Roland Fantom-G vs. Korg M3

[IntrepidPete]

I am about to purchase the FG over the M3. Would love it if M3 owners would chime in on any assumptions I am making that are off base.

Price: About the same, it’s a draw.
Patches: Same 256MB and both can be expanded, it’s a draw.
Sequencer: FG wins, 128 midi tracks and 28 audio tracks.
Audio Recording: FG wins, 28 audio tracks. M3 “in track sampling” is mentioned, but I cannot get any details, so I am predicting it’s one of those “you can do it, but it’s a pain and does not work well” kinds of things.
Display: Touch screen on M3 is cool, but FG wins because of 800x480 wide-VGA screen.
User Navigation: Touch screen on M3 is cool, but FG wins because you can plug in a USB mouse and it’s just like using Cakewalk on your computer.
Pads and Sliders: One has more sliders, but the other has more pads, I’ll call this a draw.
Inputs/Outputs: FG wins because of XLR input with phantom power. All other ins/outs are about the same.
Effects: Kaoss XY effects on M3 are cool, but FG wins because of that “patch remain” feature and 22 simultaneous effects. All my current gear sounds bad if you try to change patches mid-flight, and based on discussion boards, it appears M3 also has that issue. I already have a KP3, so I can do the XY effects thing anyway.
Phrase Pattern Player: Both boards have midi phrase and sample loop triggering features, it’s a draw.
Polyphony: 120 on M3 and 128 on FG, it’s a draw. Obviously poly gets cut when you layer and such.
Arpeggiator: Karma on M3 looks/sounds outstanding, but I call this a draw because you have to buy computer software to make arps. FG only has basic arp, but at least I can edit them on the board, mute steps, and I can turn midi into an arp pattern. Making a simple arp of 16th notes is really the fun part anyway - I predict trying to make a Karma GE using the software would turn into drudgery, like trying to make a style for an arranger board.
Expansion: ARX boards on FG are too expensive. EXB-RADIAS on M3 takes the lead, but then falters when you find out it’s missing all the gate arpeggio fun stuff of the real Radias, but it still wins in the end because at least it has VA synth filter-sweeping sounds at a reasonable price. FG cannot do VA.
USB: I think M3 wins because of the 3 USB ports, 1 to go to computer for midi driver and librarian, 1 for external storage on HD or thumb-drive, and 1 for a CD burner. I say “think” it wins, because I fear that the direct sampling and sample loading from USB won’t really work as well as I envision. It sounds too good to be true. If it was really that great, folks would just plug in a $99 500GB USB HD and there would be no need to expand the internal memory.
Module: I think M3 wins, because you can take the module off and use it as a tabletop unit via midi controller. I say “think”, because I have fear that it would not really work as expected. My controller does not have a ribbon, so obviously I would loose all the cool stuff you can do with the ribbon. Why does the module connect to the board through a proprietary cable, not midi? Makes me think there would be latency issues or some other problems when using M3 as a module via midi controller.
Keybed and Sound Quality: I won’t get into this. You have to try out the key action and hear the sounds for yourself to decide how springy/stiff it is or decide if the grand piano patch is any good.
Velocity Switching Multi Samples: It’s a draw. I have seen demos of both playing some acoustic guitar patch and they sound amazing.

Thanks for any feedback. Deep down I would prefer to purchase the M3, since it looks great, sounds great, KARMA demos are outstanding, and module can be used as semi-portable tabletop unit, but on paper it appears that the FG has it beat. Am I off base on any of the stuff listed above?

[CfNorENa]

Deep down I would prefer to purchase the M3 . . . but on paper it appears that the FG has it beat.

After reading through your thorough comparison, I was not expecting to find this conclusion about your true preference! I'll just chime in to remind you that you're not buying a car or a refrigerator, but a musical instrument. Specs are only part of the equation.

It sounds like your mind is telling you Fantom, but your heart is telling you M3. Follow your heart.

[BasariStudios]

On anything you said i think you are pretty much correct.

[drama1]

As far as patch-hold feature, the M3 can ABSOLUTELY do this with the Karma buttons. I use this feature at every live gig. I hate synths that cut off sound when swithing programs/combs. Plus the M3 has Radias. Nuff said about VA.

[Synthoid]

It all comes down to what works for you. (The Fantom-G is quite a bit more expensive by the way.)

