Arpeggio Phrase Editing? - Fantom 06

The Fantom does not have any editable/user defined ARPs, and we can only have one active ARP style per Scene. Maybe in a future update we will receive this feature since it was part of the previous Fantoms. You can just record the ARP into the pattern sequencer and edit it from there - copy/paste/edit additional patterns for changes. Not the best, but all we have right now.

Can sequences be mapped to keys and transposed accordingly, as well as staying in sync with the song tempo when played?

I'm trying to convert sequences from 80s songs that are on an MC-808 and JD-XA to be playable on the Fantom. Both of those instruments had phrase sequencing/custom arpeggios.

Thanks very much for the response

The Z-Core engine has two step LFOs with 16 steps each (per partial). That might be an alternative to a user-defined arp. An example is the "arp" (sequence) used for the song Radio Ga Ga in the following Youtube video: https://youtu.be/y224XGSCSSs

The speed/tempo of the step LFOs can be synced to the tempo of the MIDI clock. However, there is no option to align the start of the LFOs to the beats. A number of people also reported that the LFOs will drift over time, which might be an issue if the sequences are running for severals bars without re-triggering.

Unfortunately the problems you describe make the LFO technique unsuitable for live performance with the band.

I wish sequences could be mapped to keys or RPS could be added, either would be useful, in a software update.

Thanks

Although I am a Fantom 7 owner, the Fantom 0 series features the same, so this is a recurring problem for me as well. When I bought the Fantom 7, I didn't know that I couldn't make my own arpeggios. Unfortunately, for the time being, I play the arpeggio parts with the Step Sequencer, which is slow. The other is Step LFO, but both methods are only a temporary solution. As long as I want to record the arpeggio parts of the song in a sequencer, it can be used, but not if I want to use it live. The arpeggio parts played with the Step Sequecer are just a simple temporary solution that can accurately record the arpeggio parts of the song, but I can only use it when creating the song. The Step LFO is also imprecise, although there is an option to sync it to the sequencer metronome, but over time it will become imprecise and slip. That's not what Step LFO was invented for anyway. It's better when I want to create changes within a note, but it doesn't replace the proper arpeggio. You definitely need a decent arpeggio. The most important thing is to be able to make my own arpeggios. What about those who don't want to use the factory arpeggios? Most are useless. Especially the variations. The basic arpeggios can be found as up-down, octave 1-2-3, Random, etc., but they also have serious errors when used in the sequencer. A constant problem for me is that the arpeggio is not in sync when using the sequencer. Exactly like the Step LFO. The arpeggio keeps slipping, and I couldn't find any solution to synchronize it. In short, it's useless. I don't understand Roland's thinking about this new platform. Many people think of Fantom as a synthesizer, not Workstation, but the Synthesizer categories also have this function, such as creating your own arpeggio. (Juno X, Jupiter X, JD-XA, FA, etc.) What was the decision to remove this important element from the new Fantom series? They started with the Multisample loading option in 2019. They solved it, now it is. They took out the Linear Sequencer, instead there is the Klipp-based sequencer, which is very good, but it should have been next to the Linear Sequencer, not instead of it. Returning to the arpeggio, in such a category, one would have expected an arpeggio that could receive separate arpeggios for several Zones. I love the Fantom synthesizer, it sounds much better than the old Fantom X, G series, but the basic functions have all been deleted from the new Fantom. In my opinion, the new platform means expandability, and there is no doubt about that, because Fantom has undergone significant changes. If we only look at the sounds, and in the case of the Model Expansion, Tonwheel Organ, and N/Zyme for the Fantom, I have to say that hats off to Roland, it is also necessary for the Fantom not only in the sounds and syntheses be revolutionary, but also in knowledge. The modes should not have been reduced. I think that it should not have been taken away from the old things, but added to them. Removing features is a great thing, and it's actually better that way than using Fantom's abilities in different ways, but it's basic now. Yamaha Montage did exactly this before the Fantom, only they don't call it Scene, but Performance. The point is the same. In terms of sounds, the Fantom is a real tank, especially if it has Model Expansion expansions, but it's time to finally complete such important functions as the arpeggio. We should have received these at the moment of release. Fantom is 3 years old and this thing is still not resolved. I trust Roland and hope that August 21 will be the day when we finally get the things we've been waiting for after 7 months.

nagyzoli76 wrote:

I trust Roland and hope that August 21 will be the day when we finally get the things we've been waiting for after 7 months.

