My emphasis here was differences/sameness in audio quality ... Used same monitors with multiple inputs so both could be played simultaneously ...
This is what I heard ...
Patches that were carry-overs from X or earlier (like "Strobot," "JP-8 Phase" or "Sad Ceremony" sounded the same (or so close that it doesn't bear mentioning ... ) This X unfortunately didn't have SRX expansions so identifiable SRX patches like "South Border" on G (acoustic guitar) weren't able to be compared ...
Patches that didn't have direct counterparts like Manhattan Grand (Fan-G) vs. Ultimat Grand (Fan-X) often had more low-end presence but didn't necessarily sound "better" to me ...
It's hard to say if this increased low end was because of new programming or something physically new in G ... Again, I'll re-iterate, though, patches that were on both machines had the same amount of low end ... (And additionally, I'm still of the opinion that the G's low end is perhaps too "boomy" and a little crude ... ) Bass patches like SH-101 Bass sounded the same ...
The one thing that surprised me and has become a growing realization as I've played with Fan-G more and more is that the sampling and skip-back sampling IS noticeably crisper and truer to original audio than Fan-X (like emphasis and normalization are pre-applied ... which is often the process I have to go through on Fan-X, which is a bit of a drag on workflow) ... This is surprising to me because nobody seems to be talking about any upgrades to the sampler, and Roland certainly doesn't list this as one of the enhancements to G ... But to me it's more than obvious ... (Also, drum tracks -- kits? -- seem crisper ... )
That alone, coupled with faster processing times -- for instance flipping through samples is now quick rather than the rather slow process it can be on X -- might be what seals the deal for me to go G ...
However, I still think the Fantom-G's soundset is uninspired, bland and full of big holes compared to SRX-expanded X (choirs, orchestral groupings, and among electric pianos, "Real Thing" are just some of the examples) ... and I'm really reluctant to embrace ARX considering what's (not) out there ...
And why oh why hasn't Roland added automated panning and volume levels to the audio tracks yet ... ??? (This is probably one of my biggest reasons for NOT going G ... )
FINALLY! Fan-G and X auditioned side-by-side ...
Re: FINALLY! Fan-G and X auditioned side-by-side ...
Hey Diametro, thanks for posting these thoughts. I've never been able to compare the two side by side, but i have an X at home and have spent some considerable time with the G in store.
The thing that put me off the G was the same as the X: lack of good Hammonds.
I completely agree about the faster sample load times. In fact, I noticed that on all the Fantom X promo DVDs Roland folks never save samples to the X, they always use USB hooked up to a laptop.
I guess the conclusion is the same as several folks have said on this board: if you're looking for a new workstation and you don't have the X, the G is the way to go, and awesome it really is. If you already have the X (especially with SRX boards), it's a much tougher call. That's why I spent my two grand on a Nord Stage for the Hammonds, rather than on a G which doesn't really offer me (X user with 4xSRX) that much extra.
Andy
The thing that put me off the G was the same as the X: lack of good Hammonds.
I completely agree about the faster sample load times. In fact, I noticed that on all the Fantom X promo DVDs Roland folks never save samples to the X, they always use USB hooked up to a laptop.
I guess the conclusion is the same as several folks have said on this board: if you're looking for a new workstation and you don't have the X, the G is the way to go, and awesome it really is. If you already have the X (especially with SRX boards), it's a much tougher call. That's why I spent my two grand on a Nord Stage for the Hammonds, rather than on a G which doesn't really offer me (X user with 4xSRX) that much extra.
Andy
Re: FINALLY! Fan-G and X auditioned side-by-side ...
just one point and flipping through samples quicker on the g..
The reason the X is slower has nothing to do with hardware and all to do with bad programming..
If you watch carefully on the X you will notice thet the larger the sample the longer it takes to go to the next one in the list..
the reason is this..
For some STUPID! reason they made it important to render and micro image of EVERY! sample flip to just above the sample list.
Why!?
This is why its slow, has nothing to do with architecture..
The reason the X is slower has nothing to do with hardware and all to do with bad programming..
If you watch carefully on the X you will notice thet the larger the sample the longer it takes to go to the next one in the list..
the reason is this..