Two years ago I spent time auditioning the M3, Fantom-G and Motif XS. The M3 had the best wow factor for me (sounds, KARMA, touch screen, ease of use, etc.) over the other two. I thought the Motif XS offered slightly better piano, guitar and acoustic sounds but I prefer a more synthetic feel to my music anyway. Besides, Yamaha's file system and sequencer aren't very user-friendly. I eventually bought a Motif (after buying the M3), but it's been a slow learning experience compared to the M3.

The Fantom-G looks impressive both in person and on paper, but the sounds seem rather vanilla to me and the fact that it has such a basic arpeggiator is a turn off. Roland dropped the ball there...

[Shakil]

I have both Fantom-G and M3m....

Reading the list, I see you have a lot of wrong assumptions about Fantom-G, some +, some -....

Price: About the same, it’s a draw.
Fantom-G is more expensive

Patches: Same 256MB and both can be expanded, it’s a draw.
I don't know by patches you mean sampling memory.. Fantom-G has upto 1GB, but can load only 2000 samples in a project. M3 has upto 256 MB RAM, but can load a lot more samples.

Sequencer: FG wins, 128 midi tracks and 28 audio tracks.
FG could be a winner, but not due to 128 MIDI and 28 Tracks.... it's due to dedicated parts for external midi. Currently, there are a lot of editing features are missing, that were there before. The sequencer structure is phrase based, not track based. So, even though you have 128 MIDI tracks, there are still only 16 internal parts (timbers). I would call it a draw on overall functionality

Audio Recording: FG wins, 28 audio tracks. M3 “in track sampling” is mentioned, but I cannot get any details, so I am predicting it’s one of those “you can do it, but it’s a pain and does not work well” kinds of things.
Yes FG has 24 stereo audio tracks, but remember it is RAM based, no hard disk, or flash card. So, you still take space from RAM, and audio tracks are stored as sampled in RAM which count towards 2000 samples limit in a project.

Display: Touch screen on M3 is cool, but FG wins because of 800x480 wide-VGA screen.
You could call it draw. M3 screen functions as x-y controller as well..That's $200 right there for just that functionality

User Navigation: Touch screen on M3 is cool, but FG wins because you can plug in a USB mouse and it’s just like using Cakewalk on your computer.
Don't fool yourself. The mouse support in FG is nice, but is no where close to Cakewalk or other computer DAW. USB qwerty keyboard would be more useful

Pads and Sliders: One has more sliders, but the other has more pads, I’ll call this a draw.
Again.... The pads on Fantom-G are just on/off switches. The velocity response is random. And the sliders are much more functional on M3

Inputs/Outputs: FG wins because of XLR input with phantom power. All other ins/outs are about the same.
No, not same. M3 has an extra pair of analog outs. Also, Fantom-G has USB audio interface built-in. No expansion card required

Effects: Kaoss XY effects on M3 are cool, but FG wins because of that “patch remain” feature and 22 simultaneous effects. All my current gear sounds bad if you try to change patches mid-flight, and based on discussion boards, it appears M3 also has that issue. I already have a KP3, so I can do the XY effects thing anyway.
Don't fool yourself. The Fantom-G effects system is flawed. It's missing too many things. No presets, not copy/paste, effects disappear when you change patch on a part. Yes, there are 16 IFXs, but most of them are being used as EQs, which M3 already has for each timber..... Plus the routing is not flexible. You can't chain effects like on M3.

Phrase Pattern Player: Both boards have midi phrase and sample loop triggering features, it’s a draw.
Again... not a draw. Fantom-G has RPS which allows only 16 keys or pads to use any phrase as pattern. The phrase is played on midi channels that are recorded into those. You can't say play this phrase on internal midi, and the other on midi out. You are stuck with whatever part was recorded in phrase. M3 has RPPR that can be used on any keys on the keyboard or pad. The difference is that M3 patterns are single channel, while RPS on Fantom-G can be upto 64 parts, 16 internal, 16 external, 16 ARX1, 16 ARX2).

