Fantom G and OASYS

[Mike Conway]

I'm sure people will be comparing and asking questions. I have a few observations and opinions.

Is this the "OASYS Killer"? There are definitely some cool, cool features, but........no.

I really like the new 480 tppq sequencer and the number of FX routings (up to 22, I believe!) I won't lie - this looks killer and could be the best hardware sequencer, ever - 128 tracks, including 24 audio tracks and USB streaming. And, it works with a mouse. Nice. So far, I don't see any per track EQs, like the OASYS, but we'll see as more info comes out.

Someone asked if you could sing along with your guitar and route each to different tracks. The early answer seems to be "No." The OASYS can easily do that, along with a couple of other simultaneous instruments. I don't think the G can touch the O's routing/Bus system.

Sample set is 256 megs compressed to 128 megs @ 44.1khz. I'm kind of surprised because last year's Motif XS has a bigger wave ROM, at 355mb, supposedly losslessly compressed. The OASYS has lossless compression and around 1.1 gigs of sounds @ 48khz as standard. (Not including options like EXs3 brass.) It definitely trumps in sound quality.

Still missing from the Fantom G is some sort of VA synth. I have no idea if the filters have been improved. The big plus is that the ARX plugins have their own poly and architecture. Maybe the future has a VA in it. Maybe not. Right now, there are 2 cards - Electric Piano and Drums. The optional drum card's parameters appear to have V-Drums' type architecture. Very cool.

Projects and samples are RAM based and seem to be saved to USB 2 media, like Jump Drives. I don't know what the sample/audio track loading speed is. I'm guessing the OASYS' processor and internal hard drive are a lot faster. I've noted that samples loaded from the O's internal HD can load at a rate of about 700mbs in 30 seconds.

The 8.5" screen looks very nice and is big for a price that competes with the M3 line. It is not touch sensitive, but that would have raised the price. The M3 has a couple of aces with the X/Y screen functions and VA (radias) add on capability.


How do I feel about the OASYS, now? Really good. Though I hope there is further development and a sequencer update, I still think the sound quality is noticeably tops. (Now that I'm so used to it, I immediately notice a difference in other synths, though I've only heard the Fantom G in a video.)

Synthwise, no hardware, I can think of, touches the O. Most of you are already aware that the Organ model is great, as are the VAs, STR-1 and the incredible Mod-7. I find the HD-1, its filters and Wave Sequencing very expressive and clean. In Song/Combi mode, drums and synths can be routed to other synth engines. This old OASYS still does a lot of things that won't be challenged for a while.

I don't know about Project/Song mode, since it can use all FX sends, but Studio and Single modes on the G can switch and not get cutoff, because those modes don't use all the FX. The video shows some nice performance switchovers, with no cutoff. Poly is still 128, but up to 2 card plugins can add to that. It's kind of ashame that the plugins max out at two and there are no SRX slots.


There was another thread that was asking what synth would go good with an OASYS. I still think the V-Synth, because it offers a truly unique capability. However, those who compose on hardware could make a nice pairing with the G and the O. The G has a strong emphasis on composing and performance. Those who use software DAWs and sequencers are already set, though all those FX might be enticing.

[curvebender]

Well put Mike, my very thoughts.

You know, for the first time in many years, I don't feel the need for new gear from NAMM!

And I suspect my Oasys is to blame..

[tonybanks]

Frome the specs, the only pros I see is the avalaibility of a 61 keys model ( I do not use seq).
I find the Fantom G very ugly looking.

[baboon]

Choose between the oasys and new products from the namm?
Mike is looking for a new synth?Oasys past?

[tritex4]

Overall, there won't be any workstations to compete with the OASYS, anytime soon.
I'm sure Roland didn't intend for the Fantom G to be an OASYS killer, as another topic "The OASYS Killer ?" eluded to.
I suspect it was meant to give the M3 a run for it's money.........an M3 killer, if you would.

The USB mouse implementation on the Fantom G is a nice feature.
I wish that that feature had appeared on a Korg machine first, though.
It would be nice if Korg could add the feature, through a software upgrade.
How cool would that be?

[curvebender]

Speaking of USB:

Why can't Korg implement MIDI via USB on the OASYS?...

[erikv]

Ok the Fantom G might not be a direct Oasys Killer. However will it not serve as a far better centre of your studio? The current specs say that the sequencer is even improved over the old Fantom's (that was already very good). So, independent of the sound quality (which we still have to wait for), the supposedly very good sequencer, might just be a very good selling point compared to the Oasys. I mean for the price of an Oasys, I can buy a Fantom G and a Vsynth GT, and presumable still have some money left.

