NEW FANTOM-G - THREAD #2

Since 1GB DIMMs work in the Fantom-X, can we assume it works in the G as well?

I purchased and installed a 1GB PC-133, non-ECC DIMM in my Fantom-X8. It works fine, and I have verified that I can load up to 1,024MB of sample data. The Kingston-branded memory was about $300 USD. I bought a "generic" Samsung DIMM from MemoryTen for about $200.

The Fantom-X display shows only the added 1,024MB, and not the built-in 32MB (it disappeared). When I removed the 1GB DIMM, the built-in 32MB re-appeared. At least one other user here (who had installed a different brand of memory purchased in the Far East) was able to display the total 1,024MB + 32MB of memory after installation.

Although it works fine, the Fantom-X' "remaining memory" display is rendered inaccurate, and often displays odd memory amounts and percentages. Functionally, though, it works fine.

My question would be: What is the maximum addressable memory of the G's OS (and the same question for the G's hardware). I would hope that the next-higher capacity DIMM the G could possibly address would be 2GB (if the OS and the hardware even allowed it), since most memory-addressing schemes support increases in memory to the powers of '2" (but not always). Larger-capacity, 4GB PC-133, non-ECC DIMMs are ridiculously expensive (about $1,000 USD, if I remember correctly).

Although I would assume that the new G would address a 1GB DIMM in a similar fashion as the previous X, note that most memory vendors do NOT accept returns or exchanges. So it could be potentially very expensive to "experiment" with DIMMs larger than 1GB on a new G.

1) I'm not familiar with the Fantom X, so tell me - are the patches in the X programmed using all three mfx processors? If so, wouldn't the G patches be a little lacking in comparison?

At least on my S it's not possible in patch mode so there are no presets with more than one MFX block. But you can assemble your own in a performance. For example my favorite organ patches run the guitar amp sim into the VK sim. In order to do that I must put the organ patch n a performance.

It doesn't sound like the G OS is anywhere close to being finalized. I hope that when it's finished you will be able to access those two extra rogue MFX blocks in Live mode somehow for series MFX. It would be a shame if they are froze out of what will be the most popular mode for live performances.

Some History on Patch Remain in Rolands

I've tried to read everything and I might have missed this. But I don't think that some of you realize that you already have this feature on your Fantoms. Rolands have always had Patch Remain. Just how smooth and what it does all depends...

When you enable patch remain on a Fantom (it's in system->sound) patches will indeed flow from one to another with no sound cutoff. Just how smoothly all depends on MFX. If there are none it's perfectly smooth. But if one or the other patch has an MFX block associated with it, the patch change will change MFX blocks and the first sound will now trail into the new MFX.

So for example, if you are going from a piano into a distorted guitar with the hold pedal down, the held notes on your piano will be transformed into a distorted mess. But that's an extreme example and if one is aware of it's limitations it is a very useful thing. On the older XP series, which have no COSM effects, it's actually smoother. These new G Fantoms supposedly leave the old patch and it's MFX block alone, so it should be perfect.

The other issue with patch remain on Rolands (and this is why it defaults to "off"... Roland doesn't want you to mess around with it unless you know what you are doing) is how it changes the way real time control works. On a Fantom, if you enable patch remain, any changes you make in tone level, cutoff, resonance, attack, or release with the control knobs are carried over to all subsequent patches. No matter how hard you try you can not get rid of those edits without turning the machine off and then back on. I think I've tried everything. I have no idea why it's this way.

Now on an XP it's different and the way it should be IMO. Edits are erased with a patch change. This is one of the reasons that I'm actually back to an XP-80 for my Roland board and why I picked up a Motif ES7 (which has seamless program changes in it's mix mode). The ES7 actually handles realtime edits even better. It holds the edits on the patch you've made them on, while playing all others without them. It can do this because you are in a mix, which is a limitation in itself so this is not perfect.

I'm very curious how the Fantom G deals with edits.... something I think Roland blew on the earlier Fantoms. They originally had it right on the XPs.

Still wondering if the song files from the X are readable with the G, or do you have to convert to midi files and then load in the G and save as a new song file.

Carl.

"Still wondering if the song files from the X are readable with the G, or do you have to convert to midi files and then load in the G and save as a new song file."

Hey Carl pretty sure theyll have to be in midi file format alright.

Tom T said: "I wouldn't make assumptions. It can be misleading. Let me say this; my opinion is based upon a hands on experience as well as the information from others who have had hands on experience with the Fantom G. Its true during NAMM that a very people did interact with the Fantom G, but others prior to that others have in fact worked with the Fantom G as well as before and after hours at the NAMM show."[/i]

Hands-on experience? Before and after hours? Before and after hours, it's exhibitors only, so you're automatically either a self-defeating Roland employee or a sneaky competitor with a huge bias (or maybe a huge celebrity?). And who are these other people with exhibitor passes? How were they able to play it? I had to beg and plead to hear the thing first hand, and I'm owed favors. Are Roland employees sneaking over to your booth and whispering "Hey, pssstt.... our new board sounds like ass"? I spent a grand total of three hours in the Roland booth across two days (Thursday and Sunday) and never once saw another non-Roland person play it. I don't even think dealers got to play it for any length of time, at least not in the back where it's quiet and you can actually hear the thing.

