Choices!!!!!

[Rob Sherratt]

Just looks cheap and plastic (not a major issue!!!!)

It's 100% brushed aluminum, the construction is extremely strong and high quality. And the M3M section in entirety can be tilted up at 30 degrees, so all the buttons, sliders etc are a nice angle. And it's a touch response screen - cther products just have a tilt screen and everything is controlled with buttons.

Regards,
Rob

[Synthoid]

The Roland Fantom G7 is still a possability but there are so many people that say it's not that good... although the videos I've seen sound, in a lot of ways, better than the M3.

I've owned an M3 for two years now and it's the main board I go to for inspiration. I also own a Motif XS, and even with its supposedly "superior" pianos and guitars (which I rarely use anyway), it's second fiddle.

I've auditioned a Fantom G and walked away unimpressed both times. I wanted to like it, but... More often than not I've read lukewarm reviews about it--it's just not that exciting. Spend plenty of time with any keyboard you plan on buying.

[dtscape]

I'm sure the M3 is of a sturdy construction.... but it still looks cheap!!!! To me anyway.

Is there any way you can set a certain amount of polyphony aside for the pads? That way I would be able to play the keyboard without worrying about the sample being cut off.... I had this issue with my Triton and ended up purchasing a pedal board(Roland PK5) so I could keep my foot on the note all the time. Its one of my major concerns as I don't want to have to carry the pedals around with me anymore......

The M3 is most appealing to me because I've been using Korg for 20 years now... I've often had comments about the clarity of sounds I get and the amount of power that the Triton produces.

My current setup is a Korg Triton Classic (moss board and 64ram), Korg 01/wfd (which I use for sequencer, lead sounds and choir in particular(A37 is lovely!!!!!)) and a Roland D50 (which has big fat synths!!!!Including a patch for Van Halens JUMP... which I'm finding difficult to replicate on my Korgs....). I'm after a keyboard that will effectively replace all 3..

[Wavestation]

dtscape,

Here's my story if it helps. I turned 40 last year and for my birthday I had decided that I was going to get any keyboard/synth/workstation that I wanted. I never had this luxury before, though I had so much gear over the years that I could have opened up my own music store....lol. Anyway, over the years playing piano and keyboards, I became a big Korg fan. I always favored Korg keyboards and products and I felt most comfortable with them. My most recent setup a few years ago before I went soft synths was a Korg Karma, Korg Wavestation, and a Korg Prophecy. I then sold all of my hardware in an attempt to go all out computer based. I missed having hardware synths and IMO realized that there is no comparision. As much as I like computers, the hardware synth can not be replaced.

This brings us back to the topic in hand. What was I going to get for my birthday. I really wanted a workstation, so I narrowed it down to the M3, XS6, G6, and Kurzweil PC3x. I couldn't find the PC3x in any store, so I threw that out as I was not going to buy a synth that I couldn't play and test beforehand. I kind of left the M3 out, as I wanted something different (non Korg) just to change things up. Plus, I really didn't want the Karma feature again, after having a Karma. I always wanted a Motif, so even before playing them in the store, the Motif was the favorite. First impressions after playing them for the first time. XS6 menu and layout was not flowing with me. I wasn't too happy with the keyboard on the G6, plus I wasn't feeling it, if you know what I mean. I felt right at home with the M3. I know the menus and the layout from owning previous Korgs, so it was the most comfortable to me. Since I had plenty of time before my purchase, I evaluated a few more times over the next few months in the summer and here's what happened.

I purchased the Roland Fantom G6. The more I played it, the more I liked it and I felt it had the most potential moving forward and to me that was important. Also I wanted to stay clear of the PC and I wanted a unit that could do everything without a computer and the G6 can for me. The Yamaha XS6 frustrated me to no end with the button layout and menu system. The M3 (even though I really didn't give it a full chance) started to have a cheap feeling to me (buttons, sliders, pads), although I really liked the keybed. The bottom line is that you need to go play them not just once, but a few times over a period of time and you see which one feels and sounds the best to you. Your opinion means everything, since you will be the one that will be playing it.

All three workstations have their strengths and weaknesses and all three are fine instruments. You really can't compare the sounds because it's all subjective. If you want more info about the G6, I can tell you more in depth. I'm very happy with it. Again, I'm a Korg fan who wanted a Motif in the worst way and I ended up with the Fantom G.

Domenic

[LiqMat]

Before you jump on a Roland G series workstation you may want to ask Roland about the G series storage limitations. If I recall correctly Roland support told me the G series workstations cannot format large capacity USB hard drives like a 250GB USB hard drive. You may want to check on that.

