Who of you G-users is disapointed/galled and why?

if the project approach is adopted, where all samples are loaded into memory when the project is loaded, then patch access will be almost instantanous.

Like the MV8000/MV8800.
Seems so many complaints about the FG come back to: "Why didn't they do it like the MV?"

Nik: Being fair, the FG manages things this way already in terms of projects etc. I think it was just the wording I used. I would just like to see a large internal flash drive

My point is that we are asking for an internal hard drive for the sake of capacity, but no delay when loading patches like one gets on the Alesis Fusion, for example.

I am just pointing out that Roland already know how to do this. The MV has the benefits of hard drive storeage of projects plus instant patch access within the loaded project.

Sorry my misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.

Hi Guy 'n' Girls,

Help !!

I have been lokoing to buy a G7 for sometime, but Reading this thread gives me a very mixed view of the G, I have looking at getting more contemporary sounding workstation type synth/wav player for sometime to replace my old Trinity and all that really is about is the G, the M3 or Motif.

Korg have not come out with any ground breaking technologies for quite some time.. the M3 has no real wow! factor about it !

Yamaha, (I personally think) are over complex and hard to program... yes they sound great!

So all thats left is the G ! Nice Big creen wasy to program !!

I do not need the sequencer or Audio recording capabilities.
The FX capabilities of the G sound ipressive

I got myself a GT some while ago and the technologies emlpoyed are fantastic, the machine is a serious bit of kit, easy to program and sounds great! Good job on the vocal stuff Roland...

So Is it a G or not to G ???


Any suggestions/views

MrMan, some like the G's sequencer, some don't. But what EVERYBODY loves without any exceptions is the sound. So in case of you, you'll surely be very happy with it. It's the best sample-based synth Roland has ever released.

I say **go buy a Fantom G** too. The Fantom G is mostly a positive experience. I think that by the time you have learned to use it well, the next OS update will be here and most of the flaws and quirks will be sorted out.

Art, how does the Fantom X sound in comparisome..... they are a lot cheaper (credit crisis 'n' all)


Thanks in advance...


MrMan

Art / JesseJ,

Sounds like I should go for the G, just hearing all the negs going on makes you wonder, I guess we get the same on the V-Synth Forum, gut I would swap my GT for anything !!

Anybody got a G7 going cheap???


Thanks guys...

I do not regret moving to a Fantom-G in my live set. It is an incredible machine with excellent sound quality. The wide variety of patches and the ability to layer 8 parts (with dedicated effects to each patch) insure that I get a quality sound and expected behaviour. Swapping live sets on the fly allows my sound expression to double without a single loss of fidelity.

There are quirks, but what board doesn't have them? Most of my disappointment with the board is minimal and totally subjective. For every disappointment, I find 10 or 12 things that I like about the board.

To me my Fantom X sounds way better then my Fantom G, and I own both.

understanding: To me, it seems that if you don't like how the Fantom-G sounds, it might be that your standards are quite low. In this case, you could do your job just fine even with a Korg M3...

I might complain all the time for various issues, but if there is one thing that is undoubtedly fine about the Fantom-G, it's the sound. I can't really get it. Maybe you're doing something wrong, or maybe subconsciously you just need an M3...

And concerning overall sound, the G sounds a whole class better than the Fantom X! Not a bit of doubt about that from my view...

The G would be the complete number one workstation anyway, leaving Yamaha XG and M3 behind with ease, if its soundset, effect routing and OS would be updated to the level of its basic sound and usability level, which is just great.

I will never understand why Roland didn't put highest priority on baking this half-baked product ready as long as it was really hot. Now they are in the "too late and too little" zone and will have a hard time getting out again...

I agree, made in a hurry with glaring omissions. There are so many unfinished functions...

Both are just as capable.
I think the reason the G sometimes sounds better is the sample set.
The X and the G can produce the same quality of sound as each other..
With this in mind i did a little experiment..

I used SKIPBACK on the G to sample one of its own patch sounds
I then used the X to Skipback sample the same captured sample
So the X is getting 2nd generation sample because its resamping a skipback sample through its DAC.

I then selected both as a USAM patch on each machine and played a phrase.
Once on the X and once on the G
Can you tell which is which?