!!!NEW ROLAND fANTOM G

[NuSkoolTone]

Yeah, but it's still a Motif ... (now with a really slow screen) ...

 

 

Absolutley true! The ONLY thing I REALLY dig about the Motif is the soundset. There are a number of things about the Motif I'm not crazy about, however the bottom line is how it SOUNDS and Yamaha understands that. If the Roland G manages to sound just as good (unlikely given the ROM size) and does well importing samples, I'll probably go that route. I've never been crazy about the Motif as a "Workstation".

[MartinHines]

Of course these companies optimize the sample ROM as best they can, it would be wasteful and stupid not too. However you can only take it so far and there is a point where you "need" MORE space to properly represent an instrument. It is a cumulative effect and the more space you can dedicate to each instrument, the better the overall soundset will sound. (Usually, assuming quality measures are taken throughout the process) This is essentially why there are some that are critical of the ROM size. It's been said many times, but Yamaha really set a new bar with the soundset in the XS at 355MB ROM. The difference between it and other workstations IMO is quite noticeable and IME I attribute that directly to the ROM size.

 

I am all for increasing the amount of Sound ROM (to provide a broader range of instruments and more articulations of a given instrument), but the real issue is cost.

 

If the (relative) cost of Sound ROM chips were low, NONE of the MI manufacturers would compress their samples, since it does have some impact on the sound.

 

I suspect (but don't know for sure) the following:

-- Roland Fantom-G, 256MB Sound ROM (samples) stored on a 128MB chip (2:1 compression)

-- Korg M3, 256MB Sound ROM (samples) stored on a 128MB chip (2:1 compression)

-- Yamaha Motif XS, 355MB Sound ROM (samples) stored on a 256MB chip (variable compression**)

 

** Over at Motifator, Nathan Billias stated that Yamaha uses a variable compression method, which allows some samples to be less compressed than others (which implies compression has some impact on sound).

[Diametro]

Incidentally, I've never been fond of the Motif sound ... 'synthetic,' 'uninspired,' 'sterile,' and 'overhyped' are just a few adjectives that spring to mind ... Others may like it, but I'm for the most part unmoved ...

 

.. .. .. ..

 

It's not that I'm worried the Fantom G's 256 mb of WAV ROM is going to be subpar or underwhelming ... on the contrary, I'm sure its going to EXCELLENT, and I'm looking forward to the new material Roland will be introducing ...

 

But for a long time Roland workstation users have been used to being able to highly customize their soundsets via SRX ... And for the most part I think that method works ... I love my SRX-06 orchestral card, and the SRX-07 ultimate keys is also very worthwhile; the Dance and Studio cards also add some good material as well ...

 

But with only two ARX slots available

[lewey]

If this were a true statement, then why do ALL of the workstation manufacturers (Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Kurzweil) have "limited" amounts of Sound ROM?

 

 

Cause, as I said, they're assholes who put only a minimum required effort to stay afloat. They don't even bother to be better than a competitor, just try to level with him. Once they feel they reached that level, they stop RnD and put the product on market.

 

 

Your assumptions defy common sense. These companies are competitors of one another. Each one would love to crush the other with workstation sales. Given Korg and Yamaha released their new workstations last year, why wouldn't Roland simply add (in your estimation) $30 to the price so they could DOUBLE the Sound ROM of their competitors with the Fantom-G? That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Is it against all metaphysical laws to fit a board with extra whopping 256Mb of ROM (wow, increadible - 256Mb - that's never heard in 2008!!!), sample some more crap and put some sound designing maniac to write some patches? Do you think that once they try to fit another flash chip onto the board the whole thing explodes? Or when every sound designer they hire die when he tries to sample that extra sound for those extra 256Mb? Look at soundsonline - those companies pump they multi-Gb sound libraries every few months, and the amount of sampling work they do is worlds more complex than anything that required for workstation. The only thing they don't do is sample optimization to make it as small as possible (which is no big deal to everything else, I reckon)

 

 

P.S. -- I see you claim that a workstation like the Fantom-G should only cost $300 to produce. If so, PLEASE start your own electronic musical instrument manufacturing company. I would be more than happy to cut you a check for $500 for your "Fantom-G" exact clone, which would give you a profit of $200.