I sure hope, Korg will take this as a good incentive to improve the Oasys' sequencer to the state of the art level you would expect on such a workstation (and maybe consider activating the Ethernet port - for PC communication?). To be honest, I do not care of additional synth models that much (there are already enough models in there to keep me busy for a while), compared to an improved sequencer. So Korg, please update the sequencer in Oasys 1.4

I was planning on buying an Oasys when my homestudio is finished, but will wait to see whether the Fantom G / Vsynth GT combination actually lives up to the Oasys - we'll have to wait and hear..

[thekeymaster]

I'm with you on this one as well Mike,most of your observations are similar to mine.I dont think the G was released to be anything but a competitor to the Motif EX and M3.To start comparing it to OASYS is a little silly really but everything released by the competing companies will always be seen as such because as much as most people hate to admit,the OASYS is the defacto when it comes to workstations.We know its not beyond criticism,hell we have all got our gripes but it was and still is the best hardware workstation ever released.

Now from a sound perspective until I hear a G its gonna be all guess work but I will say this,from what has been reported so far Roland seem to have built the engine from the ground up,redone all the selected samples from Fantom,SRX and added new additions.They seem to have made an effort in making it a cleaner,crisper,punchier engine.For me this is all good but I have asked a question on the Roland Clan forums to Jim Stout who was very enthusiastic about the G's sound.......... he was stating that it is very Roland but very different from Fantom X,in fact way,way better.So,I asked if the difference was comparable to the OASYS and Triton.I have had no response yet but if it is that good then it would feed my curiosity somewhat,somehow though I cant see it myself.

I think the OASYS will still have the best sounding engine,plus it has such a vast array of other synths to it that the G will never really be on the same level from this perspective.

Ok,the seq.Yep I'm gonna admit it and my feelings on this issue are well documented,as good as the OASYS is and for all its spec in regard to its Audio and seq capabilities Roland in my eyes have always produced the best hardware seq.The G's seems to be the next step up .from what ive seen so far this is where Korg could learn a hell of alot from thire competitor.The screen and mouse option looks fantastic,the way you edit on the Fantom X was good but this just looks amazing.I know this is where the Fantom series will always be my fave.Roland have got it right.

Effects though have been improved too and I welcome the 16 effx units but I love Korgs routing abilities and as much as Roland have seen fit to provide the extra effects I bet you can only use 1 effx unit per part and then the global reverb,chorus and multi effx.......its still a good system but the Korg way is so much better.Still effx per part,I should'nt be moaning really should I.The OASYS cant do that.

I like the USB 2.0 addition and the ability to use the Audio/midi capabilities to a computer.The USB flash drives should be wayyyyyyyy quicker than compact flash for loading of data as well.The new modes seem good as well ,especially LIVE and STUDIO modes.the LIVE mode reminds me of my fave midi controller of all time the A90ex.

Its arps and RPS features seem to be slightly improved but it doesn't have KARMA,it never will either.

Like has been stated it has some great features,maybe the Fantom G and V-Synth GT option could be a good one for some,I would go for that if I did'nt already have what I have,it makes a good combination but I think the Fantom G should be classed as an EX or M3 killer, not OASYS.

Anyway after all this typing I have the best option available to me anyway,I have a Fantom X8.I gig with it and was looking to sell it because I need to reduce the weight we carry around with us.I was looking to have an X7 and carry my OASYS 76 with it. They both together weigh less than the X8 in a full flight case.60 kg for the X8 with case...OUCH!!

My solution now,I'm getting a G7 with my OASYS 76,the best of both worlds and a killer set up!!!!!!!!

Don't you just love equipment.

[Mike Conway]

Choose between the oasys and new products from the namm?
Mike is looking for a new synth?Oasys past?

Oh no way!!! I do like the G, but I'm not going to buy it. My purpose in posting was to point out the continuing strengths of the OASYS, for those wondering about the latest from the competition. People may wonder if this will affect prices. New people might wonder if the OASYS is a good choice, so I state why.

I'll be straight up with you - I used to be a fan boy........, a Yamaha fan boy. That company was taking FM and Physical modelling into some uncharted territory and then they stopped. They started making ROMplers.

I didn't just say one day that I liked Korg. They earned me as a customer, with the Triton and MOSS. While other companies were going the way of VAs and ROMplers, Korg was coming on with some cool technologies that grew on me. Man, did they take that to the next level.

