Sequencer no Copy and Paste!? Delete/Erase most basic functi

Lazerfist, what Korg are you getting?

If it's an M3, I have that too. I hope you didn't choose it for the sequencer....:-/

Sorry to disturb the dark picture of some in here once more.

The G does not have to be defended, it just has to be used in a proper way! While doing so I constantly enjoy it's huge superiority over the X and - at least for my purposes - over any other workstation around at the moment.

I I feel this way **despite** the obvious and by no means harmless flaws! Since you all know very well that I have no problem at all naming and critisizing the flaws (the "Opening the bug list" thread was started by me ), why am I so satisfied with the G that I sold my X without hesitating two days ago?

Keysme, your post is very balanced and no hate post at all. But still my experience with the G is completely other day by day. I enjoy it at rehearsals, and each and every band member tells me it sounds *much* better than my X did. I enjoy it when recording ideas and putting basic arrangements into shape. And so on.

Few impressions from my everday use:
- I play Rhodes solos with *much* more dynamic play and all the Mk I vintage bark and growl I like.
- I find the NY Grand 8 the best dynamically playable Piano I ever played on *any* workstation, after slightly tweaking it (reverb back and sympathetic resonance on PFX).
- Sequencing in Cubase has become *much* easier with the VSTi plugin, and now it is a breeze to export midis prepared in Cubase to the G SVQ format (with the X it was a real pain full of possible sound choice and effect setting problems, and porting over required *much* more editing after exporting).
- usb loading times are a breeze compared to the sluggish X loading times
- EGuitar parts profit from the new pitch bend modes to a high degree and sound *much* more realistic now
- Though the sequencer is not at all useable for complete project editing in the present form (that of the X wasn't either because it was a joke to do bigger projects on it with terrible time waste compared with software DAW use), it is *much* faster and more comfortable for fast sketching jobs (getting ideas into shape) than the X was. And the whole sequencer (midi plus audio) despite serious flaws is already more powerful than anything on a X, XS or M3.

I could go on like this quite a while to make my point clear:
while I understand some disappointment (even some heavy ones), I can't share any overall negative attitude at all!
I can't, just because I experience just the opposite day by day!
I see around 80% *big* improvements and 20% drawbacks, and that while keeping in mind that some of the drawbacks might already become history with the next update in a not so distant future (June, if I follow Oliver from Roland UK).

Sometimes I really ask myself how much some of you with dark perspectives really **use** the G, and not just talk about specs and hearsay...

This is what i pick up on from people who are not bothered by the flaws...
They dont use the G exclusively and have always subsidised their work even with the Fantom X by using something like a DAW or Cubase..

On that basis your workflow has not changed and you do not see any negative differences between the X and the G.
What you do see is... more

USB Audio
Larger screen
New scratch pad layout (sequencer)
Better FX routing and PFX
Overall improvement in sound
Excellent! live sets and storage
Super fast USB storage etc..

And i see these too.. and they are great Plus`s
however what that tells me is the Fantom G is now reduced to the status of Sound Module and not a Workstation..

For those who have been using the fantom Exclusively the gain is hampered by the flaws and this is a FACT.
For those people the workflow has not only changed but is being restricted.

And to top it off, the current information I have from roland is..
Roland don't really know whats going on or missing, they are waiting to hear from us Beta testers to tell them whats wrong.

Results Not Excuses..
X-Bugs.org


email: support@roland.co.uk (to get it fixed)

As someone who uses the Fantom X as my "Total PreProduction Soultion" it is the CENTER PIECE of my studio. EVERYTHING else I have is either connected to it....or runs THROUGH it. I dont have a computer in my studio (for a REASON) so I need a workstation that is CAPABLE of handling all the task associated with song creation....

Granted the Fantom G does a lot of things BETTER than the X, I wont dispute that BUT because of some of the OMMISSIONS in the OS, the "G" would if fact be more difficult to deal with than my X. A trade off I am NOT willing to make for a device that I will have to RE-LEARN basically from scratch.

The thing that frustrated me the most with the G is that it COULD/SHOULD have been the PERFECT workstation. But it seems that for everything they did BRILLIANTLY, they did something equally as STUPID!

So I chose to save my $$$$$ and wait for a FINISHED product....

I would rather have a Chevy that is SAFE to drive....than a Bently with no brakes...LOL

Actually even X could be improved further. Why there isn't a simple note nudge function in a microscope for an example? Why not implement a proper projects management just like in G (a basically firmware modification would do)?

It's because such things don't make too much on sales obviously. People are still buying hardware workstations for sounds and live use mostly. Roland sure has some intelligent folks yet there are flaws, bugs and omissions in their products.

