NEW FANTOM-G, PLEASE TALK HERE

Let me just say that you guys are overreacting on this issue.

I said several times that Fantom G is a great workstation, except that limitation of audio tracks. Why can't we just acknowledge it and move on? Why are you trying to prove that it's not a limitation..? What does "128 tracks sequencer with 24 tracks being audio" mean to you? What is a sequencer? Isn't it a recorder? So when you say 24 audio tracks sequencer, doesn't that mean audio recorder? So, let's keep things in perspective, and not mislead the people. By the way ... here is quote from press release: The Fantom-G is a dream instrument that redefines boundaries, playability and creativity with its advanced sound engine, revolutionary ARX SuperNATURAL expansion bay, jumbo-sized color LCD, powerful new audio/MIDI recorder, first-class 88-note Ivory Feel weighted keys (Fantom-G8), 76-note keys (Fantom-G7), and 61-note keys (Fantom-G6).


I have been using the audio tracks on Fantom X since it became available. And I know first hand what a pain it is to load all those tracks in RAM. Wait for 10 minutes to load a five minutes song?!

And you have seen, it's not only me who thinks this RAM based audio tracks feature is not among the most favorite ones. I wish Roland had integrated an 8 track audio recorder with the MIDI sequencer.

Am I going to buy the Fantom G..... YES! Roland: R u happy now?

I have to agrre with shakil here...Bottom line you need more space for this many Audio tracks...And I doubt anyone, ANYONE, will be using that many Audion tracks unless they are using it as a dedicated DAW and thats what Roland is aiming for, People who don't want to work with computers or don't already have an X...almost the same thing they did with VGT.( what would make a vsynth better? Oh, I got it...Two Vsynths!!) I guess it's hard to reinvent the wheel...

And it's faster than the X...Whatever!! We'll see...They said the same thing about the MV800 over the MV8000 and it's maybe faster by a few seconds but it aint 'Much' faster as they claim...When testing it back to back at store when i first bouth it, they seemed the same startup and loading time so Not too sure about the G over X....

And less audio tracks wouldn't cripple the machine...That's dumb to even think that..8 was fine... want to impress people? give them a whopping 16....Making the Machine with 24 audio trax then give you 544 is crippling the machine! Then when people come up to those limitations then just tell them, "It aint a DAW!!! For that we have VS's!".......... c'mon....

And yes, I too will be buying one of these for the software change that I'm sure will be the best refreshing thing about this G...With my X I don't even use the Audio track anymore...gave up like three months after having the ability due to pain in the a&& use of it.. If I need Audio like that I just use Cubase and quit the B.S'ing..

ROLAND ROCKS ROLAND ROCKS ROLAND ROCKS!!

People are funny aren't they?

As I said before I think I buy one.
There is one thing, I make more experimental music (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=126175505) so I hope there is a lot to tweak to make my own soundscapes and modify samples.
also hope that there will be synth orientated arx boards in the future.
I already own a several analog and virtual analog synths and I have only one vsti. (jamstix)

Yes, people are, in fact, funny. Not so funny when they talk about things without a clue, call bug to a feature when that feature doesn't work like they espect, or ask questions without even care to READ well. But this has nothing to do with the G. That's just me talking

I defenitely have to lock this thread but I lack the time today to resume all in a new thread. Tomorow I'll be DOESING BEERS so don't really care. I'll live it to next monday!
Meanwhile keep it coming

ALL this can be summed up in one simple statement....

"The Fantom G is EVERYTHING the Fantom X should have been in the FIRST PLACE...."

That being said...

THANK YOU AUDACITY for the wealth of info you have provided here....

I wont get into detailed bickering with others here but i will say a few things....

8 Audio tracks was a BLESSING 24 is more that you could have hoped for and its MORE than the other manufacturers have chosen to give you...

ANYONE who commented on the sound quality without actually HEARING one IN PERSON....(Just go kill yourself...please)J/k

Yeah maybe the Ram should be more...but then again some of us are ALREADY using MORE than the specified RAM amount so what the Hell is the crying about????

Some of the people here are way too critical....

dont judge this based on what you THINK it should do....judge it based on how well it DOES what it SAYS it does....

Then you wont find yourself disappointed when certain things lack....No board can have everything....

I STILL use my XP80 so I understand the progress that has been made....

I have an X6 now....I WILL have the G when It comes out....
My reasons for the purchase is the FILE SYSTEM fix the additional effects and the new mic input.

I just hope the process of transferring my stuff from the X to the G is a simple process....

As for those unsatisfied consumers out there.....

