Just too many problems...

Haven't heard about a problem like that yet... Could you please just list your issues right here?

Just my impression, but this doesn't sound like whining. The thing about bugs is a lot of them can be attributed to user error and, as is often the case here, zealous expectation.

6 weeks really isn't that long of time with the Fantom-G. It may not be a computer DAW with a billion and one shortcuts, but there is enough functionality to keep you busy mastering it for a while.

Hopefully most your questions can be answered here; especially how to work with FX best.

As for a Roland database, keep in mind their OS updates are less frequent than a software model you might be comparing to. I'm sure they have an internal database of confirmed issues, but it would likely just be frustrating from our perspective to see exactly what they are working on in real-time. Also, since they're not open-source or anything, it's difficult to expect pure transparency. I guess they could be covering their @rse, but they are probably just focusing on what they need to do.

SythBaby.. I think I know what you are doing.

You are changing effects of the preset sounds but these don't save in the song. You actually need to resave the sounds as user sounds and save the effects then.

I would wait until you atleast try the new download coming later this month for the G.

Don't expect magic from any instrument. There is a reason why there are so many different synths and digital piano's out there... All with some kind of shortcoming for the user.

I 'second' Flumpster's assessment of your situation, SynthBaby! Please spend a little more time getting to know your Fantom. You will not regret it! Have you taken some time to read through the workshop series at the RolandUS site? If not, the documents can be found here under the 'Support' tab. I would also highly recommend searching YouTube, as there are a number of valuable instructional Video clips posted, that is, if you prefer to be shown. By the way, most of the members here would be happy to help you out if they can! =)

Cheers!
PiaKnowGuy
Film Score Demo

PiaKnow

SynthBaby:-
I know there are issues
I dont think they are as much as to stop music production..
Yes the G has its own unique way of doing things and dont expect to get it over night, it will take you a little longer than you expect so be patient and make sure you have the latest firmware that will get you one step closing to easing your burden.

yep stick with it. it takes time. i have recorded several songs with vocals only on the g with great success. and i am currently working on a very complex one right now. if you dont save your studio set after making level patch and effect setting, and then change to another studio set or go in to patch or live mode you will loose your changes. i have never lost parts. if you save to usb never change your usb stick between project saves. never had a problem with kingston usb 1 and 2 gd drives. probabley as the roland ones are kingston. on a side note i wish that when you delete an audio sample in studio mode it did not jump to the next sample on that track. it can be very disorienting and annoying and if you havent marked out your track, you could easily screw things up. please roland sort this out!!! lol

Hi guys, Thanks for the constructive feedback, I really appreciate it. Let me start by saying that I found a work-around for one of my biggest problems, so I feel somewhat more positive .

When I bought my G I had a faint hope that I could do most editing without a DAW, on the G (cause it's so much more fun operating the G than a PC). Although it can be done, I reverted back to using Cubase for more advanced editing, realizing that it's not realistic to expect a synth to provide the same features and ease of use as an advanced program like Cubase.
Alas, I found that the G and Cubase are not a match made in heaven. I know, I should either convert to Sonar (from Roland) or buy a Yamaha, but I think that's stupid since I really love Cubase. Anyway, the problem of not saved part-effects is due to adding and using the Fantom G as a MIDI device in Cubase. For some reason this resets part-effects on the G when loading a song. I removed the G's MIDI device and just use the G as a sound card, and the problem is gone.
I still sometimes have problems with saving a studio set on the G (to internal memory): sometimes a certain part's patch is set to a non-existing user patch on saving (or loading). That's why I always save a song, even when I sequence in Cubase, and leave the studio sets alone. That seems to fix the problem, although I'm not really sure. I still don't trust the G to reliable save my songs and settings.

I think dbijoux is right on with his comment about "zealous expectation". The biggest problem of the G is that it's so easy to see its potential: it has all the necessary features to be a really great workstation. But then you find out the same limitations as 20 years ago still exist. I have to store my songs in a numbered slot? Everything's a multiple of 16? 128 arpeggio's: what's that about? Just give me a file system and I'll name and structure my resources as I see fit. Or better yet, use the file system of my PC or USB-connected hard drive. I'm pretty sure that the next line of workstations will have this, it's 2010! And when will DAW-integration finally, after 20+ years, become seamless and achievable for non-rocket scientists?

But OK, the G definitely has its strong points. You've convinced me to stick with it some more time .
But I still think that Roland should set up a public bug database. As all other companies, they can't avoid becoming more software oriented.

Thanks, and cheers!

ive had the g for as long as its been out and i still agree with the OP.

Hi guys! This is just so we don’t confuse anyone and not directed at you SynthBaby, even though I did quote you, my comments are more logical than personal.

I didn't understand why so many people where complaining all the time.

In fact, not that many members on Roland Clan Complain about the G at all. It’s mostly just the same small number of members over and over again. And of coarse, we do get the occasional new user (newbie). With them it’s most likely due to a lack of understanding concerning workstation technology. And that’s not to criticize them at all. We all have to start somewhere. But visitors should keep the previously stated in mind.

The biggest problem of the G is that it's so easy to see its potential: it has all the necessary features to be a really great workstation. But then you find out the same limitations as 20 years ago still exist.

