Fantom X to FA Transition

Hello eyekahn,

Can Fantom X patches be somehow imported directly into the FA, and if so, are all the mappings, wav sets, etc... compatible? Please note that I do not have ANY SRX cards to be considered.

No. Must be manually converted to FA TONEs. Many PCM waveforms are the same (coming from the XV), so there is a good chance for good results in this.

I know that what are called 'performances' on the Fantom X are called something different (Studio Sets?) on the FA. Are the capabilities of this on an FA at least inclusive of the features of a performance on a Fantom X?

Yes. In addition, FA has 16 MFX per STUDIO SET and Fantom X 3 MFX. FA also has parametric 16 EQ (one per PART) and with Firmware 2.0 Roland introduced KEYGROUPS (grouping parts and select per PADs).

On the Fantom X, you could change 'performances' via a MIDI bank/patch change command from an external source based on configuring the Fantom X to respond to this on a specific channel. This did require that the Fantom X already be in 'performance' mode prior to sending the bank/patch change. Does this capability for changing the similar feature (Studio Sets?) in an FA exist?

No.There is no Performance Control Channel. All program changes are bank select MSB/LSB.

I don't need aftertouch (although it would be nice) on the FA because lets be honest, it was horrible on the Fantom X anyway. I don't need the audio tracks recording feature because again... let's be honest, the File IO was SOOOO slow it created a workflow that wasn't usable long term. Are there any other features that were present on the Fantom X that are missing on the FA series that should give me reason to pause?

Yes. There is no RPS. Also, STUDIO SETs and SONGs are stored independent from each other. So you can not save modified TONEs within a song. This was a great feature on the Fantom X. On the FA you must store modified TONEs in a new user slot. And as you might now, there are no sampling features (Multisamples, Timestretch).
But these aren't no go's for a FA-07.

eyekahn wrote:

[*]On the Fantom X, you could change 'performances' via a MIDI bank/patch change command from an external source based on configuring the Fantom X to respond to this on a specific channel. This did require that the Fantom X already be in 'performance' mode prior to sending the bank/patch change. Does this capability for changing the similar feature (Studio Sets?) in an FA exist?

I think maybe Benny misunderstood you.

yes, it exists.

There is a "Studio Set Control Channel" you can select. So you can send MSB/LSB/PC messages on Channel 16 (or whatever channel you select) to change it from Studio Set 172 to Studio Set 217 or whatever.

The FA is sort of already in Studio Set Mode which kind of equates to what used to be called "Multi-Timbral Mode" where all 16 parts received MIDI messages from a Sequencer (or you can play some number of parts live as well).

Studio Sets do this, but they also cover what used to be called "Performance Mode" on a lot of older synths where you played a single Patch or a Split/Layer.

Now, you just do all that from the Studio Set.

What happens on the FA, when you're in "Single", "Dual" or "Split" mode, is you're really still in SS mode, but the screen changes to only show you what's on Part 1 (Single), or Parts 1 and 2 (Dual or Split).

You can do all of this in SS "view" as well. So really it's what you see that's different but the operating principle is the same.

When you couple this with what Benny mentioned about the 2.0 software (which will come with the 07s) you'll have an amazing degree of control over selecting parts WITHIN a SS as well as moving from SS to SS if you want or need to.

[*]I don't need aftertouch (although it would be nice) on the FA because lets be honest, it was horrible on the Fantom X anyway.

You can control aftertouch from a pedal though. So there's always that option for sounds that respond to it.

HMM, Studio Sets can be saved with a Song, such that when you load up a song, it automatically calls up the SS that is "associated" with it.

I heard somewhere that many users didn't like the way MFX (and TFX) worked on the Fantom so what I consider to be a bone-headed implementation is actually what most people want...

If you edit a tone, you must save that tone in a user slot. Of course. But this also includes turning an effect on or off. So if you want a tone with the effect on or off, you have to save it as two states - on preset and one user slot with the effect different. You can't just easily turn it on and off on the sound itself (without being on a specific screen).

With TFX you can do this, but that's saved with the SS.

MFX is saved with the tone itself.

So your SS essentially "calls to" whatever Tones you're using (be they presets or user tones), and the Song then "calls to" that SS.

But you can't really save the "state" of a an edited tone in a SS (or Song). It has to be saved at the Tone level. If you make a bunch of on-the-fly changes to filter on a Tone within a SS (or in a Song where the changes are not recorded) during a performance, next time you load up the song it will be back to the default state of the Tone (and your last saved SS state).

Hope that makes sense

One other thing to add, is that if you have tones you wish to recreate from the Fantom X on the FA and they are using multiple MFX's - you are limited to one MFX per part/channel.

The whole concept of one MFX per part is that no matter where you are, you're always available to swap between single/dual/split/studio set with no loss/change in patch sound. Some love this, others not so much - personally i love it, and is a vast improvement to MFX juggling of the past. However, it also limits you a bit on sound design if you wanted to layer 2x MFX's

Note that it is also possible to convert the Master Compressor into an IFX (Insert fx) which can sit as an insert on the parts which you enable, should you require an additional effect for specific parts. Which from memory you could do on the Fantom's too?

