Fantom G (What it should have been and it's Specs)

I'm totally agree. I know for sure that Roland could do the ultimate workstation, but then?....
We'd been all complaining for the price finding flaws which wouldn't exist just because of the (right) increase in price, many people wants to do (this is a typical italian proverb) "le nozze con i funghi" that in english can be translated "the wedding with the fungi", but if you want the best you must pay, not complain.

I guess I dont quite get it . My fantom x has double the polyphony of my fantom s88 and alot more features they didnt take away anything but the price for fantom x is basically the same that the fantom s cost. so if it would have cost a couple of hundred more to get the extra features that would have been nice,I can always haggle the price later with my dealer.

but I think the G is fine as is .a great talent will figure out how to use anything you give him and I guess for the money Roland gives you alot to work with for the money ,kudos to Roland.

I hope I wont be disappointed with the timbo I have ordered.

This just goes to show it does not matter how well you make something; there will always be people who complain about it just so they have something to complain about.

I agree hallifax

Why doesnt Roland post their NAMM footage of the G

Same question here.

Personally I'm glad that the G has a huge full color screen (let alone all the new additions and the faster engine -thank god!) and it's only going to start @ $2495.

At least Roland didn't try and build some extremely overpriced, overhyped and under delivered workstation that costs anywhere between $7500 and $8500 ( cough ... errr.... KORG).

No thanks I'd rather have a Really !! Nice !! used car for that price tag.

That Roland was going to make a V-Synth GT ARX card.

Yeah i'm playing live. The Piano EP and Strings go good together for worship, I need it all. Can't do much runs up and down. I'm forced to take out the piano or EP when a run is coming up.
More Polyphony would have been nice, at least 192 could be the new std onward for the Fantom G if having massive polyphony would cause the price of the board to sky rocket!

Yamaha had the PLG cards for the Motif series keyboards,which like the ARX boards, are small synths. They have stopped supporting those PLG cards in their latest synths.The Motif XS does not support it. Hope the ARX boards don't end up the same way.

They might very well end up the same way, because ARX makes only limited sense. It's neither a full fledged synth nor a sample upgrade: just a limited hybrid. It's main chance is to add engines with kinds of especially expressive articulations for certain instruments. I doubt very much how many users have this kind of interest, limited to 2 instruments of that kind.

If I want a synth I buy a synth or a synth module to play from a master keyboard: this way I have exactyl the knobs and sliders I need for that instrument right on the device, and none of the other limits typically significant for internal engine modules.
If I want ROMpler sounds, I don't need ARX technology. The crazy thing with the G is: I don't get ROMpler sounds with ARX, at least not so far. Instead I lose SRX slots altogether for two silly ARX slots, something I don't want and I don't need if I look at ARX 01 nor ARX 02: both aren't of *any* interest to me: I would prefer to continue using SRX-01 and SRX-12 *by* *far*.

As we use to say proverbially in Germany:
The G soundwise could well become "neither fish nor flesh".
This means: it wants to be everything, but it might well be that concenring sound it doesn't offer either in a convincing way.

Jimknopf
Sorry but I just can't agree with you on that one. I know you're struggling with this SRX/ARX thing since the beggining but you cannot underestimate what you still don't know. Ok, you find the ARX-1 and 2 useless but you don't know whats to come. Over the years we've seen users here begging for an Organ SRX. If Roland releases an organ ARX board and with the added 8 faders of the G, I believe there will be several users buying it. The same with a VA board. Since there are dedicated "parts" for the ARX boards, and since these don't eat up the polyphony we could even expect an added "ROM" multi-timbral synthesizer. Why not? As I see it, the ARX architecture is much more versatile then the SRX. So we have to wait and see. Remember how long you waited for the SRX-12?
I know you're septical about the ARX-2 but, personnaly, I'm looking forward for it for the simple pleasure of having those "tweaks";-)

Jimknopf;
I disagree. Personally I *love* the concept of plug-in synths, as I have very limited space for adding board after board. I just recently sold my cs6x for this very reason; not that I didn't like it or really needed the money. In fact, I'd love to hold on to it, but I simply don't have the space.

I'm actually very enthusiastic about the ARX technology. Although I don't find the first boards very interesting, I see a huge potential here. And who knows, maybe Roland can release SRX-type boards, only more extensive & better? Time will tell. Since I'm not that interested in ROM-based boards, I'm hoping for new synthesis. But I also keep my fingers crossed that your wishes come true

Hi VeCeeOh,

yes maybe you are right concerning the possible B3 and VA thing.

Maybe I'm too sceptical meanwhile: when I saw all the nice new usability features, I was really ready to buy the G from day one, but then I got heavy doubts concerning onboard first class bread and butter sounds (Pianos, Epianos, Clav and B3 Organ, bass/synthbass and acoustic drum sets, to name the most important), and also how well they really redesigned the file system in this machine (sample and audio handling and loading times plus file name and folder organisation).

And since they hesitate much too long to clarify the things in question from my view, this rather raises more doubts...

But I understand your point and agree - to a certain degree

P.S. Same for Hugo, though I prefer outboard synth gear over inboard compromises. But it still could be useful (rehearsals with just one keyboard, whatsoever...)

P.P.S.: Concerning tweaking in ARX-02:
I like tweaking a Rhodes a lot (and did that all the time I used one), but I'm not a bit interested in tweaking any artificial "EPiano" sound, which I would have to regard totally second-class compared to a real Rhodes or a real Wurlitzer with all their significant character.

yes, I understand you. For me, getting something similar to the "E.Piano mode" available with the SRX-12 is enough. As we've seen it seems this will be the case, with some extras, on the ARX-2. Since I'm not as septical as you with the sound I think it will be OK for me. Actually I'm a little more concerned with something wich we also know nothing yet - the ARX polyphony. If that is not "AT LEAST" 64 voices in the ARX-2 then yes, I would be very disapoited and would think twice.