converted from software to my fantom

I feel the same way. I wasted a lot of time lookin for sample libs, and years later never like the guitars of strings. All that installin and update(in).


The XR covers it all and makes it easy. All the great sounds in one place. And and nice litte synth and sampler to boot.

I have only 1 SRX, 07, it rocks. My next choice is the EP-12.

Zebro

So are you sequencing with software and just the XR?


I'm very comfortable using Sonar 6 and Ableton live.

Ableton is my go to software for sequencing.

I have over 200gigs of softsynths and vst's and I find it a bit overwhelming sometimes. Just way too many options to choose from. I spend more messing around with vst and soft samplers instead of making music.

I'm thinking of going to a XR with MPK49 and Ableton Live.

Hardware keyboards are computers with very specific limited abilities. Maybe thats a good thing, it keep you focused on what you can do vs. what you cant do.

Too much power is always a bad thing!!!!!!!!

I use Cubase SX3 to sequence(its the best). I still use software to sequence and sometimes sample(I mostly us my mpc2000xl though) but for sounds, its the Fantom(and my other racks). I found having all those programs overwhelming too.
No offence to you but I think I'll take a Fantom XR fully loaded with 6 SRX cards before 200 gigs of samples in a computer anytime. I say this because I have about 120gigs of sounds all together in software sounds and find that I have more quality and usable sounds in my Fantom.
I know skills play a part too in creating and shaping sounds so I just do not depend on factory presets like I used to do.

same with me: Cubase SX3 as sequencer, but besides some software sounds mainly hardware sounds, most from Access Virus TI and Fantom X with expansion boards.

I used a notebook/soundcard/VStack combination even live for a while. It's a lot which today's software has to offer! But you also have to browse through a lot of stuff constantly to end up with some quality sounds you really want.

Software clearly has the greater potential: big high-quality sample libraries with disk streaming, softsynths like Zebra (probably a more powerful and good sounding synth than any hardware synth I know) or Rob Papen's synths, plus modelling of famous instruments (no matter if Hammond B4, FM7, Moog or Jupiter 8 or whatever) with in part high degrees of authenticity...


But for three reasons I went back to mainly hardware use anyway:

a) live reliabilty. If you once have a program failure or even restart of OS (happens not often, but does happen) during a rehearsal or gig, you will know what I mean: unacceptable situations, and pros do that only with a full set of second devices ready and running for such cases.

b) what I call the "haptic" factor.
using real knobs and function keys on my Access Virus or Fantom X is still the most direct way I can imagine for making music: with each hardware keyboard you have a complete sound package at hand which you know well (or should know well) , and after some use you are fast in getting things done and using sounds live or even sequencing basic ideas.

It's all much more complicated to handle with software and mouse: many different programs, different shortcuts, different user interfaces, and more possible error sources.

c) identic live and recording sounds.
If you don't do separate recording, but want to be able to play songs or structures with the same sounds live, it's no joy having to find comparable softsynth/hardware stuff instead of identical sounds.
Here the Access Virus TI is especially great, offering a software control interface which integrates it's complete hardware synth into Cubase as VSTi!
But the Fantom can also be integrated the usual old way (sequencing midis and producing hardware audio tracks from them with the Fantom, then muting the midis and using the audio tracks).

Well... I have been using software for long, and the best one so far is FLStudio.

I really love to produce in my FantomX, but most times I import tracks created with effects from FLStudio. I bought my fantomx because of this ability.

I guess too that if Roland decided to add the extra PC softwares with the FantomX it means something.

cubase sx3 for me too.. i have used fl studio (which i wouldn't let eat from my dogs food dish now) reason 2 and 3, and a TON of SW synths as well (FAR to many to list).
and there is no denying that I like how my hardware sounds better. Much better. something about navigating thru HW versus a soft synth that just feels better, but that aside.. I havnt found any soft synth or VSTi that can touch the sounds in most of my hardware.. even the little BS Yamaha MM6 i have has sounds better than most of what is in reason. (even after the ass load of refills i got)

for me personally, i started with hardware.. thats how i got in the game.. software at that point was very rare and mostly rumored, until larger HD's became available and pc's started to become more capable. Then I fell out of the loop for a little while, and had sold most of my gear except for my Delta 1010, a Yamaha A4000 sampler, and Midi patch bay. When I got back into it, a friend hooked me up with reason 2.. at first i thought it was pretty dope.. I mean the whole idea in general and the cool little features it had in terms of actually or visually emulating a studio, but even then, sound wise it wasn't blowing me away to say the least. then came the influx of VSTi's and other various programs. and believe me , I'll try anything once....

but creatively, all the software stuff just cant do it for me.. in terms of sound, ease of use, how intuitive they are to use, not to mention trying to map out individual midi functions on a controller on a per VSTi basis.. no fun. And I don't like feeling like a midi programmer instead of a producer.