That first post of "a bunch of people were disappointed with the sound" reeeaaaallllly reeks of a competitor's plant. Sorry, it just does. Plus, it was the exact opposite of my experience. I wasn't pleased with every aspect of the Fantom-G (read my FAQ), but the sound was most certainly not a weak spot.

Or maybe you're a friend of Artemio and you played his?

Tom T said in a different thread in this very forum: "Michael Cretu is enigma. He has used almost all Korg Keyboards in his recordings, especially the earlier recordings. There are Korg sounds, some of them stock sounds, that are dead on for the sounds your looking for."[/i]

C'mon Tom—and after all the crap everyone gave the OASYS (a fantastic piece which I defended) over at HC. This doesn't bode well for Korg.

Many of us have industry ties (or in my case, former industry ties), but this is pretty lame.

Stay classy, San Diego.

A shill in the midst, Audacity? Hmmm . . . Well a lot of people have access to exhibitor passes. There's also media passes, and other show vendor staff. For those that did have an opportunity to audition the G, and who were also impressed, by how much were you impressed? I mean, is it 50%, 200%, or x% "better" sounding than the X? How much "better" do you think it sounds?

rezfactor wrote: "A shill in the midst, Audacity? Hmmm... Well a lot of people have access to exhibitor passes. There's also media passes, and other show vendor staff."[/i]
Who were all able to play a prototype Fantom-G in the theater, in between shows? While Roland was protecting the thing with a iron vice? And then get together with a guy who shows up on Roland forums to randomly promote Korg keyboards and then slag the G's sound quality? Right. I saw guys from Sonic State there on Thursday and they weren't allowed to play it, even on the floor.

At best, Tom T's a Korg fanboy who wasn't even at NAMM. At worst, he's a Korg employee, who forgot about that huge HC OASYS/Irish Acts snafu.

"For those that did have an opportunity to audition the G, and who were also impressed, by how much were you impressed? I mean, is it 50%, 200%, or x% "better" sounding than the X? How much "better" do you think it sounds?"[/i]
17.42%? 45.768%? 300%? I don't know—How is sound quality empirically measured? To my ears, it sounded notably cleaner and punchier than I remember the X being, yet still very Fantom-esque. I mentioned this to the Roland guy, who explained why (all new chips, new op amps, 24-bit/96 A/D/A, SRX patches built in from the original raw samples, many new sounds, etc. Read the FAQ). Again, I paid more attention to the workflow and specs, specifically because if I'm gonna write about the thing, sound quality is the least objective element. Admittedly, I now regret not spending more time auditioning sounds, playing with the filters and envelopes, and tweaking other stuff.

Audacity 1: Just wanted to try to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Audacity 2: Yes, I know, it's purely a subjective evaluation. But, what do you think? I mean, less-than-ideal listening conditions aside, what would say? What does "notably cleaner and punchier" translate into, using some sort of admittedly arbitrary, and purely qualitative measure?

Rez:
I think Audacity is quite clear, in regard to the sounds of the G:

"To my ears, it sounded notably cleaner and punchier than I remember the X being, yet still very Fantom-esque"

If you like the Fantom X sounds, you'll be damm Happy, with all the makeup.

If you think that the Fantom X Sounds are outdated (my case), wait till 2011 for the Fantom H (And the renovation of all Roland's Fantom sound department decision makers)

I'm very interested in the new Fantom-G. I do not use sequencing, I use a Fantom XR exclusively to do live gigs with my band (over 120 gigs a year) For almost every song my band plays (over 200) I use at least one performance with about 8 till 16 parts active. So 128 performances is not enough for me. I hoped the new Fantom would have more performances aka live sets.

So I'm wondering if you can have an extra bank of live sets on USB stick with direct access, like the Fantom X with the use of a pc card?

My second question concerns the 16 pads. Can they be assigned to switch patches/perfromances like a numeric pad? I have to switch very fast between songs.

I hope there will be a rack version of the Fantom G soon...

Thanx!

mrcpro; very interesting comments. Are Fantom users aware of this?

I am aware and totally agree with mrcpro. I never understood why with patch remain active if i changed for example the sustain of a sound and changed to the next sound the next sound would keep the same sustain setting... If someone needs this kind of setting at least give us a way to choose how it behaves in the SO because it totally ruins live experiments with the sound. Simply add a tab in the OS where we can choose if realtime controller changes should reset when changing patches or not...

Guys, this info is from a user from Harmony central, is veeeery interesting:
Originally Posted by chick korea (Harmony Central forums)
I talked to Rolands CEO and he said that their are going to have some other cards latter this year,

1.- Rolands analog supreme Jupiter x and juno and others
2.- the Organs 3 B3 models and farsisa and vox contienental
and church organ
3.- Super natural ultimate brass , Latin, EWF, tower of power like,pop brass,and miami sound machine type brass
4.- woodwinds
5.- strings on namm 09

It seems that someone's dream (mine too) for B3 card is came true;