[Gargamel314]

I'm sure the M3 is of a sturdy construction.... but it still looks cheap!!!! To me anyway.

I felt the same way. Never liked the look. The weight of the M3 is about the same as the Triton Classic and 01/Wfd. It's a little shorter. The joystick is even MORE sturdy than the Triton's and 01/W's, and after you take a week to get used to the keys, you'll find they're even better than the other two workstations. The action is much quieter than the Yamaha keybed in the Triton and 01/W, and that takes getting used to, but the key resistance is about the same. Probably the least sturdy aspect of it are the 8 pads, which have a tendency to get stuck, but KORG has been replacing these pads if there are problems, also the USB slots in the back are susceptible to damage if you're not careful and try to move the M3 with the USB drive still in place. Everything else is built solid like a rock. There's nothing cheap about the construction of the M3, except for maybe the white plastic panels on either side of the Module unit.

I will say the M3 does look MUCH better in person. Guess it just doesn't photograph well I remember bringing it in to use in my classroom one day, and people kept mentioning how much nicer it looked than my old Triton Extreme, even my 01/W. It seems to hit everyone a little differently, you either love it or you hate it, but once you realize this you'll get past the looks of it and enjoy the amazing features.

Is there any way you can set a certain amount of polyphony aside for the pads? That way I would be able to play the keyboard without worrying about the sample being cut off.... I had this issue with my Triton and ended up purchasing a pedal board(Roland PK5) so I could keep my foot on the note all the time. Its one of my major concerns as I don't want to have to carry the pedals around with me anymore......

Not to my knowledge. I've never maxed out on polyphony on this thing. With 120 voices, it's not exactly like playing an M50, and I don't usually hear complaints on these forums from other users about running out. You may end up using the same solution with the M3 as you have with your Triton.

The M3 is most appealing to me because I've been using Korg for 20 years now... I've often had comments about the clarity of sounds I get and the amount of power that the Triton produces.

My current setup is a Korg Triton Classic (moss board and 64ram), Korg 01/wfd (which I use for sequencer, lead sounds and choir in particular(A37 is lovely!!!!!)) and a Roland D50 (which has big fat synths!!!!Including a patch for Van Halens JUMP... which I'm finding difficult to replicate on my Korgs....). I'm after a keyboard that will effectively replace all 3..

I can't vouch for the D50, but it rather effectively replace the other two synths for me. It has the same smoothness to the sound that the 01/W has, and when I'm sequencing on the M3, I don't really miss anything from the 01/W like I used to on the Triton. I liked my Triton Extreme, but I LOVED my 01/Wfd. To me, the M3 combines the best of both worlds.

Since my perspective is somewhat similar to your situation, I hope this helps you out in your decision making process.

[synthguy]

Just to add a couple of sticks to the fire, I'll throw in from a programmer's perspective.

Some of the Roland's raw samples are incredible. I love the orchestral sounds and pianos. It has some great percussion and instrument sounds. I love the Fantom's sitar. The expansion boards feature some of the best rom waveform samples around, and provide you with all kinds of additional patches to play with. I don't know about the virtual instrument boards on the G, but they sound impressive. Love the Vintake Keys rom. I adore pipe organs on the Fantom. The effects are nice, but a bit basic, and all around could be better. I do like the reverb, a sore point with me if it isn't right, but it definitely isn't the best. The keyboard is decent, but I prefer an expression pedal to aftertouch. The 16 touch pads are nice, but need a pretty good thunk to achieve full volume.

There are basically two things I don't like about it:

1. The filters are rather sucky. Great for acoustic sounds when set to a light 12 db slope, but bad for synth sounds. I was pulling my hair out, trying to use it as my main workstation.

2. The envelopes don't work with velocity as well as the other workstations, which means playing softly, the envelopes don't make acoustically realistic sounds. It's very hard to get these envelopes to play properly across the full velocity range, meaning pianos sound best when played in a rock style, medium to hard.

3. A third thing is, getting around in the guts of the sequencer is a pain. Keep the manual handy until you get it learned. And it can be buggy.

Still, if I ever sold it, I'd have to have a rack module. A few of those sounds are irreplaceable.

The M3 is a much better synthesizer. In fact, a much better all around instrument, equally fine with acoustic and electronic sounds. Very easy to program. Great selection of waveforms. Awesome filters, as good as a VA. Has a deep, modular synth parameter system but isn't hard to get into. Nice snappy envelopes which work more naturally with velocity, nice sounding onboard EQ, and EQ is part of the patch, not an effect, although it even offers it as an effect. Very nice effects implementation, flexible and good sounding. RAM expansion is a tad high, but you have a great selection of sample libraries coming to add to the already incredible ROM samples. The sequencer is nice, flexible and powerful. Good USB implementation, and file structure is incredible. If you want to dig into a patch file to load in a single patch or sample, you can do it.

