Whether Fantom X-8 or Korg M3 88

[Sina172]

...

[Lorenzo]

They might be progressing really fast and the last 5 years has proved that to be true. The V-Synth GT, XT and the V-Synth Classic are incredible Synths and redefined Synthesis but with the TREMENDOUS Limitations of Polyphony

are you serious? we are talking about synth here name a pure synth with more polyphony of a V-synth in the same price range.

[Sina172]

...

[Lorenzo]

Oh well yes but it costs more than 300 euros over the XT (BTW the V-synth is a different kind of "synth", I think that it's difficult to find something similar).
BTW I think that all the modern synth and rompler has low polyphony and I wonder why and how difficult is to implement such a feature...
regards, Lorenzo

[morpheus]

I currently own a Korg OASYS and a Roland X7. Both are great boards for the money. However, the OASYS blows the X7 away. And I mean it is not even close. That is not to say the Roland is not good, it is just the OASYS is that much better.

I don't know everything about the M3 because I don't need or want it. However, I am sure it is a great board for the money also. As for which board to buy, the Motif, the Fantom, the Triton are all good. If you can't make great music with any of them, don't blame the keyboard. So whatever workstation you buy, you would be set.

With all that being said, the OASYS is still way better. However, I think Roland and Yamaha can introduce a board to go head-to-head with the OASYS. Here is what I think using the Roland X series as an example.

Roland can use the same sound engine as the Fantom X series but up the polyphony to 1024, up the ROM to 32 GB, and up the number effects processors to like 128. The key is that the patch sounds can be moved to performance mode without any changes in effects routing and the sound.

Make it 32 part multitimbral, add the sequencer and screen from the X series, have it be able to playback user samples with up to 4 GB RAM, and you have a great synth at a great price. I'd also throw in four channel audio playback too.

The kicker would be that Roland does not have to sell the synth fully loaded. They could introduce it with 128 polyphony, ROM at 4 GB, 16 part multitimbral, and with 32 effects. However, one can expand the synth with more polyphony, RAM, ROM, effects, etc. So Roland could offer a synth that can hit both the high end and the low end, and every point in between.

With good DACs, a good keyboard touch, a tilt screen, and 8 outputs, the workstation would be serious competition for the OASYS. The workstation doesn't need exotic synthesis methods or complexity but if it does, hide it from the user. Use a computer program for digging deep into the architecture and also as a librarian.

I would use the computer for sequencing, sampling, and recording and would stay mostly in the Midi domain when I record the synth. I could also take it on the road too and play back two audio tracks to the house and two tracks to IEMs for click and cues. The same sounds I have in the studio are the same ones I have on the road.

Put all this in a 76 semi weighted key workstation and sell it for $1500 entry level and $4000 fully loaded and I think many people would pick this over the Korg.

One of the keys is for the workstation to be simple. Leave all the complexity for a computer DAW/sequencer. So on my synth, if I hear a patch, I can more it quickly to a performance. Use it and move on. When I go on the road I load in my audio tracks, set up my performance sounds quickly and I am ready to go.

The OASYS tries to be everything a computer DAW/sequencer is. While it is not too shabby, working on 30" LCD with Logic blows it away. A company like Roland should not even try to make a workstation be a computer based DAW/seq.

But neither do computers make a very good gigging synth. I still have yet to try MainStage but I doubt it will be what I need. I am not going to take my Desktop computer and huge LCD on the road and I really don't want to buy a laptop just for gigging. I would rather put that money into a synth. Thus the workstation needs to complement the desktop computer.

So the OASYS has a little too much complexity and DAW baggage. I don't have to use it but I still pay for it. Roland and Yamaha have room to step up and challenge the OASYS.

Now this is just one idea and I could mention many more. But I wish one of the big three synth makers would try and make a synth like this because it what keyboard players have wanted for the last two decades - stay in the world of midi for keyboard parts but not sacrifice sound or speed in recording or gigging.

[wuss88]

Ive been a Korg owner all my life so i might be biased. Consider myself semi pro with 15yrs of experience, having played in dozens of bands, on hundreds of gigs.

Had a go at the new Fantoms, didnt like the sound. Theres something I cant quite put my finger on, maybe its the compressed waveforms, but it actually hurt my ears sometimes. Had this gut feeling that this thing (ie the Fantom) wont quite cut it for me. Especially live. Looks nice tho.

Spent some time with the Motifs, really nice thick sound, very cluttered user interface, too many buttons for my taste. Spent ages (well minutes) trying to figure out how to change patches, wasnt intuitive for me at all.

Once you got used to a touchscreen theres no going back.

Cant afford the Oasys, very happy w my M3 despite the flimsy buttons.

[dorremifasol]

In contrast, I found the Motif easier to manage. The extra buttons for soloing, muting and selecting channels is what I really miss in my M3.

I hate having to use the the touch screen for everything. It there were cursor buttons I would use them a lot instead.

I specially hate the PAGE button. If the touch screen had tabs with all the pages (I think the OASYS has them) probably I wouldn't be so angry with it. What makes me grunt is having to move the arm to change between the screen and the PAGE button when I'm creating sounds from scratch.

[Dr.InnoVation]

They might be progressing really fast and the last 5 years has proved that to be true. The V-Synth GT, XT and the V-Synth Classic are incredible Synths and redefined Synthesis but with the TREMENDOUS Limitations of Polyphony

are you serious? we are talking about synth here name a pure synth with more polyphony of a V-synth in the same price range.

Yeah, I'm serious! The V-Synth GT might have 28-Notes of Polyphony, but by the time you get done creating those patches your ONLY left with 4-5 note polyphony!

Now, look up the Access Virus TI and tell me who has MORE Polyphony!

