Would you consider buying a Fantom instead of a Jupiter-X or Juno-X or vice-versa?

As I understand it, you made a decision and picked the Jupiter-Xm. Maybe you can share your reasons for choosing the Jupiter-Xm over the Jupiter-X, Juno-X, Fantom and Fantom-0.

I think a general comparison is difficult, because these models are designed for different target audiences and different use cases.

xp30 wrote:

As I understand it, you made a decision and picked the Jupiter-Xm. Maybe you can share your reasons for choosing the Jupiter-Xm over the Jupiter-X, Juno-X, Fantom and Fantom-0.

I think a general comparison is difficult, because these models are designed for different target audiences and different use cases.

I agree the comparison is difficult. I know there are some other threads around this topic, but I was hoping for some updated discussion here given the arrival of the Juno-X and recent firmware updates for the Jupiter series.

First and foremost, I did some serious thinking about how I like to make music. I am a hobbyist and not a professional, gigging musician. I like to patch my big modular and record it and use a combination of modular, hardware, and software sequencers to drive things. I record into my DAW, my Tascam mixer/recorder, or one of several samplers. I realized my decision as a hobbyist and home studio tinkerer to go away from workstation KBs was a good one and that moving my 88-key controller to the side to accommodate a Fantom or other is not the right thing for me. I don't need all the extra sounds in the Fantom, its sequencer, or it's sampling capabilities. When I sold my Kronos quite a while ago, it went to a music and choir director and keyboardist for a church to be used in services. Also, I have a few hardware wavetable synths already and don't really need the n/zyme model expansion.

I decided I want the Jupiter-X/Xm over the Juno-X due to the included model expansions. My primary reason for preferring the Juno-X is the interface, which appears less busy.

Finally, I chose the Jupiter-Xm over the X based on size and portability. I really fought myself about the mini-keys with no AT, but decided to accept them and play the synth like a module using my good controller or using a sequencer. The lower price helped, but was the least consideration.

I am doing some home office/studio rearranging and optimizing over the next month or so, too. I work from home about 90 percent of the time, and my work stuff overtook my studio desk. I am fixing that issue among other things.

I view all the ZEN-Core synths as very similar in general, but just with different UI's. Yes, the differences are much bigger than that, but looking at it from the base point of view they all mostly have the same sound capability and similar Model Expansions.

The rest is more a matter of personal taste deciding what you care about - like UI, or what Model Expansions you want, do you want V Piano (Fantom only), or care about the the SupeNatural sounds (Fantom only?), N/Zyme (Fantom) vs. the other model specific Model Expansions on the X/Xm or Juno-X. Or things like the Jupiter X/Xm have i-arppegio, but the Fantom is a 16 channel workstation with clip launching. These differences are more like the toppings on the pizza, but the pizza is still fundamentally a pizza.

Since you have Roland Cloud, for example, it makes sense to do sound design on Zenology Pro and port the sound to the synth. In that regard the Jupiter Xm is probably an ideal choice. If you really only care about ZEN-Core, you could even get away using the MC-707 as an 8 channel sound module. But that isn't as much fun as getting one of the more complete synths. :-)

I have an MC-707 and a Fantom 8. I haven't programmed anything for the 707 yet, just using built in sounds, but if I did, I would use Zenology Pro. I plan to buy a lifetime license for Zenology Pro soon. I'm not keen on subscriptions.

For programming the Fantom, either Zenology or the Fantom touch screen and knobs are fine. But generally I prefer to just program sounds on the Fantom. I like using a touch screen any day over a mouse/keyboard for synth sound design. I have a lot of synths/music apps on my iPad as well and love it due to the touch screen. But the convenience of programming a sound on my laptop in Zenology Pro remotely and knowing that sound will be the same on the Fantom is really nice.

There is something to be said about physical knobs and sliders, though, which I prefer most. I have other hardware synths including a JX-8P, Alpha Juno 2, and Novation Summit among others. I have the programmer (PG-800) for the JX-8P which gives me knobs and sliders. I use a PG-300 app on my iPad to program the Alpha Juno, but for sound design, I much prefer the Summit any day over all of them (including the Fantom). It has the best knob per function ratio of any synth I have, so it is the most fun to dive into for fast sound design with a tactile feel.

The Fantom, though, is laid out quite well once you get used to navigating it. With the touch screen, and strategic use of the limited knobs, it does not feel like menu diving at all to me. My only complaint about this workflow is the Fantom touch screen is not as nice as an iPad screen (not as responsive).

Even though the X/Xm and Juno-X have more knobs/sliders, when you get deeper into the serious sound design, you have to menu dive, and the small screens on the X/Xm and Juno-X start to turn me off. At least on the Juno-X, they moved the little screen front and center which helps. It is a common complaint for the X/Xm that the screen is in the upper left corner.

Also, when using the Model Expansions on the X/Xm and Juno-X, you have to remember what knobs work vs. which do not, or how the knob function changes slightly vs. how the knob is labeled. The Fantom excels here because it changes the entire UI (including color highlighting on the knobs to show what is functional) to match the chosen Model Expansion so there is no question what does what.

I haven't tried the X/Xm or Juno-X, so I may have some details a little off. Also there is much personal opinion here. Not any one of them is best - but just best for your needs. All of them have compromises in how they deal with the great power of ZEN-Core, layering synths (and using scenes), and mimicking the Model Expansions.

I comment on this only because I spent a lot of time deciding if the Juno-X or X/Xm would add anything to my setup. I would love to have both of them. I mean if I treated the Jupiter-X as a Jupiter-8 and the Juno-X as a Juno 106, it would be great. But then I realize these synths are just basically ZEN-Core synths with UI's biased toward their respective name sakes as well as slightly different Model Expansions. As soon as I start wanting to use Model Expansions, or layering up sounds, the Fantom wins for me, especially in how it handles scenes. I decided if I wanted a different Roland synth with expansion capability, I would more likely buy a System-8 (which is not ZEN-Core) with the Plug-outs rather than get the X/Xm or Juno-X.

Hi and thank you for your reply and thoughtful comments.

I have hemmed and hawed over one of the synths for a very long time. I did watch every review I could find, including those from Loopop, Tim Shoebridge, and others. They are pretty good at giving the pros and cons for products they cover. The fact that the knob functions (or not) on the Xm depend on the model is one item that has received coverage, but I have watched so many review now I can't remember who mentioned it.