M3 or Fantom G?

[Hugo]

I would love to have both, but first choice now is the Fantom G. I'm after a workstation that is capable of full-blown productions, and imo the G looks to be the most competent. I would, however, love to couple it with an M3 module

The G has extensive effect power in studio mode, but the M3 still presents more creative routing of the effects -> 5 inserts + masters can be used for one patch, whereas the G only has 1 insert effect available. Still, the G's sequencer appears to be a lot more intuitive & powerful than both the M3's and the Motif XS's (the latter lacks step sequencing I've heard, that alone disqualifies it).

[KarmaKazi]

The Korg M3 is real.

The Roland Fantom G is vaporware.

KarmaKazi

[dimitris]

I have never used roland but, this is the first time in my life that I would prefer G series if it's in the same price as M3!!

Regards,
Dimitris

[Twiddler]

This thread is kind of funny. You are getting *very* different answers from people depending on what they want to use the board for and what other gear they already have.

Those who have the Oasys (I am very jealous ) already have a keyboard with awesome sound and KARMA 2.x. I don't know why Oasys owners would even bother with the M3, it's "little brother". Maybe just to have something smaller/lighter/less-expensive to take to gigs? Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any point.

I agree, based purely on the specs that Roland has been publishing, that the G seems to have a much better sequencer than the M3. If you are someone that will be using the sequencer on the workstation quite a bit, then I can see wanting the G for that reason alone (then add an M3-M and you have an awesome setup ).

I don't own an Oasys and don't care about the sequencing features at all - that's what my MacBook Pro is for. I love the KARMA functionality (also own the original KARMA board) and would choose the M3 over any Roland product for that reason alone.

To each his own...

[KorgSinceTheM1]

M3 or Fantom G Series? Very hard! We haven't really been hands on with the new G yet but, both are excellent in their own right. But I also think we've somewhat become jaded over the years. There really isn't any workstation that can do it all, that's why I have an M3, an X6, and an ES6. All of which they have their strengths and weaknesses. I can't work with just one.

I think of them as 'artist's paintbrushes', a different tone or color for whatever I'm trying to 'paint'.

Honestly, they've been left alone more recently since I'm leaning more on the software realm of things. Open Labs Receptor, the Neko and Miko are looking more and more attractive to me for live gigs.

But going back to the original question....Korg M3 or Roland's Fantom G?
If I never owned any of the keyboards mentioned above, I'd look more at the G!

[Synthoid]

Open Labs Receptor, the Neko and Miko are looking more and more attractive to me for live gigs.

I'm curious how roadworthy those are......I've never seen a Neko or Miko live anywhere.

[MartinHines]

Open Labs Receptor, the Neko and Miko are looking more and more attractive to me for live gigs.

I'm curious how roadworthy those are......I've never seen a Neko or Miko live anywhere.

They are road worthy. I personally would go with a Muse Receptor if I wanted to play softsynths live.

[sparkie]

The Fantom G does look as though it has many features the M3 lacks...including "Ease of use". Strange as usually Rolands keyboards are usually very complex and aggravating to understand and use! I really like the M3 with the features it has..but I for one dont want to spend hours learning a new keyboard,reading manuals for hours, watching "how to videos" to be able to create music. That is why I sold the OASYS...although the program sound quality is bar none the best. Too bad the M3 doesnt have the same quality. I for one want it to be as simple as possible to use ..and learn..with OASYS sounds . That is why Apples IPHONE is a huge success..is because its very user friendly! The M3 does have Karma .. but as lcmorley says ... "that they are near impossible to reproduce again exactly as before". So unless you record as you play getting the exact same sounds again is a problem. It also depends on what you want to do with the KARMA also. Hopefully the new release of the M3 sounds will put the Roland G to its knees!
Sparkie

[Synthoid]

The M3 does have Karma .. but as lcmorley says ... "that they are near impossible to reproduce again exactly as before". So unless you record as you play getting the exact same sounds again is a problem.

That seems confusing.

Are you referring to calling up a program or combi, playing something.....then going back to that program or combi later and hearing something totally different (without having made any changes)?

Naturally if you modify any sound parameter whether it be the waveform, LFO, Karma setting, or effects, if you don't SAVE what you changed then yes, you can't exactly reproduce what you created if you go back later and start from scratch.

[Twiddler]

Are you referring to calling up a program or combi, playing something.....then going back to that program or combi later and hearing something totally different (without having made any changes)?

I think that sparkie is talking about playing a program or combi with KARMA active and dynamically tweaking the KARMA parameters while playing. It can be rather difficult to reproduce that exact performance unless you recorded it in that case.

Of course, you can always just record MIDI out whenever you are playing around (and then you are guaranteed to capture anything "cool" that you stumbled across - and this approach still lets you easily edit out parts of the performance without worrying about audio editing with reverb tails, etc.

All that you are really pointing out here is that *any* performance that involves a complex set of tweaking knobs, faders, switches, and keys can be hard to reproduce. <shrug> yep.

I fail to see how switching to a keyboard that doesn't even have these features is *better* in this case. If you don't want that complexity, then just don't dynamically tweak the knobs while you play... that will still be better than using a board that just has an arpeggiator.

Ease of use in the sequencer is another matter... but as I have stated before I don't use the M3 for sequencing.

[ZOID]

I have the privilege to own: M3-73 with Radias R, Motif XS 8, Virus TI and Im getting the Fantom G7.
That will cover all the bases. The more colors in the pallete the better.

[Synthoid]

I think that sparkie is talking about playing a program or combi with KARMA active and dynamically tweaking the KARMA parameters while playing. It can be rather difficult to reproduce that exact performance unless you recorded it in that case.

That applies to any synth or workstation, not just the M3!

Any time you tweak real-time controls, whether filter cutoff, LFO, envelope generator, arpeggio settings.......or KARMA, if you don't save your settings, you will not be able to accurately reproduce what you have done later.

[sparkie]

Yep, Twiddler understands what I was trying to explain.. thanks

[Synthia]

I voted for the Fantom G as I already own many Korgs.The new Roland does look very interesting.I really can't wait to hear some sounds of the G but I reckon we are in for a long wait as they haven't even finished with the OS.
I don't like the look of the M3 but that is just my personal taste.Many people love this kind of modern look.

[soulidstate]

I've voted for Fantom G for the reason of sound. For me it important that I can use the gear straight away out of the box and the M3 if frustratingly not like that due to the limited presets programs available.Korg could have just filled up all the banks with professionally programmed sounds rather than pass on the burden of programming to owners.The banks can be rewritten anyway so what's their problem?Anyway I am not a happy owner of the M3 just because of this simple reason. Forgive me for saying this but Roland Fantom G is way ahead in sound. The M3 is just in my opinion from a user point of view a triton labeled having a new sound engine w/ Karma because there is not much of a difference in sounds.

I'd say Fantom G is the way to go unless Korg releases the programs it promised and they better be good.