Just too many problems...

In fact, I read serious complains on a lot of other keyboard forums which are not dedicated special to one instrument

Yes…that is because you are reading forums with members who own and like the gear from other manufactures. So it is natural for them to be bias…go to Yamahas forum and the motif will always win the majority of votes over the G, that is not a basis for an argument concerning popular opinion at all. On Roland Clan we more likely then not have the largest majority of G users giving their opinion on the gear they own and like. So if the people that own and like the gear come on a forum that (largely but unofficially, to some extent) represent the company that makes the gear to voice many complaints then we can assume that there is a justifiable problem.

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

Yes, I said the best in my opinion, but you are free to reassure yourself. Also, you should no that my opinions are biased on fact…The G is in fact spec for spec the superior workstation out of the big three...period. That does not mean it is the best for you but it does have the overall technical advantage. And please do name the G’s design flaws compared to it’s competitors. I am sure that I can point out way more advantages in favor of the G. And doing so is allowed under the threads title.

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.

By all means, please do argue your point....I welcome it and love debating. I have been doing it my whole life and I can tell you that I know how this will end. And that is in favor of the G. And please, enlighten me. You say that my claims have no connection to reality but say nothing to prove your own claim. I can prove that the G has more effects, tracks and features then it’s competition. If you can not prove otherwise then you are the one living in a reality created only by your own mind.

Fan boyish? Don’t be ridiculous…I am indeed a FAN of Roland’s products, but only because they make the gear that is best suited to my needs. So please do not try to diminish my statements or opinions with such a disrespectful claim just because you are incapable of dealing with my opinions or providing facts to support your own unfounded claims.

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.

3 days? That explains a lot. Maybe if you had it for a several months, I could take you seriously. All workstations have a learning curve. The G is the most advanced workstation out of the big three so of coarse you will need more then a few days to understand it all. (This was not an insult)

As far as the rest of your claims, you misunderstand quite a bit. Ever workstation before the G had way more limitations far as workstations go. The way the G deals with effects etc is logical. You sound as if you are just repeating a small group of members and you are wrong.

The only thing we do agree on is this…

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).

Wrong…If one car is faster then another or has better gas mileage etc, then those things are facts and can be used to determine superiority according to the purpose for each feature and part…period.

Like I said…I love doing this…so lay it on…you won’t offend me.

This discussion is really old and frankly I’m quite bored with it.

But there is no way I was going to let you get away with calling me a fan boy

Thanks mojkarma!

You can call me however you want and like. Yes, I belong to the small group of whiners and please, for the sake of some democracy, let those people whine and repeat the old whining in the same way as you and a lot of others have to repeat how great the Fantom G is.

"3 days? That explains a lot. Maybe if you had it for a several months, I could take you seriously. All workstations have a learning curve. The G is the most advanced workstation out of the big three so of coarse you will need more then a few days to understand it all."

I'm a live gigging musician for about 20 years. That's the time I played keyboards from the big three + Kurzweil. I was using an Akai sampler for 8 years, sampling in a time where the computer was dominated by Amiga and Atari ST and the PC was almost unknown to the people.
Believe me, I don't need more than 3 days to see if there is a missing feature, a badly implemented feature, a workaround or not even a workaround.

"By all means, please do argue your point....I welcome it and love debating. I have been doing it my whole life and I can tell you that I know how this will end. And that is in favor of the G. And please, enlighten me. You say that my claims have no connection to reality but say nothing to prove your own claim."

What's the point of debating if you know how it will end?
I'll repeat, I do my gigs with the board and focus on that part. I have no interest in the sequencer.
But if you want, I'll give you some points and I'm more than happy to learn from you how all my observations are unserious because I found them after 3 days.

1. Effects
Absolutely everything is said about that. Nothing more to add. No, in no way am I complaining about just one effect per part. I completely understand that the number per patch is sacrified for the seamless switch and I can accept this.
But, no copy function? Do we really need to use a paper and a pencil for rewriting effect settings?

Please, enlighten me, why are the effects not part of the live set? Why do I have to save every patch for the slightest effect change? Some patches I want to use in a live set are programed in the way that they have closed sendlevels from the tone out or the PFX out. Because of that, increasing the sendlevel in the live mode (part send level) has no effect on the "wetness" of the part. Therefor, I have to waste the user memory for saving basically the same patches where I simply adjust the effect to my liking.

