Confirmation from Roland uk- No Multi-Sampling

A ver.3 for the Fantom X with no multisamplig. WOW! that would make the X much more similar to the G.

guys, just be calm and think. Do you remember the 2.0 OS version of the Fantom X? It had added 8 audio tracks of linear recording bringing the Fantom X in a higher level, so do you counts. I think that it won't be a problem adding multisamples support with an OS software update, don't you think? What's the point of complaining, complaining, complaining and....guess what? Complaining. Come on guys calm down. and I don't think they'll reveal what they put in a future update sicne the machine is not out yet, so these "voices" that they won't implement multisamples support in a future OS update are bullshit, IMO.

If this is really true:

Congratulations to the Roland Japan management!

They have succeeded in doing something which is really hard to achieve:
- building a new device with lots of great new usability and sound engine features
- and at the same time downgrading it in comparison with their own predecessor(!!!) plus the competition(!), to a degree hard to believe
- no SRX slots (other than the X plus the new RD)
- no multisampling (other than the X)
- shocking poor effect power in live mode as trade in for PFX

This will of course mean major minuses reoccurring in each and every review of any keyboard magazine around the world, telling every pro musician very good reasons to find this workstation just 'nice' (nice screen, some nice functions) while at the same time not taking it too serious, since it is an unneccessarily closed system, by pure Roland arbitrariness. And I ask myself all the time if they are really not aware how much they will pay for these compromising decisions?

The news about this move have already reached forums of other companies. There people are mocking with considerable pleasure about the incredible readiness to leave this key field to the competition. The competition had already been in slight panic looking at the G before. Now the more they hear about some fundamental design flaws of the G, you can observe everybody returning and leaning back again: the G won't by far be the overall winner it could have easily become: it returns now from the image of plain superiority to just being a matter of taste and choice.

I myself will reconsider my order decision and have a much longer second look , e.g. at the Kurzweil PC3X (with the 24 layers of their new engine allowing *much* more realistic sounds of dynamic instruments than the G could ever produce). Yes, I know it has other shortcomings and other advantages, but since all major workstations including Roland now all have lots of minuses again, it's just a matter of preference. Another choice could be adding a Yamaha Rack XS to the Fantom X.

May also be, I stick with the G as sort of poor compromise (as any other decision would be as well, yes I know that), getting the live functionally I like, without getting the full fledged workstation which I expected, and having to add other gear. Even if I should decide to do so, I would do with big disappointment and with a considerable amount of contempt for some choices of leading managers of this project.

Anyway, the workstation market just has become a totally open game again, clearly depending much more on sound quality and matters of personal taste and choice, than on clear functional superiority of one device over the others. If so, this is all due to an incredible amount of corporate stupidity on the side of the Roland Japan management.

Your 3 negatives:

No SRX Slots: The "best" SRX sounds are included.

No multisampling: Might be added later

Poor FX power in live mode: 8FX --> 8FX for patch remain is pretty powerful...


You are trashing Rolands new workstation and saying others will for these things...

Until we try it, I don't think it is worth bashing so vehemently.

"This has to be a deliberate policy to not allow multisampled 3rd party libraries of ARX cards to be sold and used on the G. "

That's hilarious! Let me just ROTFLOL for a while...

That's better - so Roland are saying there new fantastic modelling tech can be reduced to just a few samples - so apart from having a stupid name, it really does appear to be as it's name indicates - just an apparition with no substance.

Do they really think this will stop piracy of any sort? So the f**k what if you can't use it on a G - let me see, use it well any sampler that has multi-sample capability - which as far as I know is just about all of them. Talk about stupid - do they really think it'll stop people sampling the ARX output and using on a box of there chosing?

There will always be some form of piracy, there will be those that do it and those that support it. Regulating against all users - well I think you know where I'm coming from.

Steve

The only possible reasons Roland omitted multisampling on the G:

1. They ran out of time and will add it (hopefully sooner than) later
2. They're working on an improved multisample editor, considering the X's wasn't all that usable to begin with
3. There's something in the G (tech-wise or implementation-wise) that precludes multisampling

I've been doing this a long time, and for the life of me, can't figure out how #3 might apply. I can't see how the Fantom-G couldn't have multisampling. We're looking at the other two at this point.

There's no way in hell Roland would omit it to keep people from using 3rd party samples. So many high-profile live musicians use multisampling to avoid bringing a gigantic rig to every show. Even Roland-sponsored artists, who I'm sure were instrumental in getting the beast made.