You can always just Make your Own board...LOL




******No I DONT work for Roland********

Wait a sec... Some of you would prefer the G had fewer tracks, just so the 544 MB doesn't seem as much of a limitation? So for those of us who know how to stretch 544 MB into dozens of songs, you'd prefer to rob us of discrete tracks? That's not very nice.

Think of it this way-- With twelve songs on the X, you got 40 some-odd MB for each song. With the new project level, you get twelve times as much memory (because all 544 MB can be assigned to each song/project)...and three times as many tracks.

And I seem to remember last NAMM, when the guy from Roland said the MV-8800's project loading was a "bit" faster than that of the 8000. He didn't say a "lot" faster.

Naw man, nobody is saying that...

They just went bigger instead of better in that department...You will NOT use all 24 track on that, and then use up 16 midi.... show us if you do..I highly doubt it. nothing I ever heard is that elaborate....If it is, it probably sucks...But you have more of chance of using up 544 MB quickly especially if you using it for DAW purposes...Less track and more space would have been better...You agree as well even when you don't so stop defending like a newbie and look it as it is. No one is going to pat you on the back except from others with a soiled nose who excercise this behavior...Yes there is alot of good in this machine but the fact still remains it is limited....And it's only limited because of Roland trying to save a buck and gain consumer loot..for what it costs it should do everything it says and perfect with no limit. Yes I'm one of the guilty who will purchase, but I'm getting for the good as I did with the X but that never stopped me from saying what I felt about it. I know what the bad is and still am gettin it cus I'm truly one who looks at things for the good they can do, but that does not mean that I don't see the bad, and when they claim to do more than they give you, that's the part that should be discussed..alot of things stayed the same and some things changed and not really much from what you already have...I agree that this is what Fantom X should have been, but what it should've been and what it should be are two different things... Look at it as a longtime consumer and not an empolyee, or one who has never had a worksation in the past. For one who never had one this is a God send...But we are way past that....at least most of us here....

@The Audacity Works , at least you make some sense of it

This whole thing is actually a waste of time arguing about. The Loading as a per project thing may indeed make the fact that its only 544 megs alot less of an issue (damn.. i think i said this already) so if the save/load time is MUCH faster than the X, it may not be such a bad thing. But if its not a big speed increase then the save/load time alone will kill creativity.

I promise you it won't be MUCH faster...a bit maybe, but much? nope.....

What I can't wait for is to hear this thing.....from what they show on the Video so far the X can do any of those, but have to wait and see...like those pianos and bells....We'll see...

Again; this is just plain silly. As The Audacity Works just said - if it bothers you that much having 24 tracks available - simply don't use them. Stick with 8 tracks. And I can do my productions on 24 tracks.

Then, with you 8 audio tracks, go insane with the 16 miditracks with *full effects*. Can you guys even comprehend what this means? No compromises anymore in multimode. Tbh I'd personally be more than very, very happy with just these 16 full efx tracks with 'only' a regular sampler to share in on these 16 tracks.

And I didn't give any thought whatsoever to the RAM amount of 'only' 544 mb. Actually this is a huge amount of RAM. Not compared to a computer, but in a workstation it's GREAT. Guess what; I have a Triton rack in my rig, and it has 96 mb of RAM - shockingly I've managed to do complete, full no-compromise tracks on it. And I still do. Of course 1 gb of RAM is even better, but still better would be 4 gb, right? It is 544 mb, which is great, and Roland ain't gonna change it.

Deal with it.

Just for the record:

Audio at 16bit 44.1khz takes up 10MB per minute.

Therefore 544MB / 10 = 54.4 minutes of audio.

Therefore 54.4 /24 (audio tracks) = 2.25minutes or 2 minutes 15 seconds.

Unless you resample everything you do and work purely in audio, then I can't really see this being a problem. There are far more important issues that need answering before this 'limitation' is even on the cards.

Hay Art, iwas able to get in here. Just wanted to know,has anyone listen to the drum kit's in the fantom G and if so,
what kind of styles are they and are they current?

Audacity Works :

I see your point regarding Hard disks. There's a fair amount of compromise involved when balancing speed and other factors, with stability.

The Harddisk in my Fusion loads audio tracks within the blink of my eye. however, I don't use it for the audio tracks. Its QUITE noisy as hell (comparitively my Fantom S is dead silent) and it heats up really fast. The fusion doesn't even have an OFFLINE time stretch. how about that?

So, I think its kind of hard for the users to understand WHY roland didn't go for the harddisk. They're not fools. They did whats right. Unfortunately for some, they've traded in loading time, and space for reliability, stability and no noise.

sorry to interrupt this ram debate i just want to clarify something, is micro edit retained in the G? i assume it must be but havnt seen mention of it yet though i may be missing it.