Why can't the Reverb/Chorus effect be controlled as a Send Effect? The only thing I can do is to control reverb/chorus send level. I would like to control the reverb time on my gigs live to adjust the wet level of my live setups to the room/space I play.
Even a completely ridiculous implementation:
If you set the controllers in the System to controll all parts in a live/studio setup, the destination parameters all jump to the same value!!
Imagine this, I have a simple organ/piano split in the live mode. The organ has less to almost none reverb, the piano has more. Now, if I want to control the send level for the reverb and move a controller because I want more reverb on the piano, the send level for both parts jumps to the same value and the organ gets the same reverb level and literarily swims in reverb! So, in fact, you can't control the reverb level relatively on all parts of your live setup at all.

2. Sampling
The sampler is incomplete. The basic function for creating proper loops - crossfade loop - is missing. Without it, it is simply impossible to create a loop on a wave without clicking. Especially on acoustic instruments. Kurzweil has it, Korg has it, Yamaha doens't have it but they give you at least a wave editor with this function. As a Fantom G owner you can only spend more money on third party software.
Why does the FG not play the loop automatically from an imported looped sample? Why do I have to turn it manually on? Not only that I have to emphaze every single wave, I also have to turn the loop on. Now, imagine what a job that is if you import a piano sample with samples on 3-4 velocity levels where every single key is sampled.
What about compatibility? What a joy it must be for a former Fantom X owner who can recreate all his/her multisamples from the beginning. Besides that, tell me, how should a former Fantom X know, where the keyranges are for every single multisample? Should he take a photo of the multisample edit screen? Or spend a week in front of the Fantom X and again, write the settings down to paper. All this because some guys at Roland are not able to sit down and invent a proper format which would assure a compatibility for their own sample format at least between 2 directly related models?
A Kurzweil K2000 owner can import his samples and multisamples within seconds into any later model. A triton owner imports his multisamples into the M3 within seconds. A Fantom G owner has to spend weeks to do a tedious job again. And because there is no multisample file format on the Fantom G, I'm afraid, on a future version, I'll be the idiot who can do the job again. Because I don't see what file format it would be that I could export from the FG and save it for a future work on a future model.
What about reading other sampling formats? The M3 imports Akai and Soundfont directly from CD or via USB. The Fantom G doesn't even recognize Rolands own file format. Imagine, Kurzweil keyboards read the Roland S7xx file format, but not a Fantom! What else do I need to say.
What about exporting multisamples?
How do I exchange my own multisamples with others? Is there a way where my friend can give me some multisamples he created for his FG and vice versa? Again, you need a couple of seconds to do that on a Kurzweil/M3/Motif to put it on your friends usb stick.

3. Ergonomics
Roland spend their developing time to implement the function to import a background image for the display, but for a simple import of patches into the project you suddenly need a software librarian. On a TV like keyboard display!
Not really a big deal, but why do I have to move the cursor thru half of the screen to change between user and preset memory? The single and live mode buttons could act as a switcher between user and preset. It would be faster and more elegant instead of moving the cursor forth and back between user/preset and the patch name.
Why can't I decide which pad will trigger which sample from my created sample set? Why do I have to bear in mind which keys I have to connect to which samples so that they will be triggered from the pads.
Why do I have to memorize chords in a separate memory and then connect the pads to a limited 128 memory?
On the M3 one can program the pads for every single patch or performance as he likes by just striking a key or holding a chord and pressing the dedicated pad. It doesn't get easier than that.
Tell me, why does Roland have to make my live difficult instead of supporting me with its instrument? Hold a chord, press a key, assign it to the pad, store the live setup. Voila. That's how it should work.

I'd like to stop here. I'm really not interested in doing any comparison about the FG and other keyboards. It would be childish to compare numbers here and there because it doesn't lead anywhere.
If I have the FG, than it's obvious that I have a reason to have it and that I like it. But I'm not married to it. It's a tool for me and in 1, 3 or 7 years I'll reconsider what to buy next.
But I have to admit, when I read that the competition is weak, and when I remember how many more steps I have to do, to accomplish something or where I cannot even do things, which I consider as a basic, long ago established feature, than I simply have to jump into the discussion.
As someone pointed out here, and I agree 100%, the FG is the best Workaround Workstation. It is definitely the best on paper (well, almost), as long as a more advanced or experienced user doesn't start to work with it.

