yourself and then make a decision.

[Jimknopf]

@V-CeeOh

Before SRX-12 my best effort was the software year with notebook and the Scarbee library: This library is *amazing*! (just visit their website and listen to their demos). I was one of the beta testers in their team, and when I first played a Scarbee Rhodes through their Vintage Effects module, I felt like in Rhodes heaven. Closing my eyes it was like playing a real Rhodes through a Twin: 12 verlocity layers, even 16 for the Wurly, giving you all the sound *plus* the real dynamics of the original, playing from soft to very hard attack without any stages, and their D6 is on equal level. This library is absolute reference choice for sequencing vintage EPs until today.

I abandoned the notebook solution for certain risks of unstable live situations, as I wrote elsewhere. Plus, the libraries despite harddisk streaming were *that* big, that loading times/harddisk reading sometimes caused problems when switching between the sounds or using them with some other VSTis.

Before that I just was desperate, being completely unhappy with all workstation and hardware module Rhodes sounds availabe. If you know and love the original, you are poisoned for unsufficient emulations, just like with the Minimoog. The best among the Rhodes sounds available then were from Kurzweil and later from Clavia Electro, but both on too small sample basis. The new Yamahas have some nice dynoed patches, but no real overall vintage sound.

@thekeymaster: I know the word compromise very well!
But why on earth should I step behind the level of SRX-12 ever again??? I have this module both in my Fantom X7 and in my Juno-G (to be able to carry a useable 'Rhodes' wherever I go in an ultra-light keyboard/composing sketchbook). Should I buy a new device to become unhappy?

[Jimknopf]

@Mauro

I agree to be patient and wait for more G/ARX sound infos.
But I can't deny being in 'red alert mode' from now on...

[V-CeeOh]

Jim,
I fully understand your concerns about this since ...mmm ... I also have my own but with the acoustic pianos sounds . Actually I was about to buy a SRX-12 since I also love the Rhodes sounds. But I think I'm not so demanding as you are on this one and I'm satisfied (well, not *fully* satisfied) with those delivered by my X.
Now, I think we both must believe that Roland would not downgrade the quality of sounds on the G and I personally make no final evaluation with ANY type of demo unless the one I make with my own ears.

[Diametro]

From what I gather, Roland seems to go with a three steps forward, one step back approach with their workstations ... (for instance, taking away numeric keys in Fantom and some other XP features ... )

Doing away with SRX expansions — but only providing two ARX slots — is most certainly the G's "one step back" ... (You know the update to the G will include more ARX slots and maybe even bring back a couple for the SRX cards ... )

However, I do have some faith in the product designers that they will truly take "the best" of the SRX cards ... But who's best? And will 128 megs be enough? That's a lot of ground to cover for 12 64-meg cards in the space of two ...

..............

I think happy Fan-X users have good reason to be ambivalent about the Fantom-G until it shows up in music stores ...

I am right on the cusp of spending about $2k on a DAW/digital mixer interface (I've been doing EVERYTHING on my Fantom for the past 2 1/2 years) ... The main reason is because I want to be able to record ALL my synths simultaneously and discretely — or even just more than one — ... The Fantom G will not help with that at all ...

It seems mostly a live performance instrument ... but really, for live performance, my Fan-X is doing just fine ...

[BigBrotherMotown]

My comments may have been somewhat insensitive as I am NOT a gigging musician (I ONLY use my fantom in Studio situations). I recently opened up for a major recording artist who lugged that old dust B3 with him to every show. I have had several "Industry" friends that Swear by the B3 and will all tell you in a heartbeat "There is absolutely NO SUBSTITUTE for it".

I do understand the need for different sounds as a performer...but like the other gentleman said there WILL be compromise at some point. I personally am PISSED that the SRX expansion has been abandoned so quickly! I dont think that the ARX cards will have any appeal for me (as I dont do much sound creating/tweaking) I am Glad that I never purchased any SRX for my Fantom X, that will make it easier for me to let go of, but I have to ask myself if I would be ok with the sounds that are ALREADY in the "G". Since I was ready to purchase the Motif rack I would have to say yes...that I could live with a sub-par soundset IF the "G" came like that.

Like I have stated in other posts i STILL have my XP80 and wiill NEVER get rid of it. I t was one of the most SMARTLY designed boards ever. (Just to think that the G added back the dedicated "Transpose" button that was on the XP80 TWELVE YEARS AGO) I STILL cant believe that they did not put back the Click out!!!! I have to agree with the 2 steps foward one step back theory.

I dont just buy workstations for the sounds, I buy for functionality and features....So if the "G" doesnt have the BEST sounds I can live with that.

I think that it is a crying SHAME that there is NO BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY with the Fantom X....Different Processor, Different Storage medium, Different Expansion....

Its like EVERYONE with the X will have to buy the "G" too just for a few new features....The File system fix SHOULD HAVE BEEN an UPDATE for the X but of course they wont do that because that means they will sell MUCH LESS Fantom G's....

I was initially VERY Happy with the G when it was announced but as the smoke and mirrors start to clear away I find myself LESS impressed.