As for Live Mode FX, I'm really getting tired of explaining it—The SOLE REASON for Live Mode is to seamlessly transition between layers/splits. That's it. Roland will not undermine this feature simply because there's a perfectly usable mode that's designed specifically for people who need FX flexibility: Studio Mode. Considering one can instantly jump from Live Mode (seamless transitions) to Studio Mode (FX flexibility for those performances requiring multiple FX on a single part) and back via favorites, this is not an implementation defect. It's per spec.

Focus on the multisampling, guys. Diluting it by mentioning quirks—subjective ones at that—won't help our cause at all.

Quinnx, very odd that they tell me that they MIGHT add multisampling in and update and tell you that they WONT. Would seem like utter madness to totally rule it out.

The whole thing is very dismaying, especially as I really liked the X and was very much looking forward to what could have been a great machine.

Think it may be time to look into alternatives, the new kurzweil sounds good.

Mada,

If it were only one of these disappointments - but it is becoming a bit too much for my taste meanwhile.

I also evaluate the three points a bit other than you

- the "best" SRX sounds is just an euphemism for the fact that they chose a very small (!) amount of 12 64Mb boards, and we no longer have our own choice. I don't doubt some of their choices may have been fine, but all in all they are not remotely a replacement for the richness of choices before.

- no multisamples: if a company does not say "no idea what we do later", but clearly says "we won't even implement it later" this means at least that this has been a conscious strategic decision within the company. This again means they are presently not working on such a solution (and it just did not get ready in time), and it won't appear anytime soon. So *if* they should ever add it, they would do so only reacting to public pressure and very late. That's definitely too late for anyone interested in this feature and not acceptible at all to many of the pro musicians I know.

- poor FX power: with poor I mean that you have only one(!) effect of choice per patch in live mode. All other effects are overall effects.
For many sounds this is totally inappropriate, e.g. if you need a combinations of Leslie and overdrive for one sound, and a combination of amp sim and slight overdrive for another, and a phaser plus a compressor or a special delay or amp sim for a third etc. you are chanceless

It just won't work in a convincing way, and mean just another kind of eternal search for compromise, just like the previous solution. Live mode will be my most used mode, and I already know I will struggle with this limitation all the time and in nearly all of my live sets.

I'm not just theoretically disappointed by spec reading! I'm disappointed because I know I will definitely suffer from the consequences of each of these three decisions in everday use.
Too much compromise has really become too much drawback now!

Well I think now you're all going round in circles... ok no multisampling,fair enough,vent your anger at Roland because the more you type here the less effect it has,for those that are really that grated by it use your frustrations and email them as much as you bleat and moan here,it will have a far better effect.Unless of course you secretly don't give a sh*t and just like to repeat yourselves over and over and enjoy the reactions.

Go on you know you want to....hassle the head of the snake,its the best way forward if ya want to make an impression.If enough consumers voiced their opinions half as much to Roland as they do here eventually they will listen.........maybe hehehehe.

thekeymaster,

I have no problems emailing, but is a bit of a problem if a company like Roland doesn't even have any public email adress for such feedback. I'm glad if you give me one.

By the way, I am absolutely sure that Roland staff is reguarly lurking in here, no matter what anyone says about it...
I'm even sure some of them read in the Korg and Yamaha forums from time to time.

I agree... from now on..
for every mail you make here about no multisample
cut copy and paste it to support@roland.co.uk
and keep cut copy and pasting untill they say...
Okay Okay
We get it..
You want multisampling on the G

here it is...

By the way, I am absolutely sure that Roland staff is reguarly lurking in here, no matter what anyone says about it...

Of course they are. There's always Mr.[deleted by C.I.A] and Mr.[deleted by C.I.A]. Sometimes Mr.[deleted by C.I.A] comes around, just like Mr.[deleted by C.I.A].

Clan Intelligence Agency

I sent roland uk another mail about the situation in an attempt to get some more clarity on the situation but I doubt they will know much about the situation themselves.

Audacity,

I completely understood and understand the point about live mode FX. And I'll get by with studio mode while sequencing.

But seamless switching is too relevant for live mode (that's why we waited for it that much) to be able to regard it as matter of choice and switch back to studio mode in live play.

So I have no choice: I need seamless switching live, and I'm glad how well live switching can be done on the G, but I also need flexible effect settings live.

This is where I would have expected at least one more FX not having to be a fixed global one. And believe me, I'm not just demanding, I would readily pay for it.

Any one like a solution to getting 2 Mfx routing on the G:
(Quick! it may be deleted by Roland secret agent!)