And at the and.
I'm not writing this to offend you or anyone, I simply have a hope, that somebody from Roland would read this and just think for a minute if they have really implemented all those features in the best or fastest possible way.
Oh, sorry, can't resist. I actually save my money to spend it again on Roland. I'm going to buy the ARX 03 Expansion.
I'm just asking myself, why did the have to fix it as part 9? Maybe you as an experienced user can enlighten me, will I be able to control it live with a fader, changing the volume level? The only thing where I'm sure it is not possible is if I already use 8 parts in the live setup. I remember that the M3 from the weak competition gave me the freedom to use the Radias Expansion on any part I wanted.
And a last question, will I be able to use the ARX03 multitimbral? I play some latin tunes and besides a brass section, I would like to play also some solo trumpet parts from the ARX. So, one part with a brass section with cool falls, and than a bit of solo trumpet riffs with cool shakes on another part.
I guess this will not be a problem on a card which costs me about 500 Euros here in Europe. The mentioned Radias Expansion allowed me to use it on up to 4 parts at the same time. On any one of the 16 parts.

So, I'm looking forward to hear from you. As you, I like to debate too. With the difference, that I don't get bored because some whiners complain about the same things over and over again. Why should I. If the complains are argumented, its the problem of the company, not mine. They spent the same money as I did. And how on earth could they know, that unlike on their former Korgs, Yamahas and Kurzweil they have to relearn that copying effects is done by pencil and paper and not by an OS function inside the keyboard.

You can read all of this if you want or just trust me when I tell you that it’s pretty much bulletproof. I always start at the end of a debate so I just took it there…But read my last sentence.

Oh come on!! What are you trying to do here? Overwhelm me with the length of your post? At least try to limit this to one page. I will be copying a few things I have said in the past. I’ll try to summarize this for you. And I am not offended, nor did I wish to offend you, just look at it as playing rough, don’t take it to serious.

And shame on you, using the disgraceful I’ll ignore your statements and arguments and just make a long post on another topic technique. You ruined all my fun….it’s unfortunate, now how will you post without your eyes? HA ha ha ha ha! Oh, sorry, I got carried away

Yes, I belong to the small group of whiners and please, for the sake of some democracy, let those people whine and repeat the old whining in the same way as you and a lot of others have to repeat how great the Fantom G is.

There is a problem with that, I don’t come on this forum and continuously repeat myself concerning how great the G is at all. Nor do I know of any other members who do. Can you name a number of members that repeat how much they love the G, so much, that it becomes irritating? Believe it or not, I am trying to help the so called whiners more than anyone. That’s why I put effort into debating in threads like this. Roland already knows everything you have said here, these threads are now counterproductive at this time. The so called whiners, should they continue with these post at the wrong time will only hurt there chance of success. There is a time for everything, and some opportunities have a small window of time to work with.

Ok mojkarma, I’ll give you credit for your attempt. But you have completely missed the point and changed the subject. Our original argument was whether or not the G was better then it’s competitors, remember? All the workstations have differences, your post only proves that you would personally like to have something’s about the G changed. The G is what Roland made it to be and that is all… But nothing is wrong with making a suggestion.

Concerning the effects, they are attached to the patch just as the rest of the parameters are so they change with the patch, that’s logical and works as it should.

As far as copy and paste, it may sound like an easy thing to add but computer programming can be very complicated. Consider the following…

I have two cups and I want to put marbles from one cup into the other.

Cup 1 has the marbles in it. Now I will put the marbles into cup 2. But before I do that I have to remove 20 items from the kitchen table. Now I have to remove the tablecloth. Next I have to move the kitchen table because cup 2 is in a big box underneath the table. Now I open the box but it’s full of lots of kitchen ware and cup 2 is at the bottom. I remove all of the stuff and get cup 2 but cup 1 is in a big box under a table in the basement…Now repeat the above steps for cup 1, put the marbles from cup one into cup 2 and after that put cup 2 in the box cup 1 was in. But next you have to destroy the basement and move the kitchen to where the basement use to be.

