Alesis has the new Fusion with VA, FM, and PM synthesis in software.
Korg had the MOSS and now has the OASYS multi-synthesis all-software engine.
Yamaha has the VL, AN, and DX plug-ins and will probably import those into software for the next go-around.
Kurzweil has the VAST software synthesis engine.
. . .
My point being, by offering no other synthesis besides sample playback, Roland is *way* behind in this aspect of the workstation race. How much "catch-up" will it play in the successor to the Fantom-X? Will Roland surprise (or even shock) us by having a software-based OS that offers *multiple* synthesis types?
Am I the only one who is *deeply* hoping for this? IMHO, the Fantom-X outshines it's competitors in most areas, but this deficiency (along with the effects limitations) is the number 1 weakness, and a *substantial* weakness/drawback/disadvantage at that.
Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
I really tire of this whole "the fantom-x has no synthesis onboard, it's only sample playback". Do you know what structures are? How about the zillion combinations of filters? FXM? Do these not count as elements of a highly capable synthesizer?
For those .5% of musicians that need more there is the V-Synth.
I think Roland will keep upgrading the Fantom line with bigger displays, more polyphony, more FX inserts, and certainly hard disk sample/audio track streaming. Maybe we'll see better filters and more types of structures. These are all things that will trickle down over the next 5 years.
For those .5% of musicians that need more there is the V-Synth.
I think Roland will keep upgrading the Fantom line with bigger displays, more polyphony, more FX inserts, and certainly hard disk sample/audio track streaming. Maybe we'll see better filters and more types of structures. These are all things that will trickle down over the next 5 years.
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Not every company has to carry the exact same products in order to have a complete line.
I kind of like different companies taking different approaches.
In terms of raw capability, the OASYS has certainly thrown down the gauntlet ... of course it's $8000 !!!.
Alesis has stolen the bang-for-buck title if they can ever get the Fusion to market. I have a suspicion that the Fusion will be decent, but not up to Roland/Yamaha sound quality standards.
Yamaha and Roland seem quite content to occupy the middle ground of "high-quality, moderate price". That's where most of the money is, so it's a good business move.
I kind of like different companies taking different approaches.
In terms of raw capability, the OASYS has certainly thrown down the gauntlet ... of course it's $8000 !!!.
Alesis has stolen the bang-for-buck title if they can ever get the Fusion to market. I have a suspicion that the Fusion will be decent, but not up to Roland/Yamaha sound quality standards.
Yamaha and Roland seem quite content to occupy the middle ground of "high-quality, moderate price". That's where most of the money is, so it's a good business move.
Fantom XV
If they do,(wich they will, just not yet) I predict they will have the Varphrase and sampling capabilities of the V-synth. and the rest of what MIDIguru stated.
My most logical guess, is that they would call it the Fantom-XV(6/7/8) making it the most powerful synth in roland history...mark my words....
I say 3\4 more years...
But I'm keepin the X6 and XT combination I have...Don't mark my words on this though....
Septimo ,'^)
X6
XT
My most logical guess, is that they would call it the Fantom-XV(6/7/8) making it the most powerful synth in roland history...mark my words....
I say 3\4 more years...
But I'm keepin the X6 and XT combination I have...Don't mark my words on this though....
Septimo ,'^)
X6
XT
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
But who knows...they could probably add these things with a software upgrade.....they did surprised me with audio traxx...
Septimo ,'^)
X6
XT
Septimo ,'^)
X6
XT
-
beyondthesedoors
- Posts: 622
- Joined: 03:45, 16 August 2004
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Contact:
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
I used the Moss board it wasnt that great, it was a good addition but id rather buy a SRX-08--wish i had the money tho ahha. It was only like 5 Polyphony i think. I think Roland will come out with an entire new series without going over the FX for at least a year or two because of the new audio upgrade, i think it was a sign showing that there doing other stuff right now and want the fantom x to be rolands top board for at least the next year or two, i mean we might even have new upgrades.
Partho- BTD-
" Its not the Fall that kills you..........(thump) its the sudden stop at the end"- Vin Diesel
Partho- BTD-
" Its not the Fall that kills you..........(thump) its the sudden stop at the end"- Vin Diesel
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Well, I'll agree with MIDIguru. Saying this probably means you haven't read the TweakBook. In some parts, Fantom-S/X synth/fx engine can even beat the V-Synth.
