so is fantom G mature already?

Have you actually tried out the Fantom-G? I mean, to make sure that you will prefer its sequencer and file system over the Motif XS.

I moved from a Motif Classic to a Fantom-G with only a short gap in-between owning the two. I haven' regretted it.

But I'd also have to say that I don't think sequencing and file systems are a weakness of the Motif range. The FG sequencer's interface is very user-friendly but the XS's built-in arpeggiator is vastly superior to the FG's.

I prefer the FG's implementation of sampling, but I find the limitations of Roland's file system annoying. In particular, the fact that all sample data has to be stored at a single directory level on the FG, rather than organised in folders and sub-folders, is a throwback to 1970s computer technology.

What is it about the XS's sequencer and file system that you're unhappy with? If you're struggling to understand how it all works, I would probably advise persevering with it until you've got the hang of things. Make use of resources like Motifator.com, which has lots of tutorials and a very helpful forum.

I used to play fantom X and juno G for a while in the past and liked logic flow of recording etc. On motif XS the most missing feature is real audio tracks. Plus UI is so unintuitive that after over a year with playing with it still straggle to figure out some feature without looking into manual or motif forum. Not sure but does fantom G have something similar to M3 drum track feature? no such thing on motif, although I agree yamaha arps are awesome.

Yamaha just released a new Motif XS OS (1.50) that records audio.

I still own the Motif XS, and sequencing on the beast is like rocket science. The operating system just isn't easy to use. The contrast and color scheme on the XS gives me a headache. And My friends ran out of memory on song 29 with no audio.

I also own the Fantom G and sequencing is simple and the screen is a dream come true. The memory seems endless. Sometime, it's hard to understand your mode, but with a developed workflow, the operating system is straight forward and easy to understand.

The only problem using the two, the Motif XS only saves smf type 0, so when you import smf's from the XS into the FG, your multi-track & multi-midi channel recording in the Motif, imports on the FG all on one track. And that's a lot of stuff for one track when the instrument has 128! I dont have this problem with the M3.

But I love them all. And simply want more. I am currently saving up for a Kurweil PC3. Then a modular, Then what else there is.

I'd say the Fantom G is mature, but not yet full grown, I believe may still update the OS with more feature over then next year and with Roland sponsored projects like FGConnects, she developing very well. I also think the Motif XS is nearing the end of continued OS development. The Motif GS will be one got-to-have instrument someday.

yes, motif can record audio (even before could) but it's not real audio track like on fantom where you can move along the track back and forth.

I'm seriously considering adding fantom G to motif XS so I'd have motif GS I realized that I never gonna get everything from one company after useless yamaha OS updates so combining them is the only way. Can you believe it that they introduce in last update
screen skin templates for changing colors and sh#t? while other important users requests were not implemented like piano roll, step recording etc. what a waste of resource.

I'd say the G is about as mature as a 15-year-old kid... definitely not a drooling baby, but definitely not as mature as it would like to think it is

From the sounds of it, I think you will find the Fantom's sequencer a lot nicer to use than the Motif's. One thing you should know however, is that currently the Fantom does not handle odd time signatures very well (i.e. anything other than 4/4). Yes, there are features there that let you do some basic recording in odd time sigs but as soon as you go a little deeper you will see that the implementation is not friendly at all, and things like microscope editing, phrase editing, punch in/out, and quantizing are extremely difficult if not impossible.

are you kidding? why is that? I play frequently 3/4 and 5/4,
why would roland omit this? if that's true its big bummer.

Odd time signatures dont present a problem unless your odd.

Personnally, I have a hard enough time playing in 4/4, through out an entire song. I find the microscope editing capable, and quanitize is not a big deal, unless I am playing in an odd time signature.

Even with all the wimperings about the Fantom G, it is a better working experience than the Motif XS. (Dont get me wrong the 6000+ phrases on the Motif are a god-send.)

Yes it was quite a shock and disappointment for me too, I work heavily in odd time signatures.

It stems from the fact that the G is using a new paradigm called "phrase sequencing". Basically, each time you record something on the G, it is saved internally as a 4/4 MIDI phrase. If what you recorded was a bar of 7/8, you will get one 4/4 phrase, with the last 8th note empty. If you recorded a bar of 17/8, you will get 3 bars of 4/4, two of them full and one with a single 8th note at the beginning.

The song itself knows when you hit a bar of 17/8, so it plays back the phrase and cuts it off after the right amount of time, but as soon as you go into microscope edit, everything will be expressed in terms of 4/4. So if you need to change the second last note of your 17/8 bar, you actually have to edit the last 8th note of the second bar of 4/4.

Thus, while the G can technically record in odd time sigs, as soon as you want to do any modification after the fact it becomes a nightmare. It seems that the intent of designing it this way was to cater to the loop-based electronic music crowd, who might want to drop phrases from one song into another, and of course this all works fine if all your music is in 4/4.

- Rick

So Fantom G is not mature. "Power sequencer" is not so powerful. It really needs a massive update as it could be. These all requested features regarding the sequencer are very simple to implement. Till then we must use a PC for any not trivial midi editing/sequencing.

And please everyone not to write that any function is excellent when it lacks in basic functionality - I was reading such irresponsible sentences in few posts. When Roland reads that a function is excellent - it will be never expanded/improved - for sure.

I'm disappointed, not handling odd measures properly and not so powerful sequencer are deal breaker for me. Why they put so big screen when they don't use it fully...

>Why they put so big screen when they don't use it fully...

I've done some GUI work myself and keep wondering about the Fantom G GUI design decisions too, as many places have a lot of unnecessary empty space, like all the unused gray area around the sequencer window. That's just waste of screen estate...

It might be worth checking Dan Krisher's YouTube video tutorial on using the Fantom-G to work with odd time signatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyjjNynnvKc&feature=channel_page.

That may or may not answer your questions on this topic. I haven't studied the tutorial myself as I only ever work in 4/4. But I thought I'd mention it as no-one else has.

thanks for the link, after watching it I'm not sure where is the problem mentioned before...

delirium: "thanks for the link, after watching it I'm not sure where is the problem mentioned before..."

Yes, I'm puzzled by that. I hadn't watched this particular video before but I did just now and it seems fairly straightforward to work in non-4/4 time signatures.

Dan Krisher's video tutorials are very good, by the way. Well worth watching if, as a prospective purchaser, you want to see how the FG works in action and also very useful for learning how to get the best of it once you've purchased.

I would definitely recommend checking the other ones. There must be at least 20 tutorials for the FG now and he's done some for other Roland products too. See http://www.youtube.com/user/DanKrisher.

Regarding the Motif XS, I have to concede that the user interface and the operating system are a lot less user-friendly than the FG's. Although its sounds were beautiful, my years owning the Motif Classic were not very productive and I think that was mainly down to the complexity of Yamaha's UI/OS. The sampler, in particular, was very hard work; I never figured it out.

That was a real shame because Yamaha have occasionally managed to come up with products that were easy to use. The RM1x sequencer, for example, was a great little unit and a pleasure to program.