In software realm it's not all that rosy either. Bloat, flawed features, paid bugfixes, annual fees (so called "upgrades")...

Roland has a stake in Cakewalk and Yamaha owns Steinberg. An important factor too.

A single piece of equipment which would make a perfect workstation isn't out of possibility. Yet look - Fantom-G is selling anyway will all its flaws being a new product. Then later Roland will release a new improved firmware to attract some more sales (and probably charge current users for it too). It looks like a business win win situation to me.

Yes of course they are.. (thats like Microsoft statement that the OS of choice on new PCs is Vista when its no choice at all)

that because they dont know about them..
It looks like a business win win situation to me
Yes for Roland! not the users.
You know its just as easy for roland to have an initial sales glut of fantom G (especialy when there is no more fantom X in the shops)and then sit back and just let the money roll in and think its over...

But its also just as easy for all those who bought the Fantom G in hope of the next firmware to fix it, to find it does not have significant fix`s to justify keeping the G, in which case everyone returns their G and tells the shop assistant why and all of a sudden roland sale are in negative equity and will have to do something about it or it could keep happening..

Results Not Excuses..
X-Bugs.org


email: support@roland.co.uk (to get it fixed)

It looks like a business win win situation to me.

It looks to me also. The difference is that I accept it like that, a business, instead of assuming Roland is having a somewhat obscure purpose here. What was it supposed to be? a "give give" situation? Anyway, its up to each other to decided to buy it or not.

however what that tells me is the Fantom G is now reduced to the status of Sound Module and not a Workstation..

Don't agree. From my experience, I still power my G only to start recording without my DAW, just like I did with my X. Is simple and straight forward. Also I would like to add to what Jim said that the G looks like a great MIDI controller. I'm just starting to work around that and I'm already able to do things I could not do with the X like mixing internal and external sources in real time with the faders. Talk about workflow...

"I'm already NOT! able to do things I could do with the X"

I'm already able to do things I could not do with the X
"I'm already NOT! able to do things I could do with the X"

hahahaha! ;D

uhh...
I love my G. It sounds great, feels great, looks great.

Patches!
Live Mode!
Sequencer?

I love the Studio mode and it is very fast for me to get started on a project.
However, the lack of bulk editing stops me in my tracks.
The G needs this update, it is not a good sequencer without it.
It has awesome potential, but like Quinnx has referred to...
When you can't split a phrase or edit multiple phrases at once among other things,
you are missing VERY Basic Sequencer Functions.

I hope Roland KEEPS a team working on the G until it is as perfect as can be.
It would be a shame to leave it incomplete.

I'm already able to do things I could not do with the X
"I'm already NOT! able to do things I could do with the X"

Facts are facts. I won't deny it. I also could not do things with my X that I could with my XP-50. Still, I would have been a fool if that prevented me to get the X. Was the X an "half backed" keyboard cause of that. Obviously not. Did I waited for the expected ver.3 to get it? No. I used the best I knew and could. I'm doing the very same right now with the G.

Actually even X could be improved further.

That's another reason why I've had a bad feeling about the G... There was so much in the X that could have been fixed or improved and they didn't even after people including me sending endless emails to them with solutions, and ideas for the software to broaden it's ability which is already in the machine but it's locked away...

If only there was a third party company that would know how to crack one of these and free up the features we would need. I'd pay for it.

And I don't see why some G users keep using the "Yeah but.." excuse... Yes, it is has features over an X.. but shouldn't it?

If they continue with this way of kicking their customers into the mud by the time the next workstation is released, i'm afraid I'd abandon ship, and go get me a Neko and join the Open Labs crew... Hopefully by then they'll have the ultimate workstation... Bummer, I really want to stay on with roland, but they obviously don't care weather I do or don't, so......

Neko is my next thought as well if the G updates do not materialize....

I will be sad about the 10,000 pound weight, but anyway...

I really do hope the Roland does all they can to make this the best it can be!

I'm really mad that I had to buy a Fantom XR just to keep some of my required sounds from SRX-7, 9 and 10!
So to replace my X7 it is costing over $3300.00 plus I cannot sell my SRX cards yet.

So, I hope at least the functionality issues will be made right soon.

Was the X an "half backed" keyboard cause of that. Obviously not

I guess it just felt that way, since I know it could have been improved on within the software...

but i would say yes, it was halfbaked for my use. and thats why I know the G can't do much more for what I need at this point.. I'm already comfortable in my combination use of the FX, MV88, XT, and recording and arranging the audio in Cubase very smoothly... The G would have worked against me..

Ooops....Open Labs no longer makes a 76 key version.

Not an option...