 

 

I meant $300 for the cost of actual parts+labor (RnD exluded). Putting in extra memory chip and few buttons on top of the case would cost them extra $5 for RnD and a free can of Mountain Dew for a case designer.

[lewey]

Yes! And Roland should just ADD a touchscreen, because, you know, a touchscreen is only $40 more wholesale. Because we all know that total development cost of a piece of gear is solely in the sum of its parts. C'mon, dude. I'm personally trying to get a line of products made right now. To make six fully-functional prototypes, my first box will cost my investors and I upwards of $600,000. You think I'm really using $100,000 worth of parts per prototype? Especially when it's supposed to MAP at $399? That must mean I get engineer salaries, marketing salaries, legal fees, a NAMM booth, and the hundreds of other things it takes to run an MI business for free .

 

Not to sound arrogant or condescending, but do you really put your amateurish efforts at making some kind of beeper at the same line as Roland?

 

It even more surprising, that you, claiming to be in the "workstation making business" , you don't see the difference between producing prototype and running a production line?

 

Either that or learn to read. Maybe you'll see I was talking about expanding something that is already there (memory size), not creating a completely new system part (screen).

 

Btw, good luck with your... errr... business.... it certainly gave you a lot of pompous credibility on this forum....

[MartinHines]

I meant $300 for the cost of actual parts+labor (RnD exluded).

 

Let's see. If we used my formula for retail pricing, your $300 keyboard would retail from between $900 (3x) and $1,500 (5x). The Fantom-G8 retails for $3,500, so your actual cost estimates are low.

 

You disputed my assertion that a $40 chip addition at manufacturing could result in a few hundred dollars price impact, but you can see (even using your underestimated costs) how additional parts costs impact the retail price in a "high markup" industry like this.

 

As I said before, given how confident you are about how "adding this" or "adding that" only adds a few dollars, I urge you to either start your own workstation company or contact Korg, Roland, or Yamaha with your "secret". I am sure Roland would be extremely happy to pay you to understand how they could manufacture the Fantom-G for only $300.

 

People see parts prices for the personal computer industry (whose industry is 1,000s of times larger than the electronic music industry) and assume all the work involved in creating a workstation is just buying a few cheap parts and slapping them together.

 

 

Another example I would give is OpenLabs. Their products are a close as you can get to a computer, but their prices are still very high compared to "normal" computer prices. Their current 61-key product, the Special Edition NekO is $5,000. Given YOUR pricing, surely they could sell these for $1,000 - $2,000 since they have no worldwide distribution or support, and the majority of their products are sold direct from their location in Austin, TX. Why isn't the neKo $1,000?

[The Audacity Works]

Not to sound arrogant or condescending, but do you really put your amateurish efforts at making some kind of beeper at the same line as Roland?

Huh? What does that even mean?

It even more surprising, that you, claiming to be in the "workstation making business", you don't see the difference between producing prototype and running a production line?

First of all, I'm not building anything close to as complicated as a workstation. I do, however, know more about product design and the manufacturing process than your average forum pundit. The point was that if you honestly believe it's a piece of cake for any MI company to "just add" sound ROM for the price of the raw materials, you're simply mistaken.

 

I'm not sure why Roland decided to limit the ROM to 256 MB. The most obvious answer is cost vs. price point (to anyone with any business acumen whatsoever), but if you insist the big three all employ a bunch of lazy sound designers, rock on with your bad self.

[mytee2.0]

hook, line and sinker...

[lewey]

Using your "all these things cost very little to add" logic, why didn't Roland add more than 2 ARX slots? Why didn't they include a bunch of empty SRX slots? The ONLY logical reason is COST.