Why August 21? Did Roland has said something about this date?

If you look at the date of the most recent updates, you can see that the updates are usually released on the 20th-21st. It used to be like that, but not now. Until now, updates were kept every 5 months, but the 3.0 update came out after 6 months. Now there has been a change again, because there has been no update for almost 7 months, but in many cases the date usually comes out around 20-21, so for this reason alone I think the time has come for the next update. It's been 7 months, and I don't think Roland has been idle since then. I think they are monitoring the conversations here and in the Facebook Fantom group. There, many people, including me, are constantly asking for the user arpeggio. For me, this is the most important thing, which is an absolute requirement for both a Synthesizer and a Workstation. There are still many things to improve in the sampler and sequencer line, but what is below criticism for me is the lack of proper arpeggios. I love the Fantom synthesizer, everything else has taken a backseat since then, even though I have an Access Virus TI2 and a MODX8, but the Fantom arpeggio is a shame. Not worthy of the Fantom name. Fantom has provided full functionality in the field of sequencers, samplers and arpeggios. The new Fantom stands out from the crowd. Perhaps the name Fantom shouldn't have been added, because it has nothing in common except for the sounds. It's a platform, we got a lot of great stuff, that's the main reason I bought it, but I never dreamed that arpeggio would be such a sloppy job. This is not what we are used to from Roland manufacturers. In any case, the new stuff is super cool, I have no doubt about that. It should be decided whether this Fantom is a Workstation or a synthesizer, because if it is a synthesizer, then the shortcomings will fit in, because it was not made for that purpose, but if it is a Workstation, then they have to solve these shortcomings in software. It would be time after 3 years.

EdisonCarter wrote:

Unfortunately the problems you describe make the LFO technique unsuitable for live performance with the band.

I have tried to reproduce the (step) LFO tempo drift in comparison to the internal sequencer. However, I could not hear any delay even after running for 5 minutes. I have not tested it with an external clock. For the internal clock, I guess it only happens if certain parts of the system are under high load.

If you can provide more information about your setup, and how you want to use tempo-synced events in a live band (in particular the time source), then we might be able to come up with alternatives.

Hi,
Very specific tones are needed for these songs, including their envelopes. It is my assumption that in order to re-create a sequence of notes using LFO stepping, I would have to lose the attack and release of each note in the sequence. I don't feel the sound of this would be acceptable for these songs where we have spent many hours trying to get the timbre as close as possible to the original songs.
Thanks

EdisonCarter wrote:

It is my assumption that in order to re-create a sequence of notes using LFO stepping, I would have to lose the attack and release of each note in the sequence.

The envelopes have an LFO trigger switch. If you enable it, then the envelopes will be retriggered by LFO1. That means each note in the sequence will run through the envelopes.

Oh, ok. I am now recalling that I used the same kind of LFO workaround years ago on a Roland AX-Synth to get sequences out of it, so that's where my experiences with sync and timbre limitations came from.

I'll look at the Fantom's implementation.

I still think it's inexcusable that their flagship workstation doesn't have Realtime Phrase Sequencing (RPS) or definable arpeggios. I probably have a dozen other Roland synths with this capability. It's like their developers don't understand or listen to electronic music.