But anyway, I think Roland definitely can improve the Fantom engine. Basically, if you look at the Roland synths structure in the timeline, you will see that...
D-50 was the first one to settle the tone/structure concepts and names like TVF, TVA, etc. But unlike the next JD series, D synths had two types of oscs: analogue-style digital oscillators with PWM and PCM oscs. D featured 4 tones per patch, each couple of tones could be joined into a structure with a ring modulator.
For some reason in the next JD series they dropped out analogue-style oscs. But anyway JDs could sync the PCM waves to a dedicated internal sync oscillator - a really nice feature. JDs featured 4 tones per patch as well (as I remember) and 2-tone structures with ring mod.
Next, in the early JVs, they left out the sync feature too... The structures are there of course, 4 tones per patch. In latter JVs (1080, 2080) and XPs some more structures were added, mainly those with a booster.
XVs and Fantoms were beefed up mainly with more matrix control options: as I recon, no synths prior to XVs could modulate an LFO rate with an envelope, envelope by itself, envelope/LFO to MFX etc. Fantoms also added the step LFO and new MFX set based on COSM/RSS stuff which added really new capabilities - with some tweaks you can turn your Fantom into a monsterous modular synth.
Anyway, in a future Fantom or whatever I'd really like to see the things they were dropping out on the way starting from the D series, e.g.:
- Analogue-style oscs integrated, even not as advanced as in the V-Synth
- Osc sync in JD style (so that PCM waves and samples can be sync'd too)
Also, Notch filter definitely can be added to the TVF. Some more MFX units and more interesting algorithms would be great.
But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE. Currently they are building upon the JVs, for more than 12 years by now, and this is really great. Except for the wave ROM, you get the engine which is compatible with the previous ones. But I'd really miss the great MFX set in the Fantom if they'd drop it in future. SuperFilter, 3D chorus/delay, LoFi Radio/Comp and other stuff are now essentials for me.
Okay, that's enough for today
A.
But anyway, I think Roland definitely can improve the Fantom engine. Basically, if you look at the Roland synths structure in the timeline, you will see that...
D-50 was the first one to settle the tone/structure concepts and names like TVF, TVA, etc. But unlike the next JD series, D synths had two types of oscs: analogue-style digital oscillators with PWM and PCM oscs. D featured 4 tones per patch, each couple of tones could be joined into a structure with a ring modulator.
For some reason in the next JD series they dropped out analogue-style oscs. But anyway JDs could sync the PCM waves to a dedicated internal sync oscillator - a really nice feature. JDs featured 4 tones per patch as well (as I remember) and 2-tone structures with ring mod.
Next, in the early JVs, they left out the sync feature too... The structures are there of course, 4 tones per patch. In latter JVs (1080, 2080) and XPs some more structures were added, mainly those with a booster.
XVs and Fantoms were beefed up mainly with more matrix control options: as I recon, no synths prior to XVs could modulate an LFO rate with an envelope, envelope by itself, envelope/LFO to MFX etc. Fantoms also added the step LFO and new MFX set based on COSM/RSS stuff which added really new capabilities - with some tweaks you can turn your Fantom into a monsterous modular synth.
Anyway, in a future Fantom or whatever I'd really like to see the things they were dropping out on the way starting from the D series, e.g.:
- Analogue-style oscs integrated, even not as advanced as in the V-Synth
- Osc sync in JD style (so that PCM waves and samples can be sync'd too)
Also, Notch filter definitely can be added to the TVF. Some more MFX units and more interesting algorithms would be great.
But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE. Currently they are building upon the JVs, for more than 12 years by now, and this is really great. Except for the wave ROM, you get the engine which is compatible with the previous ones. But I'd really miss the great MFX set in the Fantom if they'd drop it in future. SuperFilter, 3D chorus/delay, LoFi Radio/Comp and other stuff are now essentials for me.
Okay, that's enough for today
A.
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
My prediction is the next Roland workstation will have the color touchscreen, tonewheel modelling and maybe the weighted 76 keybed of the G70.