I have to disagree here…

The G is already a great workstation, the best in my opinion. And if it is the best workstation then that means it beats it‘s competitors. And if it beats it’s competitors then it has all it needs to win.

Don’t blame the G because it can win without even trying. Blame the competition for being so weak.

Also, each of the flagship workstations from Roland, Yamaha and Korg have differences compared to a DAW. But they are workstations and not DAWs. Their design is intentional and though they may share some similarities with their DAW counterparts they were never meant to compete with them, only with other workstations, that is natural and fair.

Or else, it would be fair to compare a child’s go-cart to a formula 1 race car and judge each feature of the go-cart using the standards and requirements needed to compete in a formula 1 race. And then we must criticize the go-cart for not having all the features found in the formula 1 car. That’s just not how things work….

And of coarse, just because the Fantom-G is technically and overwhelmingly the best. It does not mean it’s competitors have nothing to offer. But it does make any argument suggesting that the G should be more than it is somewhat excessive. That’s not to say that such an argument is not good for giving Roland ideas for future development when competing against stronger competition.

But for now it’s either the awesome G in it’s current state of superiority or one of it’s weaker rivals in their current state of inferiority.

For me, the choice is clear…The G wins!!

By the way…Welcome to Roland Clan SynthBaby!

"In fact, not that many members on Roland Clan Complain about the G at all. It’s mostly just the same small number of members over and over again."

In fact, I read serious complains on a lot of other keyboard forums which are not dedicated special to one instrument, so the people maybe feel more free to express their complains. On this forum maybe some people try to repeat their complains in the hope that someone from Roland will hear them and correct some very annoying things on the fantom g.
I also can't remember that there is or was any other workstation on the market about which people complained so much as about the fantom g. This clearly shows that the FG has some serious shortcomings.

"The G is already a great workstation, the best in my opinion. And if it is the best workstation then that means it beats it‘s competitors. And if it beats it’s competitors then it has all it needs to win."

No, the FG is the best workstation for you and you think that it beats its competitors.
Fact is that in almost every aspect the FG has some hardly to understand design flaws. I could name them all, but some are already well known, often said and besides all, I don't want to turn this topic into the wrong direction.

Zephyer, its not my intention to argue with you about your opinions, I respect them, but simply have to jump in whenever somebody makes statements about how the competition is weak and similar claims which have absolutely no connection to reality and simply represent fan boyish talk.
In fact, I think I could write a book about the more or less serious shortcomings on the FG after just having it for 3 days.
It is actually very simple: there is nothing on the FG which would prevent you to do the job, be it the studio or the stage. But almost every feature has some design flaws which make me wonder who on earth was sitting on the design desk while creating the FG.
May I just add, I'm a gigging musician and my focus is on how the keyboard deals with multiple parts in a performance/combinatione/live mode, how it deals with the effects, how is the file system structured, how can I import or create my own samples/multisamples, export them, share them with others and similar staff.
In that regard, I don't remember any workstation with so many limitations like the FG.
The only clear advance for a gigging musician is the seamless switching of sounds. Everything else doesn't come even close to any Motif, M3 or Kurzweil. Can you remember on any recent workstation where you have to write effect settings down on paper and dial them in manually on another live setup? Did Roland ever here about the word "copy from/to"?
There is no best workstation on the market. Everybody should choose what works best for himself. Any other statement is as valid as saying that GM makes the best cars "because the competition is weak" (whatever that means to you).

Have a nice day.

To each his own as the saying goes. I agree with both assessments regarding the Fantom G. On the one hand the Fantom G breaks new ground with seamless switching, the largest LCD screen currently on the market (in full color and highest resolution), USB 2.0 throughput, mouse navigation, VSTi interoperability, 24bit DAC, etc., etc.

On the other hand, concerning the Operating System, there are some shortcomings such as a lack of comprehensive "scissors and glue" and other anomalies that could potentially 'hinder' a greater work flow when using the Fantom G. I think Roland's plan is to eventually break through the mold and amend those limitations and/or shortcomings but obviously their time schedule is not predicated on our earnestly begging them to do it NOW! Rather, on their timetable, they are devising a plan (at least I hope so anyway) that will indeed address these issues with Roland's issuance of OS 2.0 (or something in between 1.31 and 2.0).

It is of my opinion that the Fantom G's operating system is soooooo complex with so many bells and whistles interactively corresponding with one another and in many cases dependent on each other, that getting the 'kinks' ironed out while at the same time incorporating new advancements in its structure and design (feature list) and then making everything "seamless" in its operation, has been a daunting challenge for Roland engineers in my opinion.

Perhaps that is why (so far) Fantom G OS updates have been few and far between and in a couple instances incremental at best in their approach. At the same time, Roland is most likely "brainstorming" ways and means and methods to "bring together" something that will be considered a "crowning jewel" to this their Flagship workstation. I am hoping that this major piece of breakthrough OS implementation will soon be forthcoming with the likes of an OS 2.0 update and indeed reason enough to hang on to the Fantom G waiting for that blessed day of its arrival. But even as it stands now there is SO MUCH to like and love about the Fantom G already, in my opinion. But of course, there is ALWAYS room for improvement and in the case of comprehensive "scissors and glue" long overdue in my opinion. Hopefully Roland feels the same way.

not sure about the sequencer since i dont use the G's onboard one, but as a board it is getting better and better when we get OS and FG connects updates, i think.