Sina

You don't need to think about poyphony UNLESS you aren't recording into an audio interface.
That is unless of course you only record and sequence with the inherent limitations of onboard sequencers.....

This discussion isn't about the Oasys VS future synths. Back on topic for what the OP wants the Fantom is the way to go.
I love Korg products but for what I do the M3 isn't for me. Electronic based music is huge, but for people that aim for a more realistic approach in mimicking real nuances of real instruments I can't see the M3 for that purpose. What do you think?

[Sina172]

...

[Synthoid]

The ONLY advantage on the Fantom is the Sequencer and the Overall Feature Set which blows away the Motif XS and M3 (minus KARMA II functionality). And I think this is gonna be improved BIG time at NAMM with a brand new sound engine and a better interface.

The Fantom's "overall feature set" blows away the M3 and Motif? WOW, guess I missed something there.....it kinda left me cold.

I do agree, though, that Roland is overdue in a total workstation makeover. This NAMM should be interesting.

[Dr.InnoVation]

The ONLY advantage on the Fantom is the Sequencer and the Overall Feature Set which blows away the Motif XS and M3 (minus KARMA II functionality). And I think this is gonna be improved BIG time at NAMM with a brand new sound engine and a better interface.

The Fantom's "overall feature set" blows away the M3 and Motif? WOW, guess I missed something there.....it kinda left me cold.

I do agree, though, that Roland is overdue in a total workstation makeover. This NAMM should be interesting.

I can probably tell you why......
BTW I'm not a huge fan of Roland because for some reason I have always had Midi problems with their boards, but now that I have audio recording capabilities with ProTools I can def recommend the Fantom, and it works with ProTools via Midi for me as well.

The fantom seems to need some colored monitors. IF you have good monitors then the Fantom Pre-production sounds pretty yuck unless you internally program your own custom "favorites" and save them. Noodling around with the internal soundsets gives me realism beyond other synths, EXCEPT for the XS which FINALLY has Tryos patches in it's soundsets. I still don't like the XS's Pianos. They are rough in the low end and plastic in the mid. Highs are perfect but I prefer my edited FantomZ Pianos. They break through the mix and sound real and play real.

I am sorry to say Sina that with respect to the Oasys, if it was even affordable I still wouldn't get it and I'll tell you why.
The guitar samples do not sound as good as my Custom Extreme, I mean I practically have a compact "Jimi" inside her!
The depth and headroom is absolutely phenominal and without question produce the most vibrant and detailed sounds I have ever heard from a hardware synth, However, there seems to be a more of a broader focus on the synth patches some of which you have mentioned yourself in competition with the V-Synth (to me clearly Oasys is King) for those applications and I have heard your songs as well, which also display how nice the Oasys is a pleasure to listen to.

For now, my Extreme recorded in 24bit ala ProTools gives me some of the headroom you hear on a regular basis without dithering and Perhaps one of these days I'll get one because I'm sure that samples loaded into it will sound even better than the Extreme NO DOUBT in my mind.

Everytime I go to GuitarCenter I play the O for about an hour, but the I need great drums, and as picky as I am the O isn't the choice. BFD the rock collection will satisfy my drums accuracy hunger that I never knew I had...

Personally I believed in the M3, until I played it. The few programs and Combis didn't bother me at all because some sound good, but for what I do it failed to inspire me as a whole. Interfaces sometimes suck I agree, but the motif wasn't so bad. With all things it just takes patience. I wanted to throw ProTools away!!!!!!

[KarmaKazi]

sishan

Play them all.

Buy the one you like.

If it is a Korg product, then well be glad to visit again.

KarmaKazi

[KarmaKazi]

This might be of some interest.

Grab some headphones and check this out:

http://listentokeyboards.com/

KarmaKazi

[burningbusch]

Regarding Roland's broken promises let me say this:

They have provided all of the updates to the V-Synth for free. The update to version 2.0 gave us a number major enhancements including a new sound set, rhythm mode, the multi-track step modulator, and enhanced oscillators. Some people complained that they preferred the original sound set (which was no longer compatible). Roland stepped up and provided version 2.0 with both the original and new sound set, again at no charge.

When they updated the Fantom X to version 2.0 which added eight audio tracks to the sequencer they charged a whooping $49 as that covered the cost of the CompactFlash card and adapter which was how they provided the upgrade.

I'm sure those people who bought into VariOS system when it first came out felt burned. Probably like the people who bought the Korg OASYS PCI when it first came out at over $2,000. I bought mine when they dropped the price to < $500. I was disappointed when Korg discontinued support (it doesn't work with XP or OSX so it's basically worthless) but I didn't feel burned as I knew its days were limited. Still the story is really the same for both companies, i.e. they brought an innovative product to market at a high price point, it didn't sell well, they dumped the remaining inventory on the market for a fraction of the original price and finally discontinued support. These things happen.

I don't for the life of me understand the criticism of the XV-88. The S90/S90ES and Kurzweil PC1/2/3 are synths with no sequencers. There is a market for performance synths. Most live players have no use for sequencers and most studio people use DAWs. Those who use onboard sequencers are in the minority. I wish performance synths were even more prevalent.

To the original poster, if you're looking at Roland, by all means wait till NAMM. The Fantom X/XR was announce in Jan 2004. Four years is the expected life-span.

Busch.

----------------------
I guess you're supposed to list your relevant equipment: Korg M3-73; M3-88

[silverdragonsound]

This might be of some interest.

Grab some headphones and check this out:

http://listentokeyboards.com/

KarmaKazi

Just a quick point of reference, it a page proudly presented by Kurzweil, hence made by Kurzweil, perhaps a little bias? Secondly the sampling is awful. I would never recommend anyone making a decision based on this site.