Do we need a new workstation or Firmware 2.0

It's an interesting question. The G is a pretty good machine, and for me personally I can deal with some of it's issues for my purposes. Also it has lots of ways of achieving things that may not be first apparent, but I've found I can squeeze a lot of juice out it it. That said, personally I'd love to see a 2.0 for the G that adds more flexible FX routing options, proper Project File interchange abilities so we can move multisampled patches and songs properly etc. Those two things really let it down for me. Perhaps MULTI-CATCH mode and ability to mix part levels with CC's on the sliders, or at least be able to save FIX mode for the sliders with Live Sets, instead of setting it globally. Better USB audio routing options too.

BUT

It's probably time for a new one. Why? 2008 was a long time ago, and I think a new Fantom really needs a new sound engine. Not that the G is bad, it's much better than people thinkg, but it's time for all keyboards to move on and Roland and Korg have already done this, so I would expect a new one the have the SN pianos, eps. VK organ, VA synths and all that + multisampling and recording as is now. That and better File Management options and few workflow/sequencer tweaks and large FLash memory options and the Fantom would be king.

I'm not waiting for a newer generation Workstation!nor do roland need to release another one,surely its not going to be financially viable to them now after how the G was handled surely its lost them the love for Roland.

The Fantom is as relevant still as it was when released,just update the damn thing..it only needs a few tweaks ironed out(and if they feel fit to add some new features in the process good on them)

I have made my feelings clear over it in another thread stated that we should start a petition to get them resurrect their support for it.

I don't think I'd be ready to ditch the G for a newer model,not for a good few years yet,I've barely left the showroom with mine,there's still loads of mileage in it yet

Would be good if they continued with the ARX side of things as someones said,adding new boards would give the workstation a new shiny armour for sure,thought it was a bit mean to simply only offer a couple,both of which added nothing really groundbreaking,I love the drums card but its nothing special,would be a little annoyed if like they've done before with the JV saga,where they dropped the G and then made a new model capable of holding more expansions,but I guess thats what they do.

If Roland hasn't already started on v2.0, the they shouldn't bother. It's pretty late in the game. If they begin now & rush the build, It'll be a disappointment to all of us...

Things that cannot change:

- The project file structure. This is one of the biggest issues with the G & is at the very core of how how it operates.

- number of effects & routings. These are 'hardware' effects, not software.

Things that can be added:

- the 'offline' rendering to wav idea above is feasible, but would require a fair amount of programming for audio tracks & is likely not possible with midi tracks. So, if Roland hasn't started on it yet, they are way behind..

- proper patch/multisample/song copy!.. this would be easy enough, especially if they added it as a feature to the Editor or Librarian or a new dedicated software instead of waiting for an OS update. It should only take about 8 days for an experienced programmer provided the they have access to documentation on the Fantom G's data structure... 8 days man.. they ain't even trying...

Conclusion, enjoy your Fantom G for what it is. It is likely that's all it will ever be..

No more Roland keyboard for me. My next workstation will be motif XS or XF. I love their patch way more. It's a lot warmer and full. Roland patch somehow sounds mediocre. It doesn't hurt to make more roland patch though.

What I really like about the roland is the built in effects. They sound pretty good. Now I can tell the difference between hardware and third party plugins. Hardware is a lot more warmer and gives that high definitive sounds. Thumps up! Gosh, no wonder all these years my music sucks. Also, a single channel can only use 1 effects? They need to change that to multiple effects. They also need to allow project/patch transfer.

Parker.Bobby,

I agree with your post, that the most important and achievable thing they could do for the G is add Import/Export and organisation functions of a project to the editor/librarian so patches based on multisamples and songs and their phrases and anything else can be move intelligently. This would make and immense difference to most FG owners. I would love to build up my own library of patches based on custom samples that I can drop in and out of projects as I need. Why they didn't do this is a real mystery. They coud have had a nice little third party or even their own sample libraries for the G. Also the editor could add the ability to convert previous generations based on this sound engines patches and projects over (say JV/XV/Fantom and S-series sampler files over. It's like they don't even realise the potential of the machine at times. Unless they do but found themselves after the 2008 financial crash with less resources and pushed all their R&D over to the Jupiter project.

The FX routing is more complex as you state. It may be that the Fantom G is at the limit of it's ability to make DSP connections and that's why it can't be changed, but it sure would be nice to have the MFX structures like on the Fantom X or Jupiter. Did you guys know that the Fantom will output PFX and MFX out the individual outs? You can actually send a patch out say out 3-4 and bring it back in the line input and reprocess it with the input effect and MFX1 and 2 if you want. Goofy but a bit of workaround.

The reason I said it may be time for a new Fantom or workstation is that this machine is basically 2007 technology and it's half way through 2012, that should hopefully mean a lot more computing power on which to build a new workstation platform. After the Kronos and the Jupiter-80 there's no going back to this sort of way of doing things. Still there should have been a 2.0 or advanced editor a long time ago.

BTW the guys at Chicken Systems said a while back there were working on an advanced editor called Fantom Creator, but they never released it. I've asked them many times over the last 6 months if they are still working on it, and they say they nearly have it finished and will release soon. Maybe all of us FG users that would buy this software should email them and show our interest so they release it. Contact them on the form below.

http://www.chickensys.com/company/contact_us.php

Yeah, I've heard the chicken systems rumors too.. but with no word on as to when they will release + the fact that I'm opposed to paying money for apps these days, I had no choice but to see what I could do on my own.

Here is a link to an app that I built which will copy Live/Studio Sets & any associated samples. And RPS/RHYTHM Sets & any associated phrases between projects. It doesn't work with multisamples or songs but it is still a pretty helpful app.

http://db.tt/4qM82PYx

I'll be uploading Version 2.0 in the next couple of days (hopefully tomorrow). V2.0 has a graphic user interface, updated documentation, and a new 'Project Viewer'.

Cool I'll keep an eye out for the new version!

Yes looking forward to that GUI Bobby. Great work.

I still have my G7 and loving it. The Piano sound was taken to high heights with walgrafix's brilliant Stenway *heavy* multi-sample achievement. Plus Kenchan's .mid reworked Ballad, Jazz, Classical, Rain, etc. that smoothed out the rough edges. Although the Fantom G has USB 2.0, loading the sample(s) takes a while. That's why it is imperative that Roland's next workstation has USB 3.0. Time will tell.

Even though the Fantom G was ahead of its time when it launched in May of 2008, other keyboard companies e.g. Yamaha, Korg ,etc., have made a strong comeback with the Motif XF and Kronos, etc. The Kronos has quality control problems but if they ever get that sorted out the Kronos is hard to beat. The reason? Kronos has expansion capability and the aftermarket expansion libraries are in many cases superb. Therefore, it is imperative that Roland's next workstation has expansion capability (sorry Jupiter-80/50) to be able to compete with the likes of the Kronos and other workstations such as the Motif XF.

I guarantee you that if Roland's next "workstation" has 'true' 256 note polyphony it will be an instant blockbuster, especially if it includes an SSD hard disk with streaming capability and of course if it also has expansion capability. USB 3.0 would also go a long way to insure Roland's next workstation effort is a certified hit. A reworked (from the ground up) sound palette would be icing on the cake. As far as price goes, if it's comparable to what's on the market now, or slightly higher, I still think people will go gangbusters over it, especially with all the other added improvements. Although with an ailing global economy Roland may have decided to lay low until the world economy improves. Which unfortunately may take quite a while. If you make a high-end product people need to have the resources to buy it. The Jupiter-80 faced this same scenario in my opinion. Hence the Jupiter-50. ;)

Secretive Roland has everyone guessing and we'll have to play along with their secretive "game" to see if a new workstation actually translates into reality. My hope is it eventually will.

True 256 poly?
is not going to happen, poly is always based on a single OSC MONO.
Given that patches are always at least 2 that would give max 128
and since we like to fatten up sounds by layering that will bring it down to at least 64 and so on..
In this case then it would realy have to be 1024 poly to get even close to what you speak.

On the workstation side they realy have only one way to go if it where to happen,
and that is as mentioned the Fantom GS. but once again we already know what should be there in terms
of DAW so nothing new on that.
if you want the GS now, well just get a jp50 and connect it to your fantom and if you want even more power use a computer daw..
But of course roland slipped in the knife on the jp50 by removing after touch which is a killer.
Even the kronos for all its technical wounder, for what makes a synth a workstation which is the DAW, it still seems limiting on the sequencing/tracks side and a real workstation should never have these kind of limits.
But this is always the case and then you have to learn to workaround them, when in reality the computer is the realy DAW these days.

Quinnx. wrote:

But of course roland slipped in the knife on the jp50 by removing after touch which is a killer.

Glass half empty? They also gave you all the sounds of the Jupiter 80, patch compatibility, ipad editing, modelled VA oscillators and filters, patch remain and 76 note performance keyboard for under $2000.00, What other boards on the market, in this price range offer this feature set?

A real genius idea for overcoming polyphony issues would be an intelligent resampling feature that could multisample a layered patch & assign it to a new multisampled patch. It'd be cheaper to put 2-3gb memory in these things than to add 1024 polyphony but who knows.. the feature demands of the public are going to push manufacturers toward software based systems. This way, we can add as many effects, in as many configurations as we desire. We can 'plug in' new instruments & synths via software alone.. this will keep manufacturing costs down & allow for lower price points. Face it, nobody wanted to pay $350 for an ARX card which is basically the equivalent of a vst plugin. People still dont want to pay $99.. goes to show what we think this stuff is really worth..

Even the workstations themselves are pretty overpriced when compared to other digital technologies.. maybe we should stop comparing..

The reason iPads are outperforming workstations these days is all about the cpu. One powerful chip does almost all the work. In most workstations, the workload is divided among many chips. The central processor is usually many, many, times slower than 'modern' powerful processors.

One solution is to make workstations more 'central processor oriented'. Where one powerful processor controls virtual effects & routing, patches, plugins, & so on.. though, at this point, it'd be more of a synth 'emulator' than an actual synth.

I'm still undecided as to whether I'd embrace a change to software based synths. If it's done right, it could be pretty awesome. It could also just be a cop out to keep costs down. Coupled with cheap hardware & lousy operating systems.. & still they'd want around 2K for the thing I'm sure..

On the software side i have been looking at native instruments kompete 8 ultimate for under $1000
seem to cover all you could ever need including multiFX etc..
Now Its not that the fantomG is not good enough, HELL!! its the bees knees
but adding something like the above you basicaly got it all and then some.

Quinnx... I dont think you fully appreciate the true costs involved in soft synths.. pick the example above... its $1000, then $300 per year for the upgrades, then with NI VST being notoriously power hungry, you either can run 2-3 patches or invest in a $1500 computer, which devalues at $500/year... Then you also need a good controller, multi-channel audio interface and a huge amount of aggravation... so .. the cheap approach ends up throwing money constantly down the drain while you spend your music time doing IT work...

At the end of the day, software has very high operating costs, and total complete depreciation to zero... whereas buying a used hardware synth (if you need a sound) involves capital outlay.. but with a 100% return on investment... in my case, if i assess the combined resale value of all my hardware synths i would be up by a few hundred $$$, but when i assess the computing & software costs over the last 2-3yrs, the number is horrific. A dedicated PC, expensive I/o, DAW upgrades, second monitors, huge desks, and many many hours wasted solving pc, interconnect, & DAW issues... all this needs to be factored in

Finally, I know you seem to be very anti-worstation, just know that playing without a PC is a must for many people... and to sync synths in many cases REQUIRES a sequencer.. as does covering for a bass'ist that doesnt show up :)

Regardless, Roland wont be giving us a v2 software, though with the right ingredients i would give $200-$400 for it... and i do expect them to release another workstation probably next year or so

The larger problem is that the truth is the art of musicianship is dying.. ableton live and loops are taking care of that... ( a much more sorry discussion)