I don't know... maybe, cause, as i said a few times, they're lazy assholes? Cause technologically there's not a single reason why they don't. They keep adding idiotic features that don't improve sound but cater to the n00b audience who just learning or want to toy (big shiny screens, USB crap, audio recording crap, other crap features), and ignore those few who only care about the sound (actual musicians). Apparently, n00b audince who simply has no idea how to compose actual music makes up a much larger market share, hence the dedication of resources to the development of crap features that cater to that audience instead of expanding sound palette.

No, it just adds too much to the retail price. Korg, Yamaha, and Roland are MASTERS of building products to specific price points.

No it doesn't any more than anything else.

Actually the work done by companies like EastWest is LESS COMPLEX. They may record a boatload of samples at different velocities then perform some editing, but their sound programming is nothing compared to work done by workstation manufacturers. I like the sound of products like East West, but when the size of their libraries are 1,000 times the size of workstation instrument samples, do the large sample products sound 1,000 times better? Absolutely not.

I knew somebody would bring this up. The only thing sample library don't do is compress the sound (so it stays in megabytes). But what they do, is hire musicians, and make them replay the same phrase (like those sympthonic/ethnic libraries) hundreds of times until it's perfect and matches the other 50 samples of the same intruments, velocities, volume, rhythm etc... Workstations use one note samples for most (if not all but the piano instruments) - these are VERY easy to sample. I don't know how much effort goes into compression, but I don't think it's too much of a strain.

Unfortunately the marketplace has fallen for the "more GB is always better" marketing, which ignores the importance of quality sound programming i.e. how all of the samples interact with one another in a particular playback engine.

Most people here (judging by how loudmouthed they become in presets vs programming threads) can write thousands of awesome patches every day. Should not be a problem for Roland/Yamaha/Korg company, especially considering how many sound designers are willing to contribute their work for free, just for acknowledgment, being credited in the Roland manual as patch programmer.

Let's see. If we used my formula for retail pricing, your $300 keyboard would retail from between $900 (3x) and $1,500 (5x). The Fantom-G8 retails for $3,500, so your actual cost estimates are low.

I have no idea where you take those formulas. I think retail prices have little to do with acutal costs of development. 61-key top of the line boards always went for $1800, 76key - for $2500, 88key - for $3000 (or something). That's how they were always priced and how they will be priced - these are market prices. You don't actually say all three companies have EXACT costs of production for so different models that make them price their products so close together?

You disputed my assertion that a $40 chip addition at manufacturing could result in a few hundred dollars price impact, but you can see (even using your underestimated costs) how additional parts costs impact the retail price in a "high markup" industry like this.

I still don't get where you take your formulas. I only said that RnD for implementing extra ROM will cost nothing compared to coming with a whole new feature (like HD-recording, or USB support). As well as the costs of the extra ROM chip and buttons themselves.

As I said before, given how confident you are about how "adding this" or "adding that" only adds a few dollars, I urge you to either start your own workstation company or contact Korg, Roland, or Yamaha with your "secret". I am sure Roland would be extremely happy to pay you to understand how they could manufacture the Fantom-G for only $300.

They don't need my advice cause they probally already manufacture those keyboards for $300. Every business decision is made from a business point of view. Apparently expanding soundset is the least of their worries now.

People see parts prices for the personal computer industry (whose industry is 1,000s of times larger than the electronic music industry) and assume all the work involved in creating a workstation is just buying a few cheap parts and slapping them together.

Yes, that's correct. Although some parts may be more expensive to produce (the cost of making a production line in relation to its unit output). But still, should not be 10x more.

Another example I would give is OpenLabs. Their products are a close as you can get to a computer, but their prices are still very high compared to "normal" computer prices. Their current 61-key product, the Special Edition NekO is $5,000. Given YOUR pricing, surely they could sell these for $1,000 - $2,000 since they have no worldwide distribution or support, and the majority of their products are sold direct from their location in Austin, TX. Why isn't the neKo $1,000?

Maybe cause they licensed over 60 VSTis? They have to pay fees to owner companies and make profits? 70-80$ per VSTi included, and about $500 for the board itself?