It's stuff they already have.
bb
It's stuff they already have.
bb
-
sambasevam
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: 17:52, 10 May 2004
- Location: United States of America
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
swandiver has a very good question.
The fantom is the only one that doesnt have support to have multiple engines. Its not necessary that they SHOULD have it. its only a welcome addition, cos, you can get something fresh out of the new engine.
True that the fantom has zillions of possibilities, but so do the other workstations. So, i'd love for the next fantom to host different engines......
---------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you dont suceed, then skydiving is definitively not for you.
The fantom is the only one that doesnt have support to have multiple engines. Its not necessary that they SHOULD have it. its only a welcome addition, cos, you can get something fresh out of the new engine.
True that the fantom has zillions of possibilities, but so do the other workstations. So, i'd love for the next fantom to host different engines......
---------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you dont suceed, then skydiving is definitively not for you.
-
ProgressiveD
- Posts: 191
- Joined: 21:59, 20 January 2004
- Location: Canada
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
I agree.
Of course, if Roland would come up with a Fantom-Z/V-Synth combination that sells for 2000$, I would probably buy it in a heartbeat. But in the meantime, if one wants multiple synthesis types in a synth, let him look at an expanded Motif, Triton, or the Fusion.
At last, I'm part of the gang !
Of course, if Roland would come up with a Fantom-Z/V-Synth combination that sells for 2000$, I would probably buy it in a heartbeat. But in the meantime, if one wants multiple synthesis types in a synth, let him look at an expanded Motif, Triton, or the Fusion.
At last, I'm part of the gang !
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Actually, Roland have "been there and done that". My JV90 currently has a VE-JV1 board installed which is essentially a whole extra JV90 class sound source on a little card... there was also the option of the VE-GS1 (a GM/GS card) and a VE-RD1 (SA Piano card)... and that was about 8-10 years ago.
)
Dave
http://www.drstudio.demon.co.uk/
"Some musicians have a physical block, some have a mental block, while others have a wooden block". Unfortunately, I'm in the 1st category!
)Dave
http://www.drstudio.demon.co.uk/
"Some musicians have a physical block, some have a mental block, while others have a wooden block". Unfortunately, I'm in the 1st category!
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Artemio wrote:
"But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE. Currently they are building upon the JVs, for more than 12 years by now, and this is really great. Except for the wave ROM, you get the engine which is compatible with the previous ones. But I'd really miss the great MFX set in the Fantom if they'd drop it in future. SuperFilter, 3D chorus/delay, LoFi Radio/Comp and other stuff are now essentials for me. "
I want to add, better control for live playing. All my jv, and xv series synths have much better functions for live playing like using performaces much better and easily than new fantom system. Live players usually don?t need seq, It?s much easily to sequence on computers. All my live keys (fantom xa, yamaha motif 7 ES and triton)come with seq.!!! another 3 modules with seq, I never use them, alive. Even in studio I don ?t use.seq.
Roland give us a powerful with all the new features, syntesis and tricks but much better live playing ways to change patches without cutting sound or artifacts or moving into menus to make this.
Just as easy like in JV 90 or xp 30.
"But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE. Currently they are building upon the JVs, for more than 12 years by now, and this is really great. Except for the wave ROM, you get the engine which is compatible with the previous ones. But I'd really miss the great MFX set in the Fantom if they'd drop it in future. SuperFilter, 3D chorus/delay, LoFi Radio/Comp and other stuff are now essentials for me. "
I want to add, better control for live playing. All my jv, and xv series synths have much better functions for live playing like using performaces much better and easily than new fantom system. Live players usually don?t need seq, It?s much easily to sequence on computers. All my live keys (fantom xa, yamaha motif 7 ES and triton)come with seq.!!! another 3 modules with seq, I never use them, alive. Even in studio I don ?t use.seq.
Roland give us a powerful with all the new features, syntesis and tricks but much better live playing ways to change patches without cutting sound or artifacts or moving into menus to make this.
Just as easy like in JV 90 or xp 30.
