Fantom G8 VS Jupiter 80

[MethodicMind]

Thanks for the update on the Patch Remain.

I thought it seemed weird that they would take that away.

Yeah, the problem is that I was not "testing" this feature as it was supposed to be used. There no big advantage changing the whole registration instead of changing a Liveset in the registration.

Registration is a good starting though because all livesets setups and splits are there. But still, It is also easy to change the splits playing live.

[mojkarma]

Yeah, the problem is that I was not "testing" this feature as it was supposed to be used. There no big advantage changing the whole registration instead of changing a Liveset in the registration.
Registration is a good starting though because all livesets setups and splits are there. But still, It is also easy to change the splits playing live.

I can't speak here from experience, but if the jp80 doesn't change the registrations without interrupting the sound, I wouldn't call it seamless switching. The term one may use to name this function is actually irrelevant.
Changing the live sets by adding them at some point or putting them off seamlessly is nothing new. You can do that on any Roland stage piano for years.
Registration is not only the highest mode on the jp80 but also the one where you finish your sonically product by not only adding sounds and creating split points, but also defining what the controllers will do and which controller will be active for which part.
The question is not how easy live sets can be changed or how fast you can create new split points. On the stage you probably don't want to fiddle with those settings while playing live, singing, looking what is going on there. You probably want to press one key and change the whole setup from one to another as it's required by the song and your performance.
If you have a piano/pad layer on the intro of the song and a pad/organ/lead synth split required on the next part of the song, it's easier to change to the next registration instead of haunting thru menus and looking for those three new required patches, including new split points, not to mention the appropriate octave shift settings for each part, the volume level for each part and so on.
So, put simply, if the jp80 can change between registrations without interrupting the old sound, yes, it has seamless switching, and if it can't do that, it doesn't have seamless switching.

[Devnor]

Its called patch remain. Turn it on in System settings. The patch remains but FX changes. Pretty obvious when switching between factory presets. I think the primary reason is difference in FX gain staging between presets. If one patch has goosed-up mega-verb, delay & EQ but the next one doesn't the "remaining" sounds will be effected by the new FX setting. You'll hear something. When you'll start rolling your own patches these audible effects can be minimized.

Seamless switching is the next level. Some keyboards can do this better than Jupiter albeit with limitations of their own.

[Bruce Lychee]

Its called patch remain. Turn it on in System settings. The patch remains but FX changes. Pretty obvious when switching between factory presets. I think the primary reason is difference in FX gain staging between presets. If one patch has goosed-up mega-verb, delay & EQ but the next one doesn't the "remaining" sounds will be effected by the new FX setting. You'll hear something. When you'll start rolling your own patches these audible effects can be minimized.

Seamless switching is the next level. Some keyboards can do this better than Jupiter albeit with limitations of their own.

Exactly. It doesn't work as well as the Kronos SST, but it definitely is there at the registration level. When you use factory registrations you can clearly hear that the underlying tones carry over, however what gets cut off is some of the effects. If you are making your own patches and playing live it is definitely a useful tool. If you are sitting at home trying to seamlessly transition between factory registrations, you might be led to believe otherwise.

[mojkarma]

It seems so far that this is the already known patch remain function as some earlier keyboards from Roland had it. The patch will remain, but you'll hear a change, depending on the effect chosen for the next patch.
It's IMHO a pity that Roland didn't implement it properly as they did on the Fantom G where it works absolutely seamless regardless of the effects.
Even if the previous tone carries over, the change in the effect is audible and if that's how the jp80 works, it's definitely not on the level of the FG or Kronos in that regard.

[Bruce Lychee]

It seems so far that this is the already known patch remain function as some earlier keyboards from Roland had it. The patch will remain, but you'll hear a change, depending on the effect chosen for the next patch.
It's IMHO a pity that Roland didn't implement it properly as they did on the Fantom G where it works absolutely seamless regardless of the effects.
Even if the previous tone carries over, the change in the effect is audible and if that's how the jp80 works, it's definitely not on the level of the FG or Kronos in that regard.

Isn't patch remain on the Fantom limited to one effect per patch that carries over? If you have a live set with 8 patches can you carry over more than one effect patch? I don't think that is any different than the Jupiter.

I don't have a Fantom anymore but I don't remember tone remain being as seamless as Korg's SST.

[mojkarma]

Isn't patch remain on the Fantom limited to one effect per patch that carries over? If you have a live set with 8 patches can you carry over more than one effect patch? I don't think that is any different than the Jupiter.

The Fantom G is designed to have just one insert effect per patch. Roland always was very conservative when it comes to the effect structure and the number of available effects per patch or the way how you can connect them. But on the FG switching from one single patch in single mode or from one live set to another in live mode works completely seamless. A live set containing 8 patches will seamlessly switch to the next live set.

I don't have a Fantom anymore but I don't remember tone remain being as seamless as Korg's SST.

Korg pushes it further in the way that you are not limited to the number of available effects per patch. In fact, Korg never limited the number of available effects on any of its operation mode. You have an effect section and if there are 5, 12 or 16 effects, those are equally available to either one patch or to all 16 in the combination.
Roland on the other hand offers 22 effects in the FG, but you are still limited to just one per patch and seamless switching works only in the live mode, where you can have up to 8 inserts across 8 parts and 2 aux effects. The reason is probably that the keyboard can load the next 8 inserts and 2 aux effects when you switch to the next live set.
So, Roland limits the max. number of effects to half, so that the other half can be used while switching to the next live set. Korg doesn't have this limitation on the Kronos.
So, when you speak about not having a Fantom anymore, I don't know whether you mean the FG or an older model. On the FG it works perfectly with no limitations. Just that there's the limitation to use one single effect per patch.
The older Fantom series have the patch remain function (the same as on the RD series) where the tone carries over, but you'll still hear the effect being cut off.