So i went and got the Juno G and blew it out (only have SRX98 thus far but i am DROOLING to get some others) and also repurchased a few few pieces of gear i used to have and missed like the Emu Mo Phatt and Korg Tr Rack. I also got a Yamaha MM6. its cheap and certainly not a Workstation , but I like the drums in it better than anything else I have(besides my samples in my A4000 that is). even the mo phatt and tr rack, as old and heard as they are.. the sounds sets in them are just richer and fatter and more realistic to me than any SW i have heard to date. Plus i know them like the back of my hand and can resample and flip sounds in there with ease without loosing the creative vibe.

I love cubase SX3 btw. I have been using cubase since 1997 when vst 3.5 came out and have been thru every new version along the way. Plus i have used logic, pro tools, sonar, cakewalk, and others.. nothing beats cubase IMHO. that and My Hardware.

although I am still open to try anything at least once for those that say they have a softsynth or softsampler that sounds better than ____, or whatever

--------------------------------------------------
Cynical, pessimistic, sarcastic, and holding a low opinion of humanity.

Hi! Have you been successful in importing and creating a patch from any NN-XT patches that you used in Reason?

That I think will be the ultimate test. If you can do that I will be buying my X the minute I read that...

purchase chickens systems translator, it is supposed translate anything. If you love the nn-xt that much why get a fantom.
by the way has anyone used the translator yet by chicken systems? does it really work?

The web site says Chicken does Translate it, but I haven't tried it.

Have to chime in here for Sonar 6. The two "Bigs" on the PC are Cubase and Cakewalk, no offence to others. That's since Logic left as "mac only".

If your new to PC Daw's, check out what your best friends are using, you'll be calling them lots..lol

Z-bro

Just to wade in on a couple-a -issues.

a) Chicken Translator - sucks! They will of course tell you that it works well on hundreds of other systems - me, I have only experienced endless hassles - I'm better off simply using the preset as a starting point and adding my own samples by hand.

b) Software and FantomX - I think angle at which the topic is approached is wrong - MHO. For example if REASON or any other soft synth cost as much as a FANTOM - not too many people would have 'hundreds' of other soft synths as well.

It's not the fault of the software developer or the idea of a softsynth that makes one enjoy the "limitations" of hardware.
We the users create the complex set-ups. Have one synth or sampler e.g. HALION and use it to the max - limit your spending and you might be amazed at power of these instruments.

To me these are 'tools' meant to be used to create music - does the old idiom still apply :- A POOR WORKMAN BLAMES HIS TOOLS...

Fantom Yase is a sample converter/editor that has received favourable reviews by clan members. May be worth checking out.

---
New here? Check this out!

dont get me wrong some sounds from the softsynths are good but can you honestly say the quality of the sound is that good?
After you get the software to sound really good you have had to combine and layer various sounds not to mention have the proper sound card to even get quality results. Anything could be processed and made sound good through the right boards but in the process you have spent way more money. As you see the sound librarys that are so called the best cost about as much as buying hardware. Alot of people buy tthe software including myself because I couldnt afford the good stuff at first. Software has been good in ways but bad for the music business in others. People make crappy sounding music (some good but majority crappy)because marketing schemes fueled be software companies try to make you think you can do it al your self at home and achieve the same results.

A resounding YES... comparing for example the sampled Rhodes, even the new SRX board to Scarbee's EP via HALion clearly shows the edge of large multi sampled softsynth technology.

In fact I would go as far as to say that when it comes to realistic multi sampled instruments - the hardware world is a little/lot behind - I see the new Yamaha Motiff XS is offering 8 layers per patch to address exactly those multi-switched requirements.

If you were comparing artificial sounds than why not compare NI Absynth to something offered in hardware....oh wait ..there's none..!?!

Yes I like hardware - the feel of a physical instrument, the immediacy of the programing and playing whilst layering various tracks - etc. However once the idea is captured, invariably my software synths replace many of the X6's sounds.

...as for spending money and time on software because you have no talent/skill/patience to practise - don't blame marketing... that's like saying people are fat because McDonald's lured them away from common sense and judgement?!


or did people think once they installed Microsoft Word - a best seller novel would be a few clicks away?