The M3 sounds a little warmer and "acoustic" than the Fantom, to my ears. Organs are a bit more real sounding and growl like they should, thanks to a superb Leslie effect. The EXB-Radias adds a full blown very powerful 24 voice VA synth which sounds as good or better than anything out there. Karma is crazy cool, and there are a lot of tutorials at karma-lab.com to help school you on it. I adjusted pretty quickly to the 73 note keyboard. Superb touch, both feel, and the way it handles velocity and pressure. And I love those touch pads. Only eight of them, but very expressive.

It doesn't do everything perfectly, but it's so good, it's the centerpiece of my keyboard arsenal. Then again, I don't own a PC3.

[Rob Sherratt]

Hi synthguy,

I note your final comment about the PC3. While there's been a lot of discussion here about Korg/ Roland/ Yamaha workstations, no-one knows much about the Kurzweil PC3 or PC3X. I checked Kurzweil's web site and the PC3 appears in almost every respect of its specifications to be a worthy rival to the M3.

Is there a user forum for the PC3?
Do you know any leading musicians using the PC3?
Any videos of demos and tutorials?
How would you rate it compared with the M3?

Best regards,
Rob

[sani]

Not to my knowledge. I've never maxed out on polyphony on this thing. With 120 voices, it's not exactly like playing an M50, and I don't usually hear complaints on these forums from other users about running out. You may end up using the same solution with the M3 as you have with your Triton.

I must admit that I had very big problems with the polyphony. Even to the extent that it was one of my main reasons why I finaly sold the M3.
We all know that 120 polyphony is a paper fact. In real life, the number is often much smaller because of double oscilators, xfade velocity, layering with other sounds.
I found especially on the new pianos (usb expansion) that the polyphony run out in no time.

The biggest problem here is that Korg uses the most simple way to cut notes out once the maximum polyphony is reached. The M3 simply cuts the oldest note. This is a bad decision because the oldest note on a piano isn't always the quietest.
Hit a low note on a piano sound and play fast arpeggios on the upper notes. You will clearly hear how the low note will be cut out.
On one song I play, I have to hold a pad akkord and play a piano intro. I wanted to play the pad, hold it with the sustain pedal and play the piano intro. The pad simply was cut and it sounds very bad when this happens during a show/concert.

Roland is much better in this regard:
There is an option to choose between cuting the oldest or the quietest note. This makes a big difference!
Besides that, there is a voice reserve function in multi (combination) mode. So in my example, I would be able to reserve 3 voices for the pad and the rest for my piano intro and once triggered and hold with the damper pedal, the pad would never be cut off unless I release the pedal.

Some users here even posted audio examples with a piano/pad layer sound, comparing the M3 with Kurzweils K2600. The later has "only" 48 voice polyphony and yet you couldn't hear the cutting of the voices. On the M3 it was very audible.

[Synthoid]

It doesn't do everything perfectly, but it's so good, it's the centerpiece of my keyboard arsenal. Then again, I don't own a PC3.

Try doing deep programming with a Kurzweil... menu diving with a ridiculously small display screen.

[dtscape]

Thats the trouble.... They always say the maximum polyphony on the spec sheets but in reality its a different ball game!!!!

The Roland just has something appealing.... The Organ sounds concern me and I know the M3 organs will sound lovely. The Korgs setup is so familiar too me.... But like others have said "I need a change" These simple little problems(polyphony) can make all the difference to me. If I was going to be gigging in a week with the new keyboard i would go for the Korg.... But seeing as I have time to re educate myself I'm not so sure. In all fairness the only reason i purchased the Korg Triton was because my 01/w was playing up at gigs (got it fixed quite quick but needed a replacement).
This time its just a case of shrinking my ever expanding keyboard rig.... The Roland seems to have everything I need(sequencer, sampling rom(1gb), pads that don't cut out). The sample side is something I'm going to use a lot of and the fact that, if needed, I can sample my existing sequencer stuff and trigger it of a pad... Really appeals. Also the fact that I'll have the sample space to do this!!!!! The M3 would not be able to do this....
The effects also hold a great deal as well... I know the Roland only has 1 effect on each sound(other than the master effects) in the sequencer that totals to 16(as far as I know) but the fact that that effect is automatically taken from the original patch is a breath of fresh air... The Korg(unless its changed!!!!) is more complex..... Yes in a single patch you could have a huge effects rack but try to add that into a sequence along with the effects for the other patches?!!!! Not easy ....
Pros and cons for everything!!!!