Seamless switching with no limitation was a very important point in advertising and demonstrating the FG three years ago. I'm wondering that Roland didn't implement it in the same way on the jp80 which is marketed as a performance keyboard for the gigging musician.

[Devnor]

Creative programming can either make it or break it. The FG has 1 live set. JP80 has 2. Imagine the possibilities.

But this thread is not about creating huge FX transitions. The question is do you want SRX PCM samples remaining or Supernatural instruments? This is what I meant by "light years ahead". The audio engine is completely new. Only the OP can decide for himself if they sound better.

[Bruce Lychee]

The reason the stock registration items make it seem like tone remain is different is that there are so many effects being applied and reverb is cranked on almost every one. If you create your own registration items it becomes clear that tone remain can work seamlessly, but you have to limit your effects. Probably a carryover from the limitations of the G that doesn't account for the expanded capabilities of the Jupiter. I think that similarly structured sets on the G and Jupiter would reveal that they have similar tone remain functionality.

[DJ RAZZ rasco]

My 2 cents worth. The JP80, all though it has been out for over 6 months, is still brand new and hopefully has a bright future of some sort. The Fantom line, at least for now, is dead. The JP80 has a lot of new interface type stuff for organ, new patch setup, settings for live shows, ect..; once you understand it's language of doing things. By the way this thing still confuses me. You're getting a more performance synth. This could be a cool and fun journey into enjoying your instrument on a more intimate level. So for now the JP80 get's my vote. However NAMM is coming.

Now I would sell my ARX boards separate from the Fantom for they are getting more and more rare. Once again dead technology for now. if you can get a good price for the for the G8 with boards included, than all the better

Good luck......

[mojkarma]

Creative programming can either make it or break it. The FG has 1 live set. JP80 has 2. Imagine the possibilities.

I don't want to roll the old discussion out again, but the live sets on the FG and on the jp80 are different. On the jp80 it has basically 4 parts, while on the FG it has 8 parts + 2 ARX parts + 16 external parts. The 2 livesets on the jp80 don't really have any more possibilities then what you can create on all other keyboards with multitimbrality between 8 or 16 parts.
Put simply, I don't see what would be the difference whether you create two live sets on the jp80, each containing 4 parts, or you create one live set on the FG with 8 parts.

But this thread is not about creating huge FX transitions. The question is do you want SRX PCM samples remaining or Supernatural instruments?

This thread is about FG vs. JP80, so we are perfectly on topic. It's not about huge FX transitions. It's about whether the seamless uninterrupted transition is possible or not, regardless of the number of effects being used. Either it works or it doesn't. The decision what is more important to someone is of course completely up to the individual. Those working in their studio probably don't care much about sound transition but more about details in the sound. Those on stage would sometimes rather have seamless transition than sound details which get lost in the mix anyway.

The reason the stock registration items make it seem like tone remain is different is that there are so many effects being applied and reverb is cranked on almost every one. If you create your own registration items it becomes clear that tone remain can work seamlessly, but you have to limit your effects.

I don't want to be picky about it, at least I don't care since I don't own the jp80, but a function either works completely or it doesn't. I wouldn't want to depend on the choice and number of effects being used. Sometimes I need less, and sometimes more. But that's me. Just once again: on the FG seamless transition works any time and always. Regardless how many effects you use and how heavy they are. So, the FG and JP80 are not similar in that regard.

[Bruce Lychee]

It works but there are limitations on the number of effects than can be carried over. The only difference is that on the Fantom is that the number of effects that can be applied are limited by design so you don't encounter the problem. I would rather have the additional flexibility of the Jupiter and be forced to scale back my effects than be limited off the bat.

More importantly, for the OP, if he currently relies on tone remain, I have no doubt that whatever live sets or patches he was using on the G could be similarly created on the Jupiter with better audible results and smooth tone remain transitions.

[mojkarma]

May I ask, at what point does it work on the JP80?
You create live sets and save them separately. Then you combine them based on your needs into a registration, together or without the additional two parts.
So, what makes the difference between a complete seamless transition and an audible hiccup while changing from one to another registration? Is it the number of effects, is it the complexity of the effects, what is it?

As I said, I don't want to make the problem bigger as it may appear, we all played successfully for years before seamless switching was introduced on the FG or Kronos, but I'd like to see some technical advances to be implemented on successive models and developed further instead of abandoning them. One reason why I still prefer Hardware over Software on stage is that I have real numbers and facts about what is doable and what is not. Once the whole thing shifts towards the complexity of the effects, their number, quality, processor load and so no, we are closer to software solutions. That's not what I personally really like. I can deal with software in the studio, but on stage, I have to know whether the instrument supports me or it doesn't.

[BEATmakerCOPE]

May I ask, at what point does it work on the JP80?
You create live sets and save them separately. Then you combine them based on your needs into a registration, together or without the additional two parts.
So, what makes the difference between a complete seamless transition and an audible hiccup while changing from one to another registration? Is it the number of effects, is it the complexity of the effects, what is it?

As I said, I don't want to make the problem bigger as it may appear, we all played successfully for years before seamless switching was introduced on the FG or Kronos, but I'd like to see some technical advances to be implemented on successive models and developed further instead of abandoning them. One reason why I still prefer Hardware over Software on stage is that I have real numbers and facts about what is doable and what is not. Once the whole thing shifts towards the complexity of the effects, their number, quality, processor load and so no, we are closer to software solutions. That's not what I personally really like. I can deal with software in the studio, but on stage, I have to know whether the instrument supports me or it doesn't.

this guy nailed it.