One thing i also miss is that the Fantom would, by default, have drums (Ch10) setup on the pads so you could play them in, you can't use the pads in this way on the FA... Why, i do not know!? But even if you could they are not velocity sensitive either.

When it comes to the sampling features, which you may not use based on your post, the actual sampling works really well (Ridiculously quick file access!) - but you cannot hear sample playback when recording into a new pad, which is a shame, with the Fantom you could almost use it like Ableton by building up loops within each pad whilst hearing previous samples.

On the whole i think it's a step up from the Fantom, but it doesn't feel like it from a physical perspective, as the build quality/casing has very much been designed to make it lightweight. And also the screen, while better quality, is more compressed if you're used to the expanse and heavier use of images on the Fantom's. Much of it is VERY familiar however.

First, thank you to all of you for your answers so far.

The limitations regarding lack of RPS, song/studio set not synced and modified versions of patches stored with song and/or performance (now studio set) are not a problem for me. Most of the time I would prefer a 'stable' version of a patch to be included, and then use the 'offsets' feature of a performance (now Studio Set) for any additional modifications at that level. I checked the manual and Studio Sets have that feature. The issue on the MFX may be a bigger deal, but probably not a deal breaker.

The most prohibitive factor will be the rebuilding of all of my patches.... (to the tune of 60 plus custom patches).

I barely use the sequencing/recording features on the Fantom X today since using my DAW is so much easier. As far as sampling goes, I could see where I would actually use the sampling on the FA more than on the Fantom. The Fantom's painfully slow FILE I/O has moved me away from a hardware based sampler. I now use Kontakt 5.x in my virtual rack exclusively for all sampling needs (which is why I run two instances currently).

Okay, more detailed questions now that my appetite has been whetted.

Is there a key latch feature in the sound engine so that when you hit a key, it stays held until you hit it a second time? This is a fantastically useful feature when playing live and I use it regularly in custom Kontakt instruments.

What is the complexity/difficulty of programming patches on this thing in comparison with a Fantom X?

Is the audio interface built into the FA decent? I currently use a Behringer XR18, however it 'simple' gigging scenarios, it would be great to run a virtual rack in conjuction with a FA using the FA's native audio interface if latency was low enough. My typical latency through the XR18 is currently just under 8ms.

If Fantom G7's weren't hard to come by and their price lower, I would seriously consider buying a used G7. They appear to be going for more than a G8, and I definitely do NOT need another weighted keyboard. My NI Komplete Kontrol S88 handles any of those needs and weighs significantly less.

eyekahn wrote:

Is there a key latch feature in the sound engine so that when you hit a key, it stays held until you hit it a second time? This is a fantastically useful feature when playing live and I use it regularly in custom Kontakt instruments.

Sadly not, you can set a control like the S1/S2 buttons to be a hold (i.e. emulating a hold/sustain pedal) but latch feature allows you to latch keys independently, right?

Only the sample pads on the FA have that feature if you set the loaded sample on that pad as Gate=Off and Loop=On. However, that's an internal function and don't believe it would send a latch command out to Kontakt.

What is the complexity/difficulty of programming patches on this thing in comparison with a Fantom X?

Pretty much the same as Fantom for PCM patches (Minus some of the fancier colour images), supernatural patches however are much easier, but sometimes you need to go into the more text heavy 'zoom/pro-edit' mode for supernatural synths to get the sound you want.

You can set the pads to be partial enable/disable and partial, so that's similar to the fantom too, helps a lot with editing.

Is the audio interface built into the FA decent? I currently use a Behringer XR18, however it 'simple' gigging scenarios, it would be great to run a virtual rack in conjuction with a FA using the FA's native audio interface if latency was low enough. My typical latency through the XR18 is currently just under 8ms.

Audio interface is very good, plus you can record the audio coming in to the FA also.

If Fantom G7's weren't hard to come by and their price lower, I would seriously consider buying a used G7. They appear to be going for more than a G8, and I definitely do NOT need another weighted keyboard. My NI Komplete Kontrol S88 handles any of those needs and weighs significantly less.

Comparing generally the FA to the Fantom X is very tricky, because on one hand it doesn't feel like a solid workstation, i.e. the depth isn't there, it doesn't have such a physical presence... But then when it comes to DAW integration, load speed, the audio interface - they're all very modern enhancements.

It's like a Fantom Lite, with enhancements, in a modern lightweight shell. It's so hard to know what a Fantom X owner would think of an FA. Some days i yearn for my Fantom to be back, other days i'm pleased i have the FA instead. But the big issue for me is the sampling, damn with the loading speed, and ease of transferring to modern media on the FA it would've been so nice to use the samples as waveforms for patches. (argh!).

While the display is smaller, it is a great display, less 'fun' than the Fantom for sure, but the general speed of the interface means all zips along very fast, no waiting on anything.

Skijumptoes wrote:

It's like a Fantom Lite, with enhancements, in a modern lightweight shell.

I might say, the "big" workstations (Fantom, Motif, Triton, etc.) were IMHO designed to be "standalone" workstations at a time when DAW integration wasn't as big a deal as it is now (and nor was audio over USB or their use as an interface, etc.).

I think they were truly "workstations" - meant to do pretty much everything within the unit itself (not to say it couldn't go outside, but it was designed to be self-sufficient).

They were also intended to be "the ultimate" performance keyboards too - at least, at a time before loop triggering and a renewed interest in "tone shaping on the fly" had hit hard.

The FA seems to be a little more of a "jack of all trades, master of none" by comparison. It's meant to be both standalone and integrate with a DAW. It's meant for Performance, and for Studio work. Not that the older big workstations couldn't do this, but the FAs seem to latch on to the current studio and performance needs, while sort of ditching the "outdated" needs the more standalone units represent.

So "Fantom Lite, with *modern user* enhancements, and it is lighter and IIRC by comparison, less expensive as well.

I had a Juno G before i got a fantom, and that was a great little unit, the FA reminds me so much of that. From memory it was based on the Fantom X, but had elements of the G family, slow load time - all of that, plenty of menu diving, small screen.

But my god what that thing could do was incredible, particularly after the V2 update.

I still yearn for one, it's just that whole Red/Blue Juno styling that i miss, and i think it was even metal front panel? However, i'm sure it would feel a bit antiquated already now with how slick the FA is. Likewise i miss the solid sizing of the Fantom - but again, i don't know how much of a step back that would feel now i've got all these go to supernatural sounds, like the Piano, the EP's, the synths (+expansions). I've own my FA for quite some time now, and i still love it so much, and still finding out new things and sounds to create with it.

It's a shame when people hate on it really, because it is what it is and it can't do EVERYTHING for the money, i appreciate certain quirks that Roland still have and people get annoyed at that, but man, sometimes you really have to bow down to what it offers, that incredible Roland timeline at your fingertips.

Just curious, does anyone know of ANY PC-based editor for creating patches on an FA? Is the FA patch format defined anywhere?

I'll need to pop open my 'patch' files on the CF card on my fantom and see if they are easily 'readable'. If the answer is that both the Fantom and FA patch formats are easily readible, and formatted in something like XML, then I guess I could write a parser/converter..... just a thought.....

eyekahn wrote:

Just curious, does anyone know of ANY PC-based editor for creating patches on an FA? Is the FA patch format defined anywhere?

I'll need to pop open my 'patch' files on the CF card on my fantom and see if they are easily 'readable'. If the answer is that both the Fantom and FA patch formats are easily readible, and formatted in something like XML, then I guess I could write a parser/converter..... just a thought.....

There is no official editor TMK.

Myrk and Skijumptoes had worked on bits IIRC - there's a thread here on the forum for it.

I think there might have been a beta for PC.

That is one thing that *really* surprised me about the FA series (and especially now the DS series is out and has an editor...)

I really couldn't believe in this day and age there was no Mac/PC editor. In fact, a lot of companies have gone to ios only and while I lament that, at least they do it. Not so for the FA TMK.

I suppose they figured their target user would be someone who used presets and did any changes at the studio set level rather than any deep editing or tone-building.

Still...

Most odd is that the work for an editor is 90% done in the shape of the Integra-7 software. Must be a deliberate decision to not undercut that product for there not to be an editor.

Big shame, but then i hear that the Integra-7 editor isn't so great anyway.

stevel wrote:

There is no official editor TMK.

Myrk and Skijumptoes had worked on bits IIRC - there's a thread here on the forum for it.

Flattered, but I didn't work on any editors, just the overlay panel system to sort out the glare. For what it's worth I've become aware in recent months that a lot of the midi shortcomings on the FA can be rectified with a Sipario midi unit.

http://www.lab4music.it/index.php?lang=EN

bennyseven wrote:

Many PCM waveforms are the same (coming from the XV), so there is a good chance for good results in this.

I believe the XV5080 PCM waveform set (which is in the FA) is 64 mb, the PCM waveform set in the Fantom X is 128 mb. I don't know whether that fully includes the same 64 mb set as the XV or not, but either way, there are still at least 64 mb of waveforms in the Fantom X that are not in the FA.

Don't forget that the Fantom X has that massive 88 key multisample PCM split piano set, sure they used to claim it was around 0.5GB when expanded, as they had to compete/equate with the massive software sample pianos coming out at the time.

Other than those large acoustic piano libraries (Which the SN-A makes redundant) Pretty sure most of the Fantom's 'synth' PCM waves are in there, But in all honesty, being able to use your own PCM samples trumps the FA massively, because you can have whatever 'sets' you want on there.

That, by far is one of the biggest omissions on the FA for me.