The point is that the data for each effect is in a different location and we do not know what it will take to move it from one place to the other. It could be a near impossible job, it depends on how Roland setup the programming for the effects, and only they would know if it can be done. And if they decide it can be it could still take a very longtime to do.

But while this may be something that you personally want, it is not logically a design flaw of any kind, but it is a good idea.

Dan Krisher had this to say about it….

I didn't comment on the desire to copy effect settings since that has already been discussed and added to the forum's previous wish list thread. Like all requests, I take careful note of them and report them to my superiors for consideration in future updates.

So as I said…they know everything you have in this post.

The sampler is incomplete. The basic function for creating proper loops - crossfade loop - is missing

etc…

This is for your points 2 and 3...

Now prove that Roland did not intend to make those things as they are on the G in order to cut cost (for example). Because there is a huge list of features that are on the G which are not on the gear you mentioned. Prove that it is possible for Roland to add those things to the G with the resources it has left (not saying they can’t, just to make a point).You can not have everything and most certainly not without cost. The Fantom G was never meant to be the best workstation in the world only Roland’s idea of the best Live workstation. So prove that they did not make it how they wanted. If you can not prove these things then all of what you typed can only be your opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, this was mine.

And for the other parts of your post….

Because Roland’s competition has a feature Roland should consider (or as some suggest on this forum) must consider implementing that feature into their workstation.

I have to retract and adjust that statement.. I’ll say that the option should be evaluated (short version). Definition for evaluated- to consider or examine something in order to judge its value, quality, importance, extent, or condition.

Foundational Theory- If Roland must have a feature due to korgs decision to implement it then it’s fair to say that Yamaha must implement it as well. And then we must say that both Yamaha and korg are obligated to implement all the features from the G.

Using this line of reasoning means that everyone would end up having the exact same workstation.

However, due to several factors (secrecy for example) it is just impossible to know what each company is developing. Meaning that each workstation will have various hardware and software differences making it impossible to achieve our Foundational Theory. So the theory is flawed and incomplete. Not to mention that the whole thing would be absolutely boring.

Bottom line-Each company can only put their best effort into creating a competitive and desirable product. And the consumer must ensure that their best efforts are put into buying the product that best meets their needs at the time of purchase (very short version).

And a last question, will I be able to use the ARX03 multitimbral?

No, Yamaha and korg do not have ARX cards. So the G’s are a great benefit even if they are not multitimbral. But you can play your brass ensemble on any other part and then use the ARX card as well.

I vote that we end this…I took my shot at you for calling me a fan boy…But it was all in fun, now it’s over…no hard feelings I hope.

Thanks mojkarma!

For every "missing" or "flawed" feature in the Fantom-G, there are several more in the M3 and Motif XS. Hell, most of the issues people have with the G are about features not found in the other two at all!

Can't copy data from project to project? The M3 and Motif don't even have projects. If you want the Fantom to be more like the M3 and Motif, ignore project management altogether and back up instead. Problem solved.

And at the end of the day, the M3 and Motif XS are limited to 16 tracks (!!!), merge external devices into their existing channel/part/track count, have no true linear audio tracks, and have to share effects across multiple parts. Those "bugs", "flaws", "LOL WTF BBQ FAILs" are crippling compared to the things people complain about in the Fantom-G.

So keep bitching that our supermodel Mensa-member wives have a couple back zits and our Ferraris have a paint ding or two. We'll just point and laugh at the huge horse-faced beast of a wife you take home in your Ford Focus. You know, the one with only sixteen tracks (snicker!).

That's odd : my motif xs has
1) more filters to adjust your sounds
2) 2 band EQ for each element = tone of a part (Fantom none)
3) has overall master EQ, and Compression (Fantom only compression)
4) has 2 PFX for each part (1-8) ... they don't have to be shared. (Fantom has only one)
5) They don't have projects. Like in the X all patterns are saved with the song, )-> no ridicoulous waiting time. (but, ok some people have other workflows then other).

So, please stop comparing as some are really trying to be quite .

"I vote that we end this…I took my shot at you for calling me a fan boy…But it was all in fun, now it’s over…no hard feelings I hope."