[lewey]

I'm not sure why Roland decided to limit the ROM to 256 MB. The most obvious answer is cost vs. price point (to anyone with any business acumen whatsoever), but if you insist the big three all employ a bunch of lazy sound designers, rock on with your bad self.

 

I once asked a Yamaha representative why don't they add fx processors for the rest 8 parts? (for Motif XS, which already has 8 parts with full fx) He never said anything about costs of production, all he mumbled was that with 8 parts they're already far ahead of competition (it was before Fantom G was introduced) and usually noone needs more than that.

 

Apparently Roland also thinks that their sound collection in Fantom is already full and diverse enough to satisfy pretty much everyone (even though it's smaller in bytes than Motif's).

 

As I said, I still believe cost of production is not an issue when it comes to ROM size of a workstation. To most of the other new features - yes, but ROM - no.

[Whop Yo Jaw!]

hook, line and sinker...

and they're lovin every minute of it!

[The Audacity Works]

 

Although some parts may be more expensive to produce (the cost of making a production line in relation to its unit output). But still, should not be 10x more.

I'm not sure why it's 10 x either, but I've heard the "10 x" thing way too many times for it to be a rumor.

 

Truth be told, the 10 x would be an average across all parts, and takes the cost of doing business into account. Taxes, legal fees, payroll, building leases, patent licenses, administration, marketing, shipping, office supplies, and a thousand other things cost WAAAY more than parts.

 

So you can't add a $20 part and expect to charge the end user $20 for said extra part. Again, I'm not entirely sure it's 10 x, but that's the number generally thrown around.

 

When the Yamaha Motif, Korg M3, and Fantom G were first designed, I can pretty much guarantee they'd blow everyone's minds. But then the marketing department steps in, says "sorry guys, you have to sell it for this much, which means our raw parts cost absolutely cannot exceed this much", and our brilliant workstation from hell turns into something much less impressive.

 

Believe me, these companies sweat one extra button.

 

As an example, I understand the landed cost (what it costs to manufacture, package, and ship to the US) of a $99 Behringer Composer Pro is.... drum roll please... eleven bucks. If Behringer decides to utilize a few op amps that sound better but cost them an extra three cents a piece, that may literally be enough for the MAP to increase to $109, which means competitors are ten bucks cheaper. Which means sales will drop precipitously. If it really only costs Roland $20 to add another 256MB of ROM, end users are paying $100-200 more. That's enough to seriously eat into sales, and since the workstation market generally couldn't give less of a {censored} about ROM size, Roland's done themselves a disservice.

[lewey]

i'd say RnD of a part is way more expensive than the cost of the actual part... just like anything else, a chip, drug, shaving blade ... which cost millions to develop, but only cents to produce... they can't invest millions in RnD and then flush all the work down the drain cause some chip costs $500... no chip costs that much nowadays... but i won't argue without having a proof... and i'm too lazy to search for it...

 

if someone has a link to an interview with MI representative about this, it would be awesome

[MartinHines]

They don't need my advice cause they probally already manufacture those keyboards for $300.

 

They don't need your advice because they already know how to optimize their design and manufacturing to make money, and stay in business despite strong competition from one another.

 

Again, I urge you to see if your views "hold water" by either starting your own company or seeing if anyone is willing to pay you for your "knowledge" about keyboard workstation manufacturing and costs. If you did, you will find out you are extremely uninformed. Most of your comments just don't pass the simple "common sense" test.

[lewey]

Again, I urge you to see if your views "hold water" by either starting your own company or seeing if anyone is willing to pay you for your "knowledge" about keyboard workstation manufacturing and costs. If you did, you will find out you are extremely uninformed. Most of your comments just don't pass the simple "common sense" test.

 

They more than do. It's just you stuck up at your worship of those company decisions and ready to renounce any common sense just to justify whatever these companies feed you. You're one of those that kneel before anyone higher in power/status and never question them. This is not good...