Cheers

I completely agree. This is not just a Music Workstation feature. In principle, Fantom is a synthesizer and not a Workstation like the old Fantom, Fantom X and Fantom G, but it is not just a basic function of Music Workstation. Juno X, Jupiter X, JD-XA, V-Synth, etc. are also not Workstations, and still have decent arpeggios that allow us to create our own arpeggios. The Yamaha Montage isn't made for a Workstation either, but it does have decent arpeggios. 3 years have passed and Roland has still not listened to our requests regarding this. I love the many new Model Expansions, ToneWhell Organ, that have been added since 2019, but there are hardly any features. In the beginning, it was not possible to load more, only a plain sound sample. There were complaints about it, then with the 2.0 update you can load the Multisamples. There was a complaint about 32 Measures, they increased it to 64. They added Piano Roll, Microscope function, two new effects and that's it. The arpeggio is a function requested by several companies, which Roland simply does not listen to. I don't understand why it's good that there is a synthesizer that Roland calls a creative instrument, which should inspire its users to create easy and fast songs, and the exact opposite is true. There are a number of limitations in the Fantom synthesizer that make a previously easy workflow difficult. We have already outgrown the linear sequencer, I still accept this, because it is the Yamaha Montage, but 64 Measures could have been 256 like on the Montage, so that I could even record an entire song at once. The arpeggio is the other. I have written countless times about the synchronization problems of basic arpeggios. It's not even coincidentally in sync with the sequencer. Whenever I'm recording, my metronome and arpeggio are always in drift. Another serious mistake is the inability to make your own arpeggio. Step LFO is not a solution, as many people write. It can be used in some cases, but this is not its main function. The other thing is that it is much more fiddly to work with. The other is that they removed the sample slicing function from the sampler. The fact that it is not possible to record an audio track with the sequencer is not a problem, because the things recorded by the sampler can be saved in the memory and then called up on the PAD buttons, but sample slicing is also a basic thing. I don't want to give ideas to Roland, but if they want to give other manufacturers a very striking and guaranteed effective answer to this, then VariPhrase would be a very striking solution. Not today's technology from Roland, but something that still holds its own today, and no other manufacturer has done something similar. A true heritage from Roland. And the last thing I miss is that it would be nice to have additional SuperNatural Acoustic sound from the missing categories. (Brass, Guitar, Harmonica, Horns, Drums, Ethnic voices, etc. If all these functions were included, it would be such a huge blow to the Fantom that it would be a top-selling synthesizer for years. With these, the Fantom would be practically complete, and no further development is needed.

In principle, Fantom is a synthesizer and not a Workstation like the old Fantom

In that case, I wish they would have used a different name.

The reason we bought a Fantom 0 because we thought it was a workstation that would allow us to consolidate a combination of equipment into a single instrument that might even have additional capabilities. So far, it is less capable, so we have to resort to workarounds. We were using a JD-XA and an MC-808.

The JD-XA is a superb synthesizer that does have the ability to play custom sequences per key in the same way as RPS or custom arpeggios, but the main sequencer is too short and lacks a song mode so it can't be used for fully arranged songs in a live setting. For that, the MC-808 has a massive sequencer for its time (1,300,000 notes, 800 patterns, 50 songs, 128 arpeggios, 128 chord memory, 50 RPS) and can play 102 minutes of mono samples which can also be sequenced and combined with MIDI. That means it can run full backing tracks for multiple songs recorded in the studio, it can play back full song midi sequences on multiple instruments live with player accompaniment, or a combination of these. It's also easy to operate during a show, as you dial up the song number you want with the big dial and big red display, and press play to select all the appropriate patches and start the song. We run the drummer's click track out of one side and the instruments on the other into the PA. Still, it's two pieces of gear, the MC-808 is getting old, and it is sloooooow.

The MC-808 takes several minutes per song to start up, so if several backing tracks are being used, it could take 15 minutes or much longer to start. The more samples being loaded, the longer it takes to start, to the point where it has far more song capacity than we have time to wait. On the rare occasion that it may lose power or malfunction during a show, waiting 20 minutes for an instrument to reboot isn't an option.

But anyway, taking away conventional keyboard performance tools like a useable arpeggiator and RPS just leaves me dumbfounded. Leaving out more modern features doesn't make sense either, because why upgrade if there isn't more you can do?

I forgot to mention that at least some of the built-in arpeggio presets don't even work properly. There are some 80's songs (among others) that use triplets from the arpeggiator, but the triplet preset isn't timed correctly. I don't know how they can screw something like that up. Roland needs to have at least one person on their payroll that will try to play or recreate classic synthesizer songs on their instruments before they consider them ready to release.

There are a lot of capabilities that would be welcome, such as those you mention, but I don't know how these can happen when they are messing up some of the basics.

