What are the shortcomings of the Fantom's synth engine?

Tell me what you don't like about the Fantom's synth engine.

When I go from my Motif ES to Fantom the things I miss the most from the Motif are the parametric waveform EQs, the 18 dB lowpass filters, the independent highpass cuts with independent keytrack on the 12s, and the four band voice offsets.

But the list of things on the Fantom that aren't on th Motif would be far longer.

For a sampling engine. I was a Yamaha workstation guy for the prior 6 years. The Fantom has the Roland sound if you know what that is, smoother, processed and compressed. Works for dense mixes but can sound thin and weak at times. Though to me the older Yamaha sound was to bright and digital sounding, it could sound more thick and aggressive especially on filter sweeps. I missed those qualities and had to search for something that could fill those gaps which I did using a MS-2000 and Waldorf Micro Q.

It's also about what you know to. If your sonic pallet is used to is certain companies overall sound then when they make improvements sonically then you feel you have something better. I think the Motif XS sounds more smooth and natural then all the previous Yamaha romplers. I would actually buy it after strongly swearing off the Yamaha sound for the last couple years. The Fantom G sounds better to but not greatly over the Fantom X, but still an improvement. You see the companies have to make compromises to meet a price point. They may say they have this new chip or that new AD/DA converter, but it might not greatly effect the overall sound depending on their implemention of the technology. You may however get other features that make it worth your time and fill in needs in your setup and make you more musically productive. I find with all in one workstations the sound is the thing that suffers the most even if you import the best samples from you library. It's not like the old days though, as these new boards sound pretty good already and with some understanding and hard work you can produce some awesome music with all of them.

So maybe that's what I'm trying to get across. How much time and effort it takes to get from A to B. To me it varies greatly if I don't have the right gear for my particular taste in sound. However if I want something that produces a Mini Moog bass and I know what a real Mini Moog sounds like it is definitely possible to make comparisons between manufacturers regardless of taste in sound. I've come to know the weaknesses of my Fantom X pretty well. I can now produce some full pro sounding songs but know not to, for example, use the amp sim effect algo for distortion as I will never be fully satisfied with it harsh digital sound even if my bandmate is. I'm not knocking Roland at all for putting it in there. To me it's a stopgap until I hook up external guitar pedals. I do however like Rolands GT-10 pedal. Same company different implementations/processing power you see.

If you want something that sounds great almost no matter what you load into it you have to try a bunch of different gear. I have a new benchmark to compare things with as I just recently got a Spectralis. There may be more gear in the future that changes my perceptions but that's just part of the process and growth of being a musician.

Fantom-X series or Fantom-G series?

Mark

I guess my topic starter was kind of vague, thinking that might get me more stories

Let me go into more detail, and hopefully some of you will come back to this thread.

I really am speaking of the "synth" engine in the Fantom-s, and not so much the sampler or the preset patches. As in: choose a waveform, run it through filters, envelopes, LFO modulation, effects, etc.

The Fantom-s was my first synth, and the Microkorg was my second. That's all I've ever played for synths. I like to design my own sounds (and sometimes I even come up with a useable patch).

I've been researching and shopping for a new synth, possibly something analogue like the Evolver. And I've noticed a few things:

1. the Fantom has way more modulation, routing, and effects possibilities than an Evolver, a Prophet, or a Moog-- or probably anything analogue short of a giant modular synth.

2. i have gotten no where near the limitiations of the synths I already have (the Fantom and the Microkorg)

3. i don't deserve a Poly Evolver until I know how to program a synth.

So, with 1,2, and 3 in mind, I've been programming the hell out of my Fantom. I'm starting to suspect that I don't like the sound of the filters, but I'm just not educated/experienced enough to really know. On the Microkorg, I've got a couple really cool patches which are modifications of presets-- really organic sounding. I tried reverse-engineering one and programming it into the Fantom, and I just couldn't make it sound good.

So really I'm trying to learn the shortcomings of my synths so I can better choose a new one

edit:

Ah, yes! That is what I'm looking for. I have often tried the amp sim, but I have never even once liked the sound enough to use it. (although maybe that just means I don't like digital amp and distortion simulation).

i completely understand and respect that line of thought, but for me, some of my best, or at least coolest, patches were programmed when i had no idea what i was doing!

i'd actually recommend getting your hands on a Poly Evolver, or something equally as knobby, and learning to program on that first, before suffering thru all the menus and grid-searching on the Fantom-S and microKORG, respectively. i own both the Fantom-S and the mK, and they're both really good machines, but even after several years of ownership and programming, i find the Fantom to be a real chore to program when i've got "that sound" floating around in my head for only a precious few minutes. the mK is a lot of fun, and for massive portable/playable sound, it's almost unmatched, but again, it too suffers from a serious lack of immediacy, and i say that as someone that can move around the grid menu and tweak it pretty fast. i know you didn't really ask about the mK, but seeing as i currently own both 'boards, i thought i'd let you know where i was coming from.

so i guess i'd say the Fantom's edit-ability and resultant sound are great, but it's absolutely the last synth i go to when i want to design a new analog/VA sound. need a guitar patch? horns? okay, yes, the Fantom is great. want to bust out some sweet, dreamy pad, or a scathing saw lead? pass.

i recommend getting something knobