Opening the Wishlist for future OS

I amazed on how effects is still an issue for G users. Specially when compared with the X.
Yes you could chain 3 MFX in Performance on the X. This was great for a single patch in a Performance but leaves you without MFX for ANY OTHER part in the Performance.

live mode is limited to 1 effect!

WRONG. In Live Mode you have a PFX (same as MFX) for EACH part and you have a MFX if needed. In Studio Mode you have 2 MFX so you can have a second part with 2 effects processors (1 PFX and the second MFX). This was not possible to do with the X.
So whats better? To have 3 effects processor in a part and none on the remaining 15 or to have 2 parts with 2 effects processors and the remaining 14 each with it's own effects processor?
I'll leave to each one to decide...
Also, most seem to forget that each PFX/MFX always have some sort of eq inside the effect itself. I know this is not the same has having 1 EQ+ 1 MFX for each part but, seriously, if you don't manage to get it right with the G power how could you do it with the X?

live mode is pretty much useless for me with the ability for only 1 effect per part. what happened to the mfx in live mode?

.
Nothing. They are were they belong. Live mode is for allowing seamless switching between performances. If you don't understand this, sorry, you should go back to the G basics. If Live Mode is useless for you, use studio mode. And, as I explained, you can use 2 effects in one part in Live Mode.

In the end, this is not to disagree that we could/should have more flexibility in the effects section. But saying this is a drawback when compared with the X is not knowing the G. Specially when Live Mode is concerned

In live mode you have a MFX if needed?
I just see a PFX per part plus Chorus/Reverb for all.

Sorry, but am I missing something?

No you are not. In live mode the MFX 1 can be used for an audio track or the input, not the synth parts...

I wish the Fantom G had multiple MIDI ports, 128 tracks of recording yet only 16 can output at a time.

I'd like to have 5 connections of MIDI I/O...this would complement my current config just fine. (and I mean 5 input connector and 5 output connectors, as well as a system to call them separately in the sequencer.

The MV8800 has two, FG should have more!

One keyboard to rule them all.

>I wish the Fantom G had multiple MIDI ports, 128 tracks of recording yet only 16 can output at a time.

Well not exactly. There's 16 internal sounds + 2x ARX + 16 external = 64

If you record 64 tracks of MIDI and insert automation tracks under each one, you have used all 128 tracks.


PS. This thread is about wishes for the OS = Operating System..

I don't think it is possible to download an OS update, install it, reboot, and then suddenly two new holes appear in the back of the Fantom G...

- jesse -

Hey Jessej,

sorry I was just stating my wish. It would take an OS update and I am willing to drill holes myself.

I would like to control multiple MIDI devices and utilize the sequencer to drive multiple devices from the Fantom G, just like I do with digital perform now. I'd like to use my Mac for surfing the web and a Fantom G to do all my music production on. 5 ports would work out just about right for me now.

Just think Roland, my Yamaha XS and Korg M3 could be your slaves.

I dont expect Roland to be able to do this on the 'G', but how 's about the Fantom Y coming out in 3 years, or so I'd read in some other thread.

Separate the PFX from patches in studio mode, so that I can tweak the effects, route them, arrange them... for that studio setup and then save them with in that studio. I don't want to edit the PFX every time I select a different patch for the part!!!

For example, I want to put three PFXs in series, and then route multiple parts to the same PFX group. Save the effects routing in studio, and then try different patches for the same PFX groups.

Fantom G effects routing is flawed, looks like Roland just copied it from MOTIF ES.

The Motif ES hat a much better FX-Routing:

The Motif ES had:
8 x 2 InsertFX
16x EQ
+Reverb
+Chorus
+ additional Master FX

8 x 2 Inserts is better to me than 16x 1 Insert.

In my opinion, the Motif ES and Fantom G effects routing is flawed for the following issues:

1. The effects are tied to patch/program. So, every time you select a different program, even in the same category of sound, you loose the edits made to the effects. Waste of time.

2. You can not route multiple tracks to the same effects processor. This wastes resources, if you want to layer two or more sounds and want to process them through the same effects.

3. The effects routing doesn't follow a typical studio setup. In a studio, you have instruments and effect processors. You can freely route any instruments to any effect processors, control send levels for each track to the effects...

4. The Reverb and Chorus processors are dedicated Reverb and Choruses, they can not be used for other effects.

On the other hand, effects routing on the XP-80, XV5080, Fantom-S, and X was more flexible. So, by hard wiring the PFX to the patch, Roland copied the structure from Yamaha. Yamaha hard wires the Insert Effects on all their keyboard, including the PSRs, TYROS, EX5, MOTIF...etc.

I agree 100% ^^

you think the fantom or motif have issues....you should try the nord lead 2x. it's effect routing is all external of the keyboard.

I currently route the Fantom X to an external FX (SRV330), funny thing, this is the same or similar FX in the keyboard. I just can get the response I want from the internal effects. sounds like I'll be doing the same for the Fantom G.

sorry double post

“live mode is limited to 1 effect!”
WRONG. In Live Mode you have a PFX (same as MFX) for EACH part and you have a MFX if needed. In Studio Mode you have 2 MFX so you can have a second part with 2 effects processors (1 PFX and the second MFX). This was not possible to do with the X.
you've had a little bit of time to mess around with the g by now, right? tell me again that live mode allows for 2 effects chained... (at least tell me with a straight face)

So whats better? To have 3 effects processor in a part and none on the remaining 15 or to have 2 parts with 2 effects processors and the remaining 14 each with it's own effects processor?
what's better? flexibility, which is what we are asking for.

Also, most seem to forget that each PFX/MFX always have some sort of eq inside the effect itself. I know this is not the same has having 1 EQ+ 1 MFX for each part but, seriously, if you don't manage to get it right with the G power how could you do it with the X?
...because the X allowed for 3 effects, not 2.

They are were they belong. Live mode is for allowing seamless switching between performances. If you don't understand this, sorry, you should go back to the G basics. If Live Mode is useless for you, use studio mode. And, as I explained, you can use 2 effects in one part in Live Mode.
live mode is one of the major selling points. i am using studio mode now but if they allowed for flexible effect routing then live mode would be better suited since it allows seamless set switching. (anyone else ever switched performances on the X during a live show and heard the white snowy tv channel noise for a couple seconds, i have, and then everyone looks at me)

for me, i have to match sounds and i need the most flexibility when doing this. if a sound is not perfectly right, i usually have to add an effect, sometimes i can change patch properties and achieve the same effects. it's harder to do on the G now that they have the effects set up the way they do. i have no problem using studio mode if the effects were more flexible to at least the level they are on the X. i don't like just settling on a sound when it's missing something that i cannot add because of the limitations.

I also think it is a shame Roland restricted their 'flagship' so that users can not harness all it's power and chain up as many effects as they want on one sound. Just add a CPU meter and let the user decide how to distribute the CPU cycles.

And please do something about those horrible COSM guitar amps on the G, the COSMs are a lot better on my Boss GT-10. Same company...

- Jesse -

i forgot i wanted to ask if anyone knew if the effects on the g are hardware or software based?