Cheers

nagyzoli76 wrote:

I completely agree. This is not just a Music Workstation feature. In principle, Fantom is a synthesizer and not a Workstation like the old Fantom, Fantom X and Fantom G, but it is not just a basic function of Music Workstation. Juno X, Jupiter X, JD-XA, V-Synth, etc. are also not Workstations, and still have decent arpeggios that allow us to create our own arpeggios. The Yamaha Montage isn't made for a Workstation either, but it does have decent arpeggios. 3 years have passed and Roland has still not listened to our requests regarding this. I love the many new Model Expansions, ToneWhell Organ, that have been added since 2019, but there are hardly any features. In the beginning, it was not possible to load more, only a plain sound sample. There were complaints about it, then with the 2.0 update you can load the Multisamples. There was a complaint about 32 Measures, they increased it to 64. They added Piano Roll, Microscope function, two new effects and that's it. The arpeggio is a function requested by several companies, which Roland simply does not listen to. I don't understand why it's good that there is a synthesizer that Roland calls a creative instrument, which should inspire its users to create easy and fast songs, and the exact opposite is true. There are a number of limitations in the Fantom synthesizer that make a previously easy workflow difficult. We have already outgrown the linear sequencer, I still accept this, because it is the Yamaha Montage, but 64 Measures could have been 256 like on the Montage, so that I could even record an entire song at once. The arpeggio is the other. I have written countless times about the synchronization problems of basic arpeggios. It's not even coincidentally in sync with the sequencer. Whenever I'm recording, my metronome and arpeggio are always in drift. Another serious mistake is the inability to make your own arpeggio. Step LFO is not a solution, as many people write. It can be used in some cases, but this is not its main function. The other thing is that it is much more fiddly to work with. The other is that they removed the sample slicing function from the sampler. The fact that it is not possible to record an audio track with the sequencer is not a problem, because the things recorded by the sampler can be saved in the memory and then called up on the PAD buttons, but sample slicing is also a basic thing. I don't want to give ideas to Roland, but if they want to give other manufacturers a very striking and guaranteed effective answer to this, then VariPhrase would be a very striking solution. Not today's technology from Roland, but something that still holds its own today, and no other manufacturer has done something similar. A true heritage from Roland. And the last thing I miss is that it would be nice to have additional SuperNatural Acoustic sound from the missing categories. (Brass, Guitar, Harmonica, Horns, Drums, Ethnic voices, etc. If all these functions were included, it would be such a huge blow to the Fantom that it would be a top-selling synthesizer for years. With these, the Fantom would be practically complete, and no further development is needed.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I got my Fantom 07 and I have been highly impressed with the intuitive menu design and the easy of navigating to functions. I'm pretty confused how Roland is marketing this because it appears that they are trying to replace the FA models and the way the writing is on the keyboard sort of suggests that IMO. Meanwhile, they are still currently showing the FA keyboards as in production still on their website. They called the FA workstations but the Fantom 0 models are classed as a "synth." You probably all noticed that too.

When I researched the next keyboard, I wanted to replace my Jupiter 80. I wanted something that was an equal number of keys, lighter, and with some more functionality that seemed ideal for songwriting + performance. Right now, I think this Fantom fits that bill. However, I will admit, I have yet to grasp the pattern sequencing because I found it a little confusing in some ways. It seems easy to use, but it seems a bit tedious to work it through for the measures to my liking without losing so much space for the song based on a short pattern I created (which appears to me that you need to make it longer). Maybe I've yet to fully understand it better.

Overall, it seems like a workstation to me. It definitely fills the gaps that I wish the Jupiter did for what I paid for it. Much lighter too!

As far as my background with workstations are concerned - I have a Kronos around here, and while I use it at times, it's too much to figure out with lots of menus and writing that looks a tad too small to me. It's not what I find easy to program and I have yet to grasp the concept (10+ years later!) of building my own combis with ideal effects. I just don't find it fun to work with at all. It also seems that Karma function, while useful to those who know how to harness it, seems to have fallen out of favor from Korg in this recent workstation they released to succeed the Kronos (Nautilus) for a more streamlined arpeggiator.

I also had a Roland Juno G. What a piece of junk that thing is when the screen breaks. I am surprised Roland didn't get hit with a class action lawsuit for the build quality because nearly all those screens fail on them - which likely explains why they can be picked up for "bargain prices" second hand.