Selling the Fantom 06 for VStage76?

Deadkeys wrote:

if I dont care about sequencing am I giving up anything on the Fantom 06
that the Vstage wont have?

V-stage gives you upgraded piano, EP, and organ (along with better action, and a more direct style of hands-on interface). It is missing the non-piano/EP SuperNATURAL Acoustic tones of the Fantom-0, and has less in the way of memory for adding additional sounds (and none for user samples). V-Stage also has much lesser split/layer functions (e.g. Fantom-0 lets you split/layer up to 16 sounds, each with their own key ranges, and selectable in different groups on the fly using keyboard switch groups). V-Stage has fewer user Scene locations, and a lesser Scene Chain function. V-Stage has far less in the way of on-board sound editing (at least of the non-piano/EP/organ sounds). It doesn't have rhythm patterns. And of course, Fantom-0 has a much lighter travel weight. Those are differences that come quickly to mind.

Deadkeys wrote:

Im currently using the Nord and MODXM7 but want the Vstage 76 and MODX M7 as the ultimate rig.
Any thoughts....?

I think a similar but "more ultimate" version of that rig would be to combine the MODXM7 with a Nord Stage 4 Compact. But that's a whole other conversation. :-)

Thanks for the notes scott...Of all my top teir boards...the Fantom is not used that much on stage as I used it for more synth stuff..which the MODX M7 now handles to I dont think I would miss it.

The Fantom and V-Stage target different markets, which makes comparisons somewhat difficult. It's a bit like comparing a sports car to a sportsboat.

The situation with the V-Stage is a bit odd. To put things in perspective: 20 years ago, Roland was a major player in this market segment with the VR-730. However, other companies invested more in this area, while Roland focused on other areas. Their current strengths aren't ideally suited to this market segment. Roland has the most advanced VA synthesizer engine, ahead of the Korg AL-1, the Kurzweil V.A.S.T., and last and least Yamaha AN-X. The V-Piano is well-suited for those who enjoy tweaking. The VTW engine is good, but the amp/drive effects are a weakness. The SuperNatural EPs are good, but the effects aren't optimized for one- or two-knob control.

The V-Stage weakens its strengths (synthesizer engine, wiggle stick), and the other components aren't optimized for using them with minimal tweaking. Instead of a V-Stage 76, I recommend taking a look at the Nord Stage 4 Compact. While it's a bit more expensive, you'll save a lot of money if you buy it outright instead of first acquiring a V-Stage and then selling it again to buy a Nord Stage 4.

Deadkeys wrote:

Thanks for the notes scott...Of all my top teir boards...the Fantom is not used that much on stage as I used it for more synth stuff..which the MODX M7 now handles to I dont think I would miss it.

Just in general, the MODX M can do most of what the Fantom-0 does, esp. since Yamaha added some of Roland's former advantages when they came out with the M (e.g. a VA synth engine, more real-time controls, selectable MIDI channels per part). And the Yamaha does have its own advantages besides. But Roland still has advantages like tonewheel organ, assignable outs, trigger pads, rhythm patterns, and better ability to edit its set lists (comparing it's Scene Chains function to Yamaha's Live Set function), though that can be addressed on the Yamaha via 3rd-party software.

xp30 wrote:

Roland has the most advanced VA synthesizer engine, ahead of the Korg AL-1, the Kurzweil V.A.S.T., and last and least Yamaha AN-X

I find it hard to compare VA implementations. Part of it is that I don't have enough knowledge depth on the different systems; part of it is that you can probably always find something you can do on one that you can't do (or can't achieve the same results with) on another. But by reputation, at least, Kurzweil always seemed to me to be the leader of that pack, e.g. with its rearrangeable algorithms and 32 layers which I believe better emulates modular analog synths as opposed to the more common fixed path emulations. But as I said, my knowledge here is limited.

Could you possibly summarize what you think is better about Roland's VA synth compared to V.A.S.T (and for that matter, Korg's AL1/MS20/PolySix engine combo)? Or point to any links with this kind of info? My own google search didn't seem to turn up what I was looking for.

anotherscott2022 wrote:

But by reputation, at least, Kurzweil always seemed to me to be the leader of that pack, e.g. with its rearrangeable algorithms and 32 layers which I believe better emulates modular analog synths as opposed to the more common fixed path emulations. But as I said, my knowledge here is limited.

Kurzweil VAST is interesting and not as capable as it might seem. The PC3 series added VA functionality to the existing VAST engine in 2008, and it was a good synth engine for that period. It is basically still the same engine in the K2700 except for DSP processing power.

It is useful to distinguish between audio and control/modulation signals. In non-modular synthesizers, they are usually separate except for a few cases (e.g. oscillators that can be used as LFOs). That's also the case for Kurzweil VAST. The DSP algorithms are about audio signals and there is a separate mechanism for control/modulation signals.

Both audio and control/modulation signals are important. VAST has good support for the latter, similar to Korg AL-1 and Roland Zen-Core.

The situation is different for the VAST DSP algorithms that control audio signals. A VAST DSP algorithm consists of 0-4 DSP functions, and each DSP function consumes 1-4 DSP blocks (unit for DSP resources) with a limit of 4 DSP blocks per layer/partial/element. The signal flow between DSP functions is sample-based instead of virtual analog. This virtual A/D conversion works well with some DSP functions like filters and low-frequency amplitude changes. Due to aliasing it works poorly with functionality that would add harmonic content. That means basically everything that adds harmonic content based on audio signals needs to happen within a single DSP function. VAST has a number of DSP functions that combine certain features. For example a DSP function that combines a square wave oscillator with PW, a DSP function that combines a saw wave oscillator with internal oscillator sync, another DSP function that combines oscillator sync with a triangle wave and another one for a square wave. However, you can't do any combinations that are not directly supported by a DSP function (without aliasing). For example, frequency/phase modulation of a PWM wave with a sine wave.

Similar to VAST, Roland Zen-Core is also a hybrid engine, which brings some extra functionality like feature-rich envelopes and LFOs. The difference is: Roland properly integrated their previous generation sample-based and VA engines, whereas Kurzweil shoehorned VA into the existing engine.

Yamaha AN-X has only fixed per-voice modulation routings (except for poly AT). Basic modulations are possible, but not more advanced configurations. For example key tracking to PW, or controlling PWM depth with key-on velocity.