My longtime dream was to have a super synth workstation. It had to have plenty of FX and a nice wave library that spanned orchestral, pop, etc. It had to have alternate forms of synthesis. I wanted to be able to make songs with just it. Enter OASYS. It grows every year. As far as I'm concerned, it is a modern day Synclavier - and in many ways, it's better!

One thing that I liked about the OASYS, was that it set a bar. Even if most people wouldn't be able to afford it, they would demand that someone build another workstation to close in on its abilities. Development is good for everyone. Korg pushes Roland and Yamaha, they counter back and so on. We musicians get more powerful tools, with better interfaces.

One of the people who ordered the DVD said that he was playing it on his rather large surround system and he couldn't believe the audio quality of the demos. I've heard that about a few songs that I composed on the OASYS. All that talk about the reinterpolated 16 bit sample oscillators, 32 bit effects and 24 bit outputs actually means something when you hear the audio quality of a mix done on it.

As to the subject at hand, I've owned a Fantom, so I am impressed by the new board. Take away the sequencer and you have a very compressed ROM set, sampled at a slightly lower frequency. It can't sound like an OASYS, because it can't match the fidelity or the myriad of synth options. I just appreciate it for what it is.

Like Curvebender said - the OASYS takes away your G.A.S. for other products. It's so true. I keep a bunch of synths in my back room that I hardly touch anymore. If something happened to the OASYS, I have some backup, though I don't want to go back to lesser quality and keyhole menus. The OASYS is powerful and immediate, once you understand it.

Anyway, I'm a fan of most synths and I give credit where credit is due. I try to find out what I can about them and get to know them. That doesn't mean that I lose sight of what the OASYS can do. Quite the opposite - I think it is one of a kind.

[Kevin Nolan]

Hi Mike,

I broadly agree with your points.

It is a huge testimony to OASYS that, three years on, it is still a significantly spec'd workstation beyond other instruments in most respects.

That said, tight integration to computer DAW environments is an attractive feature of both the Fantom G (and of the M3 for that matter), as are access to USB/Firewire two-way comms (I agree that the OASYS is an entire solution so this is not a priority to many, but none the less I believe would enhance both OASYS and any DAW).

I also feel that the Fantom-G sequencer is highly desirable for anyone looking to harness a workstation fully independently. It definitely exposes the OASYS in this regard.

I have also personally felt that, although very welcome in their own right, MOD-7 and EXs3 are not as progressive as I would have liked, and all the more so when compared to how Roland have recently redefined their approach to hard-ware synths. I'm referreing to the V-Synth GT, VP550 and the new SuperNatural aspects of the Fantom 6. To me these are significant advances in playability and expressivness that compare well to Vector Synthesis, the real-time control associated with STR-1 in particular, and Karma.

Hence I feel that Roland are definitely on separate yet significant and substantial path toward the future of hardware synthesis that echos the greats of the past such as their own Jupiter 8 or the Yamaha CS80 for pure performance experience, and I'm personally very excited about that (and will probably purchase all three Roland synthesizers mentioned above for upcoming projects). I would like to see the remainder of OASYS updates similarly address how to harness its internal power though a better sequencer and new, killer sound sets for the existing synth engines (especially MOD-7 which I find very complex to program effectively) that provide significant capabilities for realtime performance through its keyboard, pads, ribbon controller, joystick, fader and knobs. To me, all of these incredible realtime controllers are mostly unused when playing programs and combi's (when Karma is off) and represents a significant untapped performance aspect of the OASYS.

Korg did it three years ago with OASYS and I believe Roland are doing it now albeit in a slightly lower key fashion (when coompared to just how revolutionary OASYS has been) - that is - redefining how to provide superlative performance capabilties on cutting edge hardware synthesizers. Roland are back with a vengence in this regard and I very much welcome the V-Synth GT and Fantom G into the same domain as OASYS and great synthesizers of the past such as the Minimoog, CS80, SY77 and VL1 for performance. I genuinely believe Roland are onto something substantial that is brave and that will keep the hardware synth alive.

That said, as is, the OASYS is so deep and of such absolute and vast quality, flexability, depth and breadth that it is significant that three years after its release date is is still largely immeasurably beyond the spec of even te very latest releases by the very established Roland ad Yamaha. I would not have expected that when OASYS was released and it is a clear indication as to just how deep Korg dug when defining, designing and implementing OASYS. As said, I just hope Korg devote their remaining update resources to provide value-add to performing the OASYS's already staggering internal capabilities.

Kevin.

[Mike Conway]

Well said, Kevin.

On another thread, I pointed out that the Fantom G only has 2 slots. If it had 6 - 8 slots for the new plug in cards, it could have given the OASYS synths a run for the money. The ARX cards aren't just samples, but synth engines with their own architecture and added polyphony.

Imagine if Roland eventually released a VA card and several other types of modelling cards? You could have something very close to the OASYS paradigm.....and at around $400 a pop, something close to the OASYS' price, too. But, if your Fantom ever broke down or got smashed, you could take those cards out and just pay for another base unit and have all your synths again. I think 2 slots is a missed opportunity for them.

I agree that with the V-Synth and COSM modelling, it's cool to see Roland evolving in their own direction.

[vEddY]

Hi Mike,
I broadly agree with your points.
It is a huge testimony to OASYS that, three years on, it is still a significantly spec'd workstation beyond other instruments in most respects.
That said, tight integration to computer DAW environments is an attractive feature of both the Fantom G (and of the M3 for that matter), as are access to USB/Firewire two-way comms (I agree that the OASYS is an entire solution so this is not a priority to many, but none the less I believe would enhance both OASYS and any DAW).
Kevin.

Somehow, after yesterday, I have some kind of "perspective" on some things. Maybe you guys missed this one:
http://it-review.net/index.php?option=c ... 0&Itemid=1

Now this is very interesting, really. I knew that Roland was already "in" but this move tells us something. I guess. If you were to draw conclusions based on reasonable assumptions, this is kind of expected. Now (Steinberg-Yamaha, Cakewalk-Roland), it makes me wonder about KORG's next moves. If KORG was to do the same - Logic is out of reach (Apple), and - I guess - Digidesign, as well (ProTools). Almost nowhere to go. And this is something that's really, really important. I don't see bundling Cubase LE with keyboards as being something feasible for the long term future, and it's happening, right now.

Up 'til today, "seamless" isn't exactly the term I'd use to describe the way KORG keyboards work with external sequencers (let's move on from the internal one for a second). People have often been forced to make their own stuff (.ins files and alikes), up to a point where you could find actual software from unsupported developpers on the 'net. Most of the keyboards don't have sound editors for PC/Mac, let alone VST/RTAS/AU. I'd really kill for OASYS/Triton/Trinity VST plugin/sound editor. As I'm sure most of you would. I know that it's a stretch and this would require enormous amount of coding and still - you can dream, right. But the way M3 works with DAW still makes me hopeful, especially for the future.

[tcornishmn]

I also agree that after owning the Oasys for so long, it takes a lot more to make me drool.

My big question is why do Roland and Yamaha ignore the tonewheel organ? That's about 50% of my playing time, and other than Roland's standalone VK series (which doesn't sound nearly as good as the Korg CX3) or Kurzweil's ancient KB3, Korg's the only player.

My situation is that I have gigged every week with my Oasys since July 2005, and while the Oasys has held up very well, I'm wondering about my lack of a good backup.

Like Mike, I have some other boards I could pull out, but my Kurz PC2 or ancient Roland XP-80 are both getting a little long in the tooth.

That's what keeps me interested in the lower-tiered stuff. I can't really justify a second Oasys, but in the next year or two I probably need a newer board as a backup.

[vEddY]

That's what keeps me interested in the lower-tiered stuff. I can't really justify a second Oasys, but in the next year or two I probably need a newer board as a backup.

I guess you could go with either M3 or Kurzweil PC3x? These seem like reasonable "second keyboards" (both in terms of price and performance) to me if OASYS is the primary one?

[Daz]

My first impression of the Fantom G is that it looks like a great platform for making music and it has many desirable features that many of us would be impress with, even Oasys owners. If you have to compete with the Motif XS, Korg M3, Korg Oasys and the myriad software competitors with just one piece, then the Fantom G looks a good stab at taking on all of those.

If I was looking for a workstation to use as a true workstation then it would be high on my list, probably ahead of Korg, but I use my Oasys as a synth more than a workstation so the Oasys is still top of the pile, because that is it's forte IMO. Having said that though, the Oasys really needs some TLC in certain areas that have fallen behind the competition from all corners and I am a little surprised that something along those lines wasn't at least announced yesterday to boost/revitalize the sales of the Oasys. I thought an OS 2.0 was on the cards, bringing computer integration, some function button action etc. Winter NAMM, to me, seemed like the natural time to announce that and effectively re-launch the Oasys, capitalizing on it's reputation gained thus far and ensure the sales keep flowing. Oh well, I am sure it's not over yet

Daz.