Korg Forums

After the winter NAMM announcing the Fantom G. Which workstation would you go for?

both

I have to go with the G. After owning a Triton Rack, Karma, Triton Studio 88 and a Triton Extreme, I was really looking forward to the M3. Obviously this is my opinion, but to me it feels like a step backwards from the Triton Extreme. It seems to have more in common with the original Triton (sound-wise) than the Oasys (which I have played and love the sound of)...and frankly, I'm sick of the sound of the Triton at this point!

...

Wow...that's unanimous.

obviously , the voters have spent time Actually Playing the G

Must be related to Roland employees

Sina172 wrote:
You pretty much said what I was going to say so I'm gonna quote you here. The Fantom-G is, how should I say? A revolution as a Workstation Keyboard.

I would suggest waiting until you actually get a chance to demo the Fantom-G before you classify it as a "revolutionary" keyboard.

At least from my perspective, the most important aspect of any keyboard is its sounds, and I would want to actually play a G and X side-by-side.

...

I own an M3 at the moment, and I can't even believe they are in the same price bracket!

In terms of features, I would say the Fantom G is way ahead of the M3!!!

I think that Karma as a concept has pretty much had it's day and not too sure there is any more room for improvement there. Unless you know how to use it, it is far too complicated for my liking, and music production and creation should be easy!!

As mentioned hundreds of times, the sequencer is getting very dated in comparison to the competition, so I believe that Korg is definately going to have to "up the ante" ALOT with the next workstation release!

Good luck Korg.

I must say that I have been an avid Korg fan for the last 5 years. But now, I think I may be moving over to Roland. Yes, the Fantom G is not an Oasys, but it has far more features than the M3, and is the same price. I think that is a no brainer for me!!

BOTH!!! THEY SOUND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!

I would get the Fantom-G keyboard and M3 module

Some of you have been comparing M3 to Oasys! Not good: most people can't afford the Oasys.

I think we're making the comparison because Korg does:

"The M3 features a number of innovations distilled from the flagship OASYS including the new EDS (Enhanced Definition Synthesis) sound generator derived from the HD-1 engine design"

Even presenters in the videos from various trade shows call it "the Oasys synth engine baked onto a chip." I don't think that's accurate. I think it's more like Triton II....been there/done that.

The most interesting thing it has going for it is Karma 2. Love it or hate it, it was a brilliantly executed idea.

Hello there,

based on the features,i'll go for the fantom g.it almost have everything i was expecting the M3 to have especially the seamless patch change which is a great advantage in playing live.it also have huge multieffects in their live mode compared to M3's 5 insert effects(although with addition of 1TFx and independent eq per program) in the combi which for me is limiting considering it can combine up to 16 programs in that mode.i never planned to buy a Roland board before,but because of these specs that they included in their new fantom it made me think otherwise.Add to that the less quality build of the M3 according to some user experiences(but i guess its not in the majority so maybe never mind this one).

"I think that Karma as a concept has pretty much had it's day and not too sure there is any more room for improvement there. Unless you know how to use it, it is far too complicated for my liking, and music production and creation should be easy!!"

Hummmmm? If music production and creation was easy then everyone would be doing it. I don't buy into this concept that it should be easy. It should be as difficult as it needs to be to facilitate a quality end product. Karma's complexity is what gives it creative value. What ever happened to the concept of practicing for hours in the day for years to develop your chops and being able to produce music that is interesting and of value. If you make it too easy then music as a whole becomes mediocre at best and crap at worst.

My 2 cents

Nitecrawler

Hummmmm? If music production and creation was easy then everyone would be doing it. I don't buy into this concept that it should be easy. It should be as difficult as it needs to be to facilitate a quality end product. Karma's complexity is what gives it creative value. What ever happened to the concept of practicing for hours in the day for years to develop your chops and being able to produce music that is interesting and of value. If you make it too easy then music as a whole becomes mediocre at best and crap at worst.

So you are saying that if something is easy, then you will be able to create a masterpiece from it instantly. It also takes talent, and some people got it, and some people aint. So regardless of the instrument they are playing, they will produce a great sound, or rubbish!

I just don't really think that Karma is an inspriational piece of software. It puts too many barriers in the way for my liking. Karma is not supposed to be a musical instrument on it's own, it is supposed to compliment the M3. So many times I have come accross elements of Karma that I like, only to find that they are near impossible to reproduce again exactly as before, and with obstacles like that, I can't really be bothered with it.