Polyphony: 120 on M3 and 128 on FG, it’s a draw. Obviously poly gets cut when you layer and such.
Audio tracks on FG take polyphony as well

Arpeggiator: Karma on M3 looks/sounds outstanding, but I call this a draw because you have to buy computer software to make arps. FG only has basic arp, but at least I can edit them on the board, mute steps, and I can turn midi into an arp pattern. Making a simple arp of 16th notes is really the fun part anyway - I predict trying to make a Karma GE using the software would turn into drudgery, like trying to make a style for an arranger board.
KARMA is not a style like in arranger board. It's much more. Also, note that FG can have only 1 Arp at one time.

Expansion: ARX boards on FG are too expensive. EXB-RADIAS on M3 takes the lead, but then falters when you find out it’s missing all the gate arpeggio fun stuff of the real Radias, but it still wins in the end because at least it has VA synth filter-sweeping sounds at a reasonable price. FG cannot do VA.

USB: I think M3 wins because of the 3 USB ports, 1 to go to computer for midi driver and librarian, 1 for external storage on HD or thumb-drive, and 1 for a CD burner. I say “think” it wins, because I fear that the direct sampling and sample loading from USB won’t really work as well as I envision. It sounds too good to be true. If it was really that great, folks would just plug in a $99 500GB USB HD and there would be no need to expand the internal memory.
USB on FG provides audio interface to computer as well. 2 in/ 2 out channels. You can hook a mic on back, and record audio in a DAW, or in Fantom-G's sequencer. But you gotta make sure of the file structure of both. There is no way on FG to share one sound or a combi, like you can do on M3. You have to share the whole project

Module: I think M3 wins, because you can take the module off and use it as a tabletop unit via midi controller. I say “think”, because I have fear that it would not really work as expected. My controller does not have a ribbon, so obviously I would loose all the cool stuff you can do with the ribbon. Why does the module connect to the board through a proprietary cable, not midi? Makes me think there would be latency issues or some other problems when using M3 as a module via midi controller.
I use M3m via MIDI, and it works fine. One thing missing on M3 is OMNI mode. So, if you are using external keyboard, you have to set MIDI channel both on keyborad and on module to be same. When you change track in sequencer, you have to change midi out channel on keyboard as well. This has it's own + and -. FG has Remote Keyboard switch.

Keybed and Sound Quality: I won’t get into this. You have to try out the key action and hear the sounds for yourself to decide how springy/stiff it is or decide if the grand piano patch is any good.
I use FG 6 and I like the keyboard much more than the TRITON and Fantom-X series. It's much quieter on the way back. M3 keyboard is good as well. Sound quality is subjective.

Hope this helps.

[carlgoodhines]

Korg has offered hundreds (not sure of mB measurement) of patches for FREE. Last I looked, you had to buy these from Roland or a 3rd party for your FG.

[McHale]

Everybody missed the biggest selling point of the M3:

If you buy it, you can hang out here and ask all the questions you want. If you order the Fantom, 99% of us won't be able to help you here.

Play them both. A LOT. You'll figure it out soon enough...

[Citizen Klaus]

Display: Touch screen on M3 is cool, but FG wins because of 800x480 wide-VGA screen.

Don't discount the everyday usability of that touch screen. Have you demo'ed both the M3 and the FG? I personally found that while the G's screen certainly was beautiful, navigation was much easier on the M3. You can touch any parameter to immediately select it for editing, and you can perform many functions entirely using the screen.

And yes, the Fantom has that USB mouse support, but then you need a place to put the mouse.

Keybed and Sound Quality: I won’t get into this. You have to try out the key action and hear the sounds for yourself to decide how springy/stiff it is or decide if the grand piano patch is any good.

Indeed. If you haven't already demo'ed the two boards in your preferred keybed style, you should do so at first opportunity. I can't comment on the 88-key versions -- I'm not a pianist -- but the 61- and 73-key M3s have the firmest synth-style action I've ever played. It's glorious, and what initially turned me on to the M3. As soon as I laid hands on those keys, I knew I'd have to get one, eventually.

Personally, I think action is one of the most important considerations when choosing a board like this, especially considering that both the M3 and the Fantom are pretty formidable master keyboards. You can always get additional modules or softsynths if the sounds aren't quite to your taste, but you'll be using the keybed every day. And life's too short to be stuck playing an action that you don't like.