[sani]

The effects also hold a great deal as well... I know the Roland only has 1 effect on each sound(other than the master effects) in the sequencer that totals to 16(as far as I know) but the fact that that effect is automatically taken from the original patch is a breath of fresh air... The Korg(unless its changed!!!!) is more complex..... Yes in a single patch you could have a huge effects rack but try to add that into a sequence along with the effects for the other patches?!!!! Not easy ....
Pros and cons for everything!!!!

While I think that the way how the M3 handles polyphony is somewhere between bad and disastrous, I actually don't consider the effect implementation on the Fantom G in any way as a better one.
Sure, it handles a great feature, seamless switching but the automatically loading of effects into a multi setup is not necesarelly an advance.
First, the Fantom G lacks the most important effect for multimode and song creating: the EQ. The M3 has it for every single sound. In a combination I often want to adjust the single sound to sit fine in a mix together with others. This is especially a must in the process of creating a song. It's impossible on the Fantom G, unless you replace the original effect with an EQ.
The Aux Effects on the Fantom G are still those eigthies GM based Reverb+Chorus/Delay effects. On the M3 any effect can be used as an Aux/Master Effect.
The Fantom G makes some sound creations almost impossible:
Organ with rotary effect and overdrive? How, if there is only one insert effect.
E. Piano with Phaser and an Amp model and Overdrive? The same.

Also, it is not true that the single patches will sound exactly the same in the multi mode. What if a lead sound uses a delay effect as master/aux effect and an E. Piano uses a chorus as a master effect.
In multimode you have to decide if you want the master effect to be either delay or chorus.
Not to mention that you can't even copy the effects.
The M3 is surely limited with only 5 inserts, but otherwise, the routing possibilities goes far beyond what can be done on a Fantom G.

[dtscape]

Just had a look at the Gs manual and there are a few combi effects(overdrive/chorus, overdrive/delay etc.)... It covers a few areas but I do see what you mean.

This is my problem... Both keyboards have there pros and cons.. Its just a case of deciding which is more important to me!!!!! Thats not easy!!!!!

Maybe I should just wait a year or so and see if either of the companies produce a keyboard that covers all these areas.. but then again if we waited for all our issues to be ressolved in one keyboard we'd be waiting for years... and even then I'm sure there would still be problems.

No one keyboard can do it all!!!! Thats the problem.

[synthguy]

No synth does it all, which is why I own several... er... many several, but then, why do you think I chose this nick?

I'd forgotten about the voice reserve function on the Rolands, though I was running out of steam last night. While that's a nice feature, no one should have to rely on that with some elementary programming skills. Many people just poke buttons to layer two, three, four patches, and then wonder why they're running out of notes. They fail to realize that those patches might be using up 4, 8, or 16 voices, more if they're stereo. Just think of this: if you layer three patches which are using four stereo voices, you can only play five note chords!

Pads, like those layered with a piano patch, can be trimmed back a lot because there may only be one or two layers that give it its essential sound. Pads of a breathy synth vox nature or strings can be whittled down to just that one layer, saved to a new location, and then layered with the piano patch of choice. And it's the same with any two or more patches you might want to play together. A patch with four layers/voices almost always has two layers which give it most of its character, along with its effects. The other layers can even end up making layered patches too thick. Effects are the same way. Looking at the effects stack of two patches, it just takes a bit of fiddling to discover the main elements in the "rack" which give two patches their character, and then it's just a matter of arranging a new rack which includes those significant effects and a proper arrangement of them.

Another thing on that subject for programmers, is that it's a good idea to work on a few master effects templates to use with your patches in Combi and/or Sequencer Modes, since you only get one set anyway. Changing effects between patches and Combis seems to be the main culprit with patch voices being cut off when switching.

I think the one thing I'd consider is to save up for both instruments, since you have a couple of years to play with. Get the M3 now, get familiar with it, and consider alternatives. Check out the other keyboards out there, such as the Motif XS or even, dare I say it, the Kurzweil PC3. More on that in a bit. But I think the M3-Fantom G combo would be killer, and you could get the 61 key Fantom to save some money and weight.

Now, for a couple of other replies, since I'm snowed in today here in the Midwest.

It doesn't do everything perfectly, but it's so good, it's the centerpiece of my keyboard arsenal. Then again, I don't own a PC3.

Try doing deep programming with a Kurzweil... menu diving with a ridiculously small display screen.

I do, owning a K2000R. Then again, I also own a Karma and it's just as bad or worse.