 

And just in case, I'll explain myself once again... When I say they don't put more ROM cause 1) they're lazy assholes and 2) they spend money on something else, I mean both of these parts, which are summed up in one of my other posts - that they put MINIMUM effort to create their products. Even though they spend more money on other features, they still can put more sounds (ROM) in it without increasing production cost too much. They just don't want to do this. Cause they're lazy assholes.

[realtrance]

So, unfortunately this otherwise interesting thread has dissolved yet again into feeding the troll, too bad.

 

Regarding presets, I've studied many a good preset on many a synth, and many a mediocre preset or sound library by second-rate sound designers supplied for same.

 

The amount of work, and understanding of an instrument's architecture, combined with an understanding of a wide range of what's musical, behind the big 3's presets, is I'd say phenomenally larger than the usual acid-bass three notes and I'm done patch done by the average synth user, or even the average sound designers supplying sound sets post-ship.

 

You look carefully at the architecture, say, of the Virus TI's patches, and compare them generally with those in some other synths. There are some good ones, granted, and there are some great sound designers who've designed for the Virus over the years (Rob Papen, Howard Scarr, Matt Picone among others), but the vast majority of the included patches are just one shade above mediocre.

 

Of course, the most brilliant patches I've run into from any factory set are the ones that sound just plain dull by default, but which lend themselves wonderfully to tweaking and go from dull to "so _that's_ what that patch is all about!" with more mastery of the synth. Judgment of default patches without really thoroughly tweaking them and understanding how they've been set up with various control parameters is about as far as most commentators on the internet get with their "evaluation" of factory sound sets.

[MartinHines]

they still can put more sounds (ROM) in it without increasing production cost too much. They just don't want to do this. Cause they're lazy assholes.

 

That is one of the silliest statements I think I have ever seen on this forum.

 

 

 

P.S. -- I just looked at some of your posts and I can't believe I am attempting to try to educate the same person who would create this thread below:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1901891

 

That thead answers everything.

[lewey]

Your view: Korg, Yamaha, and Roland all get together to set prices and limit the amount of new technology and features they put in their workstations, even though the workstation market has taken a huge beating by computer based music production. Yes, they purposely give away market share by selling products that could be 10x better for 10x lower cost. Why? Because they are "assholes". Common Sense View: The electronic music industry IS competitive, and the prices these companies charge for their products are reasonable based on all of the costs incurred in running global businesses. Each of these companies are trying to be a profitable as possible, and are trying to take market share from each other. That is one of the silliest statements I think I have ever seen on this forum. P.S. -- I just looked at some of your posts and I can't believe I am attempting to try to educate the same person who would create this thread below: http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1901891 That thead answers everything.

 

So, when you run out of arguments, you just dig out some dirt on your interlocutor, and call it a victory? Lame, cheap typical KSSer trick...

 

Btw, that thread was just a follow-up parody at this thread -> http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=1246617.

[MartinHines]

So, when you run out of arguments, you just dig out some dirt on your interlocutor, and call it a victory? Lame, cheap typical KSSer trick...

No, I was trying to understand what type of person would continue to make statements that defy common sense.

I found my answer by browsing a few of your gazillion posts over at Open Jam.

You win, since I can't reason with someone whose main answer to a real question is "because they are assholes":
-- Why don't the big three double or triple the amount of Sound ROM in their products when they could do so for $30? Because they are assholes
-- Why do the big three create workstations that cost in the $3,000 range since they surely must only cost $300 to make? Because they are assholes
-- Why do the big three continue to create workstations that cause them to lose market share to computer based music production? Because they are assholes

Yes, your "argument" is very compelling.

[NuSkoolTone]

 

Your view: Korg, Yamaha, and Roland all get together to set prices and limit the amount of new technology and features they put in their workstations, even though the workstation market has taken a huge beating by computer based music production. Yes, they purposely give away market share by selling products that could be 10x better for 10x lower cost. Why? Because they are "assholes". Common Sense View: The electronic music industry IS competitive, and the prices these companies charge for their products are reasonable based on all of the costs incurred in running global businesses. Each of these companies are trying to be a profitable as possible, and are trying to take market share from each other.