For some STUPID! reason they made it important to render and micro image of EVERY! sample flip to just above the sample list.
Why!?
This is why its slow, has nothing to do with architecture..
-
Michael Menze
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 20:25, 29 July 2009
- Location: Germany
Re: FINALLY! Fan-G and X auditioned side-by-side ...
Hello from Germany
One possible reason for this behavior could also be that there is something missing like a disc-management with functions like "de-fragmentation" on FANTOM. If you use "tons" of samples, e.g. deleting something in the sample list and adding new samples, the data structure will get more confused and in the end longer loading times will result.
One way to reduce loading times depending on data-fragmentation is to use YASE: YASE assigns all fragmented data parts as you use a "blank" storing device.
Best
Michael
One possible reason for this behavior could also be that there is something missing like a disc-management with functions like "de-fragmentation" on FANTOM. If you use "tons" of samples, e.g. deleting something in the sample list and adding new samples, the data structure will get more confused and in the end longer loading times will result.
One way to reduce loading times depending on data-fragmentation is to use YASE: YASE assigns all fragmented data parts as you use a "blank" storing device.
Best
Michael
Re: FINALLY! Fan-G and X auditioned side-by-side ...
Diametro:
Interesting comparison. Oddly, I own a Fantom-G8 and, now, a Fantom-XR as well (the rack version of a Fantom-X, for those of you who don't know), and have yet to make A/B comparisons among the many patches available in both. My XR is loaded up with four SRX boards. I haven't seen that any of the few available ARX boards are suited to my needs for my G. And, again, oddly, I find myself using my G8 more often as an overly expensive controller for my Fantom-XR! So your findings were actually a bit comforting. To those still deciding between an X and a G . . .
1. The G is MUCH faster. This just has to be due to faster hardware. My Fantom-X could take as long as 10 to 20 minutes to load or save. This speed increase benefit alone is argument enough for not even considering an X.
2. The G manages its sample files by automatically grouping them in "Projects." VERY important. Again, this feature alone is argument enough for not even considering an X.
I agree, that fader and panning automation was sorely missed (as well as being hugely anticipated) in the G. That's probably my largest gripe with the G, aside from the fact that there is no longer a "monitor" routing option for using the G's skipback sampling feature, a feature I found ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE on my old Fantom-X8 for getting isolated lead solo guitar tracks down. Other than those two complaints, I'm incredibly happy with the G's overall improvements and wouldn't go back to an X for anything (see points '1.' and '2.').
Well, except for having that monitor routing feature back. Several times, I've seriously considered buying an old X6 just to regain that one, single feature back, since Roland doesn't appear to be in too much of a hurry to redesign the G's mixing screen (and the underlying routing code, which I'm sure is a pain) to re-include it.
Interesting comparison. Oddly, I own a Fantom-G8 and, now, a Fantom-XR as well (the rack version of a Fantom-X, for those of you who don't know), and have yet to make A/B comparisons among the many patches available in both. My XR is loaded up with four SRX boards. I haven't seen that any of the few available ARX boards are suited to my needs for my G. And, again, oddly, I find myself using my G8 more often as an overly expensive controller for my Fantom-XR! So your findings were actually a bit comforting. To those still deciding between an X and a G . . .
1. The G is MUCH faster. This just has to be due to faster hardware. My Fantom-X could take as long as 10 to 20 minutes to load or save. This speed increase benefit alone is argument enough for not even considering an X.
2. The G manages its sample files by automatically grouping them in "Projects." VERY important. Again, this feature alone is argument enough for not even considering an X.
I agree, that fader and panning automation was sorely missed (as well as being hugely anticipated) in the G. That's probably my largest gripe with the G, aside from the fact that there is no longer a "monitor" routing option for using the G's skipback sampling feature, a feature I found ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE on my old Fantom-X8 for getting isolated lead solo guitar tracks down. Other than those two complaints, I'm incredibly happy with the G's overall improvements and wouldn't go back to an X for anything (see points '1.' and '2.').
Well, except for having that monitor routing feature back. Several times, I've seriously considered buying an old X6 just to regain that one, single feature back, since Roland doesn't appear to be in too much of a hurry to redesign the G's mixing screen (and the underlying routing code, which I'm sure is a pain) to re-include it.