Seems like the ONLY board released that was truly created with FOWARD thinking and innovation was the Korg Oasys (which cost way too much $$$$) but it's affordable offspring (The M3) is just as innovative at its price point...

I wont make any final decisions until I can put "Hands on" the G but I am accepting the possiblilty that I might just keep my "X"

[The Audacity Works]

I STILL cant believe that they did not put back the Click out!!!! I have to agree with the 2 steps foward one step back theory.

The XPs' dedicated click out was a very cool feature. I'd be happy if the G could simply route the click out a separate output (without having to sequence one).

I think that it is a crying SHAME that there is NO BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY with the Fantom X....Different Processor, Different Storage medium, Different Expansion...

Technology would never progress if every product was 100% compatible with what it replaced. Not only that, but each new keyboard would have millions of sounds—because it'd have every sound from every previous keyboard.

Or rather, you'd prefer Roland wait to switch engines until you're not interested in updating?

Some people wish each new keyboard would contain all new content. Others wish they'd be 100% backward-compatible. Personally, I'm with the first group.

[Artemiy]

I personally am PISSED that the SRX expansion has been abandoned so quickly!

1. SRX boards lived for about 10 years, and there is still new gear that supports them (like the new RD-700GX)
2. SR-JV boards lived for about 7 years
3. Earlier PCM cards lived for about 5 years

So, SRX boards are the longest-supported expansions Roland has ever had. What to get pissed with? I am pissed with what took Roland so long

[Oleq]

"SR-JV boards lived for about 7 years".
Some of them try to live in SRX format though )

[BigBrotherMotown]

Audacity...

I understand progression but.....

Take the Playstation 3 which is fully backwards compatible with Playststion 1 & 2 Games...
As opposed to The X-Box 360 which is NOT....

It's nice to know that I can STILL play my Classic Playstation Games on the NEW console...it IMO makes it a stronger selling point to have this....

and what is wrong with MORE sounds....even if it were possible to have every sound in the roland library would that be a bad thing????
(Obviously it wouldnt all FIT but at least we have the CHOICE)


Artemio....

I was totally unaware of SRX expansion before I purchased my Fantom X....My Bad....

[Jimknopf]

I would like to know from all of you, if we have (in part) common views on what we regard as 'bread and butter sounds' with highest priority, demanding 'highest quality' and most sample space, a second group of sounds we use quite often and need in 'high quaility' and which sounds belong into the third group of useful sounds, which we find ok if they do not use very big samples. Who likes could add sounds which he/she hardly ever needs into group 4. Concerning space I take the 256Mb of the Fantom G as available space.

It is clear from the start that we will differ most on group 2, 3 and 4, but I am curious if there is at least some consensus on group 1.

And to say it from the start: it is not intended to quarrel about different needs: they should not be questioned but just reported.
(If one needs urban sounds and the other folk guitar, it is as it is, and no reason for debates)

I will begin with my choice - which you will easily guess in part from this thread -, but I will try to include the views of some keyboarders I know.

1. Highest quality bread and butter sounds
a) 2-3 Grand Pianos
b) 2-3 Rhodes MkI, perhaps 1 MkII
c) 2-3 Wurlys
d) some Clavs (different pickup positions)
e) around 15 basic B3 sounds
f) 1-2 basic FM Epiano sounds
g) 1 CP70 and 1 other Electric grand type (nail piano type)

I would like it if this first group would get the whole first 128Mb of the ROM!

2. High quality sounds often used
a) bass sounds ranging from upright and fretless over rock to slap
b) drums including some electronic sets
c) strings
d) pads and spheric sounds
e) acoustic and electric guitars
f) analog lead synths
g) synth bass sounds
h) brass
I would dedicate around 96 Mb to these sound groups

3. the rest with casually used sounds
Here I see things like flutes & woodwinds, rest of synth sounds, fx sounds etc. I would dedicate the last 32 Mb to the rest (small samples for all kind of stuff)

4. I personally rarely ever need things like xylophones, accordions, bagpipes etc. But I know that varies widely for others

This choice is independant of possible later ARX boards: the G should work without them in a satisfying way.
I mention these because the most important among them could be an organ board (here physical modeling works really fine, see NI B4) and synthezizer boards, followed by strings and brass with a variety of expressions.

I'm curious for your choices...

[The Audacity Works]

and what is wrong with MORE sounds....even if it were possible to have every sound in the roland library would that be a bad thing????

Yes, because sounds get better. And newer. And more appropriate with modern styles of music. Roland couldn't compete if one had to sludge through 50,000 presets from the 80s and 90s to find the good, modern-sounding stuff that competes with newer Korg and Yamaha patches.

I have several keyboards in my arsenal that stick around simply to recreate old songs. It comes with the territory. Expecting 100% backward compatibility forever is extremely unrealistic. I would much rather have a product that's so radically improved, it's impossible to incorporate the old stuff.

Of course, I don't think Roland's come out and said "Sorry, the G's not backward compatible". It still may be.