 

 

Regarding A: Ya know, I don't know about the "Assholes" bit, but I would not be the LEAST bit surprised if there was some collaboration between the big 3 regarding specs and price points. Personally I think they all try to "play nice" and not rock the boat between each other. Otherwise I think we'd see a LOT more competitiveness in them trying to "outdo" each other, and MUCH more innovation at a MUCH faster pace. I mean let's face it, hardware wise they're the only game in town for workstations (Excluding the recent re-addition of kurzweil, though I'm not convinced). There was a time the polyphony doubled every 2 years it seemed. (Of course we're getting to a point of diminishing returns on that front, but just sayin'. So since we've reached a point where quantity of voices aren't much an issue, how about the QUALITY of them? HENCE MORE SOUND ROM/Synthesis technologies! See where I'm going with this? But no instead we get more wiz bang "Features" that let me push a button and listen to the music I'm (errr...it's) making and a bigger color touchscreen with pretty icons on it).

 

Honestly, I can't remember the last time any ONE of them tried to "outdo" each other. The OA$Y$ doesn't count because it's price was not even REMOTELY in the same ball park as other workstations which has been discussed/debated ad nauseum.

 

If they think they're taking a beating by "computer based music" production now, they better step it up and accept the possibility of slightly lower profits or they will REALLY get a beating! Many of these software companies are now taking their wares into the hardware realm. As soon as someone figures out how to make a Neko box without windows and a normal form factor that isn't so ugly at half the price, it's GAME OVER IMO.

 

There's part of me(The computer programmer/DIY guy) that wants to develop such a box myself, but it'd probably take me ten years to do it, and who knows where the industry will be by then! I figure if I make a box for ME, there just might be others who'd want one too! But I digress....

 

Regarding B: I'm sure they are, but it certainly doesn't FEEL like it from the consumer end. Just the same ol' NAMM after NAMM at a glacial pace of innovation. Perhaps they need to examine their infrastructure and "downsize"? You know, trim the fat like every other corporation does. I admit this is a silly blanket statement and I have no idea the specifics of these companies. With the exception of Roland AFAIK, they are all children of larger conglomerate companies. I've worked for large corporations and have easily seen how the big picture can get lost in the shuffle and nearly forgotten. Meetings about meetings and people making decisions up top with little communication with those in the trenches to see if the changes prescribed are even feasible without crippling their services or businesses in order to look good for the upcoming quarter. I'm sure these MI companies aren't much different and that could be part of the problem. Every large corporation eventually gets its ass whooped and then has to re-evaluate itself. Hopefully the big 3 will do so before they are in such a position.

[MartinHines]

As soon as someone figures out how to make a Neko box without windows and a normal form factor that isn't so ugly at half the price, it's GAME OVER IMO.

 

Companies like Muse Research and OpenLabs are trying to better leverage the extremely lower cost world of personal computers. The problem is a workstation keyboard consists of a lot of "non-personal computer" parts and software, and the cost of these items fall within the domain of the "high markup" world of the electronic musical instrument industry.

 

OpenLabs is the closest thing anyone will ever get to a "pure personal computer based" workstation since:

-- it runs on Windows XP

-- it has a Windows XP computer inside

-- the use an "off the shelf" audio interface (currently the PreSonus Firebox)

 

However, the cost of the OpenLabs products skyrocket when compared to similarly speced personal computer because of the "non PC" components:

-- keyboard shell, various controllers

-- their custom software layer that sits on top of the Windows OS

-- custom software that makes all of the controllers work together

-- a Fatar keybed

-- the very small market for their products

 

Given that OpenLabs has no worldwide distribution network and worldwide support system (like Yamaha, Roland and Korg do), and given all of their operations occur at one location in Austin, TX (home of Dell Computers), I think they would have the best shot at taking advantage of personal computer parts as anyone. However at least to me, their prices are reasonable given the industry in which they are in.

[lewey]

No, I was trying to understand what type of person would continue to make statements that defy common sense.