Hi synthguy,

I note your final comment about the PC3. While there's been a lot of discussion here about Korg/ Roland/ Yamaha workstations, no-one knows much about the Kurzweil PC3 or PC3X. I checked Kurzweil's web site and the PC3 appears in almost every respect of its specifications to be a worthy rival to the M3.

Is there a user forum for the PC3?
Do you know any leading musicians using the PC3?
Any videos of demos and tutorials?
How would you rate it compared with the M3?

Best regards,
Rob

I don't get out much. And I also don't watch much TV or go to concerts. I have glimpsed the PC3 in a couple of its incarnations in videos before, but I couldn't tell you who used them. And my exposure is very brief. It seems well made, though the Kurz weighted action keys seem very light, so that even I liked it, which for piano players is usually a bad thing. I still prefer the synth action keys myself, having very little time on piano action keyboards.

While Google came up with a few sites with forums, it seems that the main site with good support and traffic is at Sonikmatter:

http://community.sonikmatter.com/forums/

In fact, I need to join there because a few old time heavy users intimately familiar with Kurzweil's VAST synthesizer line such as Brian Cowell hang out there.

Comparing synths is always a mixed bag, but it does compare very well. Going by my own experience with the K2000 which I do own, I can say this, as I assume most of the ROM waves are the same.

The ROMs on the Kuzweils are archaic, created in the mid 90s with very few updates. They come in banks with eight megabytes each, which right off the bat means the samples are quite short. I'm not sure you can find a workstation synth with a grand piano as small as 8 megs these days. Some samples are just flat out bad, such as the tympani and gong, which have obnoxious loops, but they are the minority. The organ waves seem to phase shift when you layer them, but then it does have an organ model. The original string samples are actually outstanding, and new orchestral samples are even better. The 4 meg Triple Strike Piano is very nice. The effects are superb, and you do get a lot of them. Though EQ is only available as an effect, the synth engine sounds very good without any. I really like the Vintage Keys expansion a lot, especially that CP-80 Electric Grand.

The ROM samples on the M3 overall are much better, but the way the Kurzweils are programmed, it's very hard to tell. While the Korgs over the past decade have had the best patches out of the box, the Kuzweils have been a very close second, and I attribute that to the VAST synth engine, and it doesn't hurt that there are megabytes of free patches floating around the net for Kurz synths. VAST is just incredible, much like a modular synth on steroids, and will do quite a few tricks the M3 can't. The M3 might have a bit more beef in the low end, but I bet that's all EQ. I'll have to say though that Korg has been very good with giving their synths some expressive sounding wave samples, and usually a two layer patch on a Korg synth sounds as big as one using three or four layers on something else, which is very handy for a programmer who wants to do big orchestrations.

While the M3 has the awesome EXB-Radias synth board, the PC3 has its own VA-1 built in with more polyphony and more VAST-ish synth parameters, plus it has filters modeled from Moog, Arp and Oberheim. It also has a very good organ model built in. On the K series, with the organ model engaged, you only had something like eight synth voices available, though with the 128 voices of the PC3, I'm not sure how this works out. Need to find that manual online. I also really dig having so many insert effects available, and though only one per patch in Performance Mode, usually I only use one on my other synths anyway. Both synths sound very clear.

One person here did choose the PC3 over the M3, and I can see why. For programmers like me, the PC3 offers a much deeper resource. If I'd known at the time that the PC3 wasn't just a performance keyboard, but a successor to the K series, I might have bought it instead of the M3, and got it later. While not too many people want to wrangle with a synth engine as twiddly as a modular, the fools, I think the main differences are that the PC3 offers a few more options with effects, and includes an honest to goodness organ model, plus a few more controls like more sliders and buttons. I think it also offers a 10s Hold function, so you can call up patches with one button press, which is something I miss on the M3.

As a guy who just can't say no to a new synth, I really think having at least two is the way to go, and having either the M3 or PC3 as a main synth and something else to go with it. But then, everything brings something grand to the table. Roland has its incredible ROM boards, and I dearly love the orchestral samples. The Yamaha has some of the best keyboard and drum samples, and very nice effects. The Korgs are all around best of everything with great ROMS, great filters, great effects and a great sequencer. The Kurzweil is the best, deepest synthesizer there is, this side of a Nord or Moog Modular, and then it still does more. Of course, then there's the OASYS which is in a class all its own...

[Synthoid]

A question about the Fantom G--I've not heard anyone comment on this yet.

Does it offer anything "new and exciting" in the arpeggiator department? The M3 has Karma and drum tracks, a winning combination, and the Motif XS has 4 arpeggiators... what does the Fantom G have to compete with that?

Using the sequencer doesn't count.