My most logical guess, is that they would call it the Fantom
it may have the power "potential"
but the way roland developers keep duplicating the same handling routines from gear to gear, you will end up with a juggernaught with no wheels.
the V-synth is Flawed! (held back by its archaic software)
the fantom is flawed (also held back by duplication from the v-synth)
and i wont mention the biggest! headache that everyone has finaly realised.
so now where looking to combine both flawed products in to an even bigger F up!
there are so many bludy bugs in this fx that could be fixed in one day so why have we been waiting over a year to see them stil not fixed, and even with so called!! O.S. 2?
its the same sh*t with a new interface.
no mater how pretty your rapping paper, Sh*t is still Sh*t
personaly looking at zero progress between the v-synth and the FX
i will not be buying another Roland just to deal with the same litmitations, crap file system and even more bugs.
i have been told by roland themselves that there philosophy is simple.
because a function on one system was implemented in one way regardless that its bad, you can expect it to do the same on the next version, and because thats the way its always worked on other gear thats the way it will always be so dont expect change.
(and hell no one else complained about it so why should we change)
this is essential what i was told..
so dont expect progress just the same bad technology in a different wrapper.
Art!
you also said it...
But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE"
Never! being the operative word
so they dont drop them the just move them over and dont fix them.
Results not Excuses
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intell P4 2g
512mb
but the way roland developers keep duplicating the same handling routines from gear to gear, you will end up with a juggernaught with no wheels.
the V-synth is Flawed! (held back by its archaic software)
the fantom is flawed (also held back by duplication from the v-synth)
and i wont mention the biggest! headache that everyone has finaly realised.
so now where looking to combine both flawed products in to an even bigger F up!
there are so many bludy bugs in this fx that could be fixed in one day so why have we been waiting over a year to see them stil not fixed, and even with so called!! O.S. 2?
its the same sh*t with a new interface.
no mater how pretty your rapping paper, Sh*t is still Sh*t
personaly looking at zero progress between the v-synth and the FX
i will not be buying another Roland just to deal with the same litmitations, crap file system and even more bugs.
i have been told by roland themselves that there philosophy is simple.
because a function on one system was implemented in one way regardless that its bad, you can expect it to do the same on the next version, and because thats the way its always worked on other gear thats the way it will always be so dont expect change.
(and hell no one else complained about it so why should we change)
this is essential what i was told..
so dont expect progress just the same bad technology in a different wrapper.
Art!
you also said it...
But basically, I'd suggest Roland NEVER DROP THE GREAT THINGS THIER SYNTHS HAVE"
Never! being the operative word
so they dont drop them the just move them over and dont fix them.
Results not Excuses
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intell P4 2g
512mb
-
Igglethorpe
- Posts: 592
- Joined: 09:27, 23 January 2005
- Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
Tell us how you really feel Quinnx!
I agree with Quinnx on some points, but my biggest complaint (if there is one) is the file system implementation on this current crop of synths, including the V-Synth. I think it could be a little better than it is.
Going forward I wouldn't mind seeing a V-Synth/Fantom-X merger. That would be some piece of kit. It would also be Roland specific. This instrument would not be a copy of the Fusion or anything else out there on the market. It would be very unique to Roland and should do well. My guess is, something like that would cost at least $3999 list for the 88 weighted version..
----------------------------------
X-8 (2.0) 512MB
I agree with Quinnx on some points, but my biggest complaint (if there is one) is the file system implementation on this current crop of synths, including the V-Synth. I think it could be a little better than it is.
Going forward I wouldn't mind seeing a V-Synth/Fantom-X merger. That would be some piece of kit. It would also be Roland specific. This instrument would not be a copy of the Fusion or anything else out there on the market. It would be very unique to Roland and should do well. My guess is, something like that would cost at least $3999 list for the 88 weighted version..
----------------------------------
X-8 (2.0) 512MB
Re: Will Roland surprise us with the F-X successor?
if you really really would like a merger you don't have to wait you can get the rack version of the Vsynth and hook it to your fantom x..
thats it
if they merged them you would be giving up there independancy and having all those extra inputs and outs that would other wise end up being shared.
and yes.. my real pain in ass is! the file system! it belongs in the 1970s
Results not Excuses
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intell P4 2g
512mb
thats it
if they merged them you would be giving up there independancy and having all those extra inputs and outs that would other wise end up being shared.
and yes.. my real pain in ass is! the file system! it belongs in the 1970s
Results not Excuses
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intell P4 2g
512mb