[IntrepidPete]

Price: I was wrong about it being a draw, looks more like a $400 difference. M3 wins.
Audio Tracks: No 40GB HD on the FG, so all the audio tracks are just going into RAM with everything else. It’s still nice to have the audio tracks on the FG, but they might not be as great as I was thinking, those tracks would all still need to be loaded just as if they were samples.
In Track Sampling on M3: Was sort of hoping someone might jump in saying “I do that all the time, it works great”, but I have a feeling it’s one of those things that is difficult and nobody ever does.
Display: Was thinking the 800x480 screen and USB mouse on FG would make using the sequencer a dream, but maybe I was not giving enough credit to the idea of doing direct manipulation of stuff on the M3’s touchscreen. I should give the touchscreen more credit.
Pads: If velocity sensitivity on FG pads is an issue, then that is a big deal because pads are used for everything these days, not just playing drum patches. I can’t play chords from a pad if the velocity is no good.
Patch/Effect Hold: Maybe I had that wrong? Can the M3 do that same thing the FG does in it’s demo - play a song live, switch patches and have the previous sound/effect fade nicely into the new patch?
Arp: Thanks a bunch for letting me know the FG can only have 1 arp going. As I understand it, the M3 has 4 Karma modules, so I assume that means 4 Karma GEs can be running at the same time.
Tabletop Unit: Sounds like hooking up the M3 module to your controller via midi works just fine, it’s just that you have to set midi channels and set send/receive on channels and that kind of thing.
Demo: Wish I could demo the board(s). I miss the days when I was in a town with 4 nice music stores. Now I live in a town with only 1 store, and they only handle Yamaha - I can’t touch any Roland or Korg gear, just have to buy online based on hearing MP3s, watching Flash videos, and asking you guys a bunch of questions. Thanks again for all this feedback - great forum!

[Citizen Klaus]

In Track Sampling on M3: Was sort of hoping someone might jump in saying “I do that all the time, it works great”, but I have a feeling it’s one of those things that is difficult and nobody ever does.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to take advantage of in-track sampling, but I do use the sampler all the time to resample finished tracks to WAV. As I understand it, the procedure for in-track sampling is quite similar -- if so, it's a breeze. Not exactly a one-button operation -- more like a four-button one -- but easy nonetheless once you've gotten the hang of it.

Arp: Thanks a bunch for letting me know the FG can only have 1 arp going. As I understand it, the M3 has 4 Karma modules, so I assume that means 4 Karma GEs can be running at the same time.

That's true in combi or seq mode. In program mode, you only get 1 KARMA GE at a time. Note also that the cool thing about KARMA modules in combi and seq mode is that each can be routed to a seperate MIDI channel. You've got a lot of versatility there for driving external gear or softsynths.

[Shakil]

InTrack Sampling vs Audio Tracks on Fantom-G....
Fantom-G definitely wins.... but you have to remember the limitations. One majore difference between the two is that even though Fantom-G's audio tracks are samples based from RAM, they are still true audio tracks. That means that you can start them from any point and they will play. On M3 the intrack sampling must be retriggered from the begining.

Also, the Fantom-G audio tracks are auto tempo synced. You can change the tempo without affecting the pitch.

But, you don't get audio track automation in Fantom-G. To get automation you have to use the audio track as a sample in MIDI track, that will be same like intrack sampling on M3.

[Gargamel314]

the difference in the sounds in the M3 and the FG are drastically different. this really should be a large part of your decision, i remember listening to the one and thinking "wow this really wouldn't do at all for me." I really want to urge you to find a way of trying both instruments out, even if it means driving an hour away from home to demo them. just listening to the demos isn't quite the same, since the way each one responds to your playing is an important aspect to keep in mind. If you really live out in the boonies and can't get to either one, definitely listen to the demo sequences from both, and watch the demo videos in great detail, even though i'm sure you've done your homework on these two instruments.

I don't have a good one for the Fantom, but this is a really informative video if you haven't seen it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwmv9tDhzjY

[McHale]

I don't have a good one for the Fantom, but this is a really informative video if you haven't seen it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwmv9tDhzjY

That was one of the videos that convinced me to get mine. And Rich does awesome demos and tutorials.

-Mc

[Hugo]

Just to chip in: I had some initial concerns about the effects implementation in the M3, but having used it for a couple of days now I must say it opens up for some mindbending possibilities. The Fantom G is no doubt an excellent machine, but for me the M3 was the better option of the big 3.