 

Just a reminder, your "common sense" is not the "ultimate common sense". To religious people God is common sense. Let's not go there.

 

I found my answer by browsing a few of your gazillion posts over at Open Jam. You win, since I can't reason with someone whose main answer to a real question is "because they are assholes": -- Why don't the big three double or triple the amount of Sound ROM in their products when they could do so for $30? Because they are assholes

 

True.

 

-- Why do the big three create workstations that cost in the $3,000 range since they surely must only cost $300 to make? Because they are assholes

 

Partially true. They don't create workstation that cost $3000, they create $300 workstations and then sell them for $3000. Example with 76-88 key versions should have sufficed. But for some reason you don't see my most obvious points.

 

-- Why do the big three continue to create workstations that cause them to lose market share to computer based music production? Because they are assholes

 

Barely true. Hardware and software is still very different markets for most consumers. People buy hardware and software for different reasons. One is that hardware romplers are still better than anything software (as a complete package). Then go the touring musicians, hardware lovers... then the question of value... then question of pure esthetics (buttons, sliders, screens, physical realness appeal)... Software is not a real threat to hardware (unless you steal pirated torrents) because most of the best VSTis that challenge hardware romplers quality-wise are glorified specialty sample libraries that cost hundreds of dollars each, and you'd need a few dozens of them to make a complete soundset. Other software complete libraries are either {censored} or offer too little for too much. In other words there's some competition, but mostly hardware and software synths are for different people.

[NuSkoolTone]

From my perspective, every time they release a new workstation they are trying to "outdo" the competition. I think people are simply too unrealistic about what can be done, the timeframes and the price.

 

 

One could also argue they release new workstations not to be left behind and lose market share!

 

It all comes down to how "Hungry" these companies are IMO. I'd say they are no longer hungry and just interested in sustaining profitability. Which is not a "bad" thing, but certainly not exciting! I'd rather have companies driven by Innovation rather than the threat of "Competition". Anyway, these are my idealist (And probably others) views, and I have no idea what their true costs are.

 

Sure I guess they are "doing the best they can", but for whatever reason I expect better. I guess it's because I lived in what I consider to be the golden age of innovation (The 80's) of synths when there were a TON of companies that were TRULY "Competing". Sure they had a LOT further to go up because many of the designs were primitive by today's standards, but one got the impression that they were REALLY TRYING to outdo each other and put out the best possible product they could while staying afloat. Sadly, most of these companies are gone now and I'm sure that's proof and affirmation of the current business models/practices we're debating which have "worked" for the big 3. Personally I think a period of innovation like that by small companies is coming again and these companies currently resting on their laurels should take notice!

[lewey]

From my perspective, every time they release a new workstation they are trying to "outdo" the competition. I think people are simply too unrealistic about what can be done, the timeframes and the price.

 

 

Remember late 80s early 90s? The technology was a lot more primitive back then, and yet synths went ahead and up by leaps with every new generation. Double polyphony, double sound set, double effects... they added what mattered...

 

Now, when finally parts are dirt cheap and technology literally allows you to do anything, all they do is put in OLD waveforms, and add a tiny handfuls of features... USB port here, CD there, color screen here, larger menues there... and yet the sound is all the same... and I would understand if it was great, but in case of Fantom, there's room... no, CONCERT HALLS for improvement, and yet they don't do anything about the sound, same {censored}ty old 94' sound.

 

This is the reason I love Yamaha so much for what they do with their Motifs. They improve where it matters and follow the times. With Roland and Korg - features of 2008, sound of 1994.

[madAhorn]

I just hope the 256 meg Rom along with the two expansiions is enough to keep me going for a few years like the Fantom X kept me going for several years...

We sometimes forget that Roland is going with 256 onboard plus the Expansions. My Fantom X has 384 meg fully expanded. That still beats the current Yamaha.

I could guess on the Fantom G the Expansion might be 128 meg each which could give us our 512 we were all hoping for...256 + 128 + 128.

Just a little gueswork there...