Absolutely no hard feelings here. My "killing" post was not intended to be the classical pc vs. mac, xbox vs ps3 battle. It was not my intention to write that post at all, otherwise I would have already do it, even before you asked me to argue my points. I focused on a few shortcomings and I consider all my points as valid without even mentioning the competition.
However, remember what you said:

"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."

So, just to grab one point, your last sentence, you somehow know that the competition is weak, you simply know it for some secret reasons and make a statement about it, but you ask me to prove that Roland didn't implement this or that feature for cutting costs or whatever other reasons (time frame, available stuff, difficult implementation).
I don't care what the reason is, why there is no copy function, why I have to use an external librarian for copying a patch from one project to another instead of using the keyboard display which is the biggest on the keyboard market. I don't care why they couldn't develop a proper multisample format which would assure that you can use your multisamples from an earlier model on a later one.
Especially on my last point, I expect to be sure that I don't have to do the same tedious slavery job over and over again on absolutely every new workstation they make. And yes, the "weak" competition is here my reference point. If any body drives in one direction, and I drive in the opposite, most probably I'm driving in the wrong direction.
Now, if you want, you can prove me to be wrong, otherwise...

... "Thanks mojkarma! "

My pleasure.

"For every "missing" or "flawed" feature in the Fantom-G, there are several more in the M3 and Motif XS. Hell, most of the issues people have with the G are about features not found in the other two at all! "

Oh, come on please. That's exactly what I wanted to avoid. How the hell do you know that there are several more on the other two?
Instead of debating this, let me ask a general question: is it really impossible to complain about something here without risking that somebody jumps in or over and try to prove me or anybody else wrong.
Why can't we discuss about missing or flawed features without the need to point out that the others have several more?

"Can't copy data from project to project? The M3 and Motif don't even have projects."

Oh really, the m3/motif don't have projects? How bad. Imagine, the Fantom G doesn't have a PCG file. How bad is that. Does it mean anything to you? How can you live without PCG.
For the sake of clarity, on the M3 I can create a folder (without turning the computer on of course) and I can give it the name "Project" and all my files are stored there. Happy now?
Unlike the FG, the M3 (among the rest) has a working file system which allows me to create folders, save all, save one item, remove all/one, copy all/one, load all/one or selected ones. All this on the keyboard. I can exchange absolutely every single file, be it a patch, a live setup, an arpeggio, phrase, a single sample or a multisample or all together.
What the hell should I do with a FG project from my friend who wants me to give his multisampled piano patch consisting of some 300 usersamples? How can the FG project structure help me to handle this simple file transfer?

"And at the end of the day, the M3 and Motif XS are limited to 16 tracks (!!!)"

Yes, point taken. The FG is also limited to 16 tracks inside itself.

"merge external devices into their existing channel/part/track count,"

Yes, another good point if one has the need to create a live setup consisting of let's say 30 different sounds at the same time.

"have no true linear audio tracks"

And yet another great point. BTW, what's the difference if I have to use the computer for handling my patches with a librarian or using it for a software sequencer which will handle those linear audio tracks?
I wont fall into that trap and discuss with you the subtle differences between the FG sequencer and sonar/cubase/logic. With respect to anybody who uses the internal sequencer, these days where we have computers, working with any workstation sequencer is like writing a book by hand instead of using some kind of word processor. Scratchpad Yes, serious tool for making a song anywhere near radio ready? Absolutely NO.

"and have to share effects across multiple parts"

Hey, le'ts be fair. If something is true for the FG, why is it not for the others? It's not a bug, it's a feature.
On the M3 I have to share 5 inserts among 16 parts. On the FG every part has its own.
On the M3/Motif every part has its own EQ which I personally consider as the most important effect for adjusting and shaping the sound, especially in a multitimbral environment. FG doesn't. Waste a PFX for that and waste yet another user location for storing the same patch with different EQ/PFX settings for different live setups or songs. What a mess this is. When I create a new live setup, I simply don't know which of the ten different piano patches from my user single mode I should use. They are all the same patches with some variations on the PFX. Or, I simply waste one more user memory slot for the same piano with a new PFX setting as the 11th version.
What about effect chaining?
What about putting two different reverbs as a send effect in the live mode?
Can you recreate a drawbar organ in the live mode using each of the 8 parts for the drawbar patches and send them altogether to one Rotary effect? Or should I use 8 different rotary effects on every part and - yet again - manually rewrite the exact effect settings 8 times by using a pencil and a paper and pray that it will sound right, regardless of the fact, that the organ is sent thru 8 Rotary effects at the same time?

Please, don't start with the effects. I already said it. I accept some limitations since we have seamless switching, but don't even try to compare the effect implementation - as it is - to any other workstation out there.

"So keep bitching that our supermodel Mensa-member wives have a couple back zits and our Ferraris have a paint ding or two. We'll just point and laugh at the huge horse-faced beast of a wife you take home in your Ford Focus. You know, the one with only sixteen tracks (snicker!)."

Yeah, keep laughing and trying to be funny. But don't make close minded comparisons without knowing where it leads to.
I'll take my horse-faced wife, our three children, two of them in the baby buggy and 5 shopping bags and put them all into the Focus. You try the same with your Ferrari.

mojkarma & Zephyer,

Are you doing this to see how much the new server can take?

Oh yes, ridiculing all the valid points as always. *sigh*

mojkarna, when they ban you, you are welcome to join the Fantom G group on facebook!

jessej, not funny at all. And very disrespectful.

When it comes to flaws on the fantom some people are just too hardcore to have civil discussion and can not even find any middle ground.
The problem with flaws is that they will always be there unless they are fixed and that leads us to endlessly discuss the same problems over and over because others who come later will also discover them and it starts all over again.
The response is usually.. OH NO!! another winer!?
when it really only highlights that the flaw is a problem and should be acknowledged as such.

This rarely happens because to do so would put that person in to the same category etc.. etc.. etc...
And so it goes on..

Now back to making music"

I think there is room for compromise here. If you have noticed I have purposely stayed out of the praising threads recently even tho I am still not happy with the updates as I am classed as "one of the few whiners around here" and as you all say repetition becomes boring.

In the same way all the "fan bois wtf bbqs whatever" should stay out of the moaning threads because that's all they do is repeat their same thing over and over again.

To me this thread wasn't a moaning thread, it was someone presenting what they thought was shortcomings in the machine after a few days. Let them discuss in peace without jumping all over them.. I don't see anything like this happening in the "Okay, so who wants to go first" thread so that leads me to believe that the non moaners enjoy moaning just as much as the moaners do only about them instead.

In my opinion, someone who doesn't like his board should sell it, and I said it multiple times already. To satisfy even 50% of the user requests here the Fantom-G OS would have to be re-designed from the ground up, which I can't imagine happening. The G has certain concepts in it's design and overall functionality, and if you don't want to follow them but keep using the board, you're acting like a masochist.

I am sorry to say it, but the Fantom-G sampler problems are the Roland engineers fault.
Why?
Does anyone listen to us?
Yes, I did find out that outthere some Roland Support engineers are great, and they help you (Thanks Joris Belgium)...
But !
How many users have been complaining about those exact missing features on Fantom-S?
What about Fantom-X?
Fantom-G is the forth (if I include the XV series) sampler generation...
I remember when I had Fantom-S.
All the sampling from Fantom-S was zero work for the next gig I had:
Fantom-XR.
How can I even "think" of Fantom-G if I live with the ideea that the next Fantom series will be just like G: incompatible.
So all the missing features are not "recent".
All those are "wanted on the next generation or OS update" from Fantom-S to Fantom-X, from Fantom-X to Fantom-G.
If Roland would listen to the Fantom-S/X users, and all the whinnings were "noticed", maybe today, the "G" would have all those "missing" features.

I am now thinking to sell my Fantom-XR and get a M3.
I have the cash for the G but I don't have the "trust".

I am sorry to say it... but after 10 years of fan... it's maybe time to get real.

I am now thinking to sell my Fantom-XR and get a M3.
I have the cash for the G but I don't have the "trust".

No one is stopping you, Cminor. In fact, that is exactly Artemiy's point! If you are finding that a keyboard is not meeting your particular needs or expectations, then you are certainly encouraged to find a keyboard that is 'better-suited' to the musical demands that you make on it. This does not, however, mean that the keyboard can not more than satisfy the demands of another individual.

PiaKnowGuy
Film Score Demo

PiaKnow