Fantom G: The Untold Story?

Artemiy:

Roland has kept developing this architecture throughout the years, and virtually no features were cut, only added.

It's obvious that you know better than me that such a statement is way far from the truth. There are many features that have been cut when building the Fantom-G, like edit buffers, separate destination levels for each tone in the modulation matrix, pattern mode, rps on keys, compatibility with roland sample format etc, to name only a few. Maybe these changes aren't significant for very few people, but I bet that the majority of FG users miss them a lot.

A Lot of good points but also some that will be misunderstood by both our young generation and those new to workstations.

If I compare the Fantom-G (Sound is a matter of opinion) to all other workstations of it’s kind then it’s without a doubt the best, I base this on a long history of synth and workstation use.

However, let’s say I’m young (20 something) and new to workstations. For me computers have always been a way of life, I know how they work and I know when something is wrong. I know a good program from a bad one. And if widows crashes all of a sudden, well, it happens, no big deal, just reboot and I’m good. Now lets say I want to create music, what do I turn to? None other than my old friend mister computer.

Ok, now let’s say I want to try my luck with a new workstation and I decide to buy the Fantom-G.

I bring it home (so excited) ,take it out of the box (even more excited), plug it up and amp it. Now for the last step, I plug in my mouse (a tool I’m so familiar with that it feels like apart of my arm) and get ready to work. I play around with it for a bit then I try to edit the wave I just recorded. I right click on a wave to edit it and suddenly, the last breath of excitement is launched from my lungs. What the hell!!!, where's the edit menu and why in Gods name do I have to use all of these buttons? Why can’t I just click and drag everything etc?

Here’s the thing, the G is the first workstation of it’s kind to use a mouse. So with that being the case Roland had to decide how to use it. They had to find a way to make the G useable for experienced synth/workstation users (after all some of them don’t even use computers). And appealing to the new generation computer user (that's where the mouse comes in). And that’s also where the conflict comes in, now that the workstation has a mouse should it work like a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). Or remain mostly hardware based (old school) whit a few extra perks. It’s hard to keep everyone happy so I give Roland credit for trying.

A lot of the complaints you hear are from new generation software (DAW) and computer users, they don‘t understand where workstations have come from. From my view the G is missing very little, it has very few bugs (very minor) and compared to the other workstations out there it’s far more advanced.

The G is not missing a lot, it’s just not a computer.

This does not apply to everyone that has an issue with the G of course. Some just feel like Roland should have taken their ideas (the DAW parts) to the limit. And they will, they just need to make sure the majority of their consumers are computer users first.

Roland has kept developing this architecture throughout the years, and virtually no features were cut, only added.

I examined this a while ago and have found that historically they have actually been dropping bits off every other incarnation.

I think the only 2 that share the same architecture closely is the fantom S and X.

Mouse:
Hmm.. I find this a waste of time because of the lack of expected functionality. (I never use it)

The mouse could and should do more, but I already use it a lot and find it highly useful: whenever I want to jump between different tracks/screen areas/functions wide apart, it's much faster done with the mouse than with button scrolling (unless you can use a shortcut). Button scrolling is ok for functions in close reach, mouse for all fast jumps.

But of course the real deal would be using it in an updated and advanced form of the sequencer...

The untold story for me is that, whatever way you look at it, the Fantom G is the most powerfull Roland worstation ever and certainly one of the best in its class. End of story

Whatever fits everyone. It's a rather personal matter, but a subjective one at the same time. There are several features that either they are totally absent or badly implemented, and this is rather subjective for many features, whether anyone likes it or not. I wish it was not the case though. :/

My feeling is that the G is more suited to live work than previous Fantoms which were more aimed at production.

No-one has told me the untold story.

I always knew listening is one of the advanced arts )

As Jimmy Jam of Jam and Lewis Production team once stated "I'm a musician, not a programmer".

A workstation is first and foremost supposed to be a musical "writing machine" . And, tody there's no reason that a workstation should not have a boat-load full of excellent sounds covering all styles and genres. There are more than enough sample libs , programmers who can provide all of the sounds for any keyboard.

I say the untold story of the Fantom G is that Roland Rushed this product out the door before it was completed. With only 2 Arx expansion slots and limited (Read: Old CPU technology) They have boxed themselves into a corner abd don't know how they can dig themselves out of it. If they introduce a newer model, they will looses a very loyal user base..

This is the problem of the big 3(Yamaha, Roland, Korg) .. They are all still using the old 19090 workstation base model.. Make a unit with limited power, using old dated CPUs, and motherboards, memory.Then sell expansion cards..

Today, alot of us have Mac/PC workstations that are loaded with very cool, great sounding and powerful VSTis.

The underlying question is : Why does a workstation cost $3000.00? When they are using 1998 parts?

jjdpro, please tell me what old CPU the Fantom G is using?

the other untold story is that these japanese folks like to
use names they can't even pronounce.

Roland in japan = roourandoh

Corolla in japan = cah rowla

G8 = Gee eitoh

M-Flo = ehmu frow

LOL

Since the G uses PC133 dimms it's either an old Motorola ala Mac g3/G4 or i386 PIII/K2 processor..

Now you tell me ??????????

The underlying question is : Why does a workstation cost $3000.00? When they are using 1998 parts?

Because they are vintage?

The cool thing about the G8 is that the V-Piano uses four of the G8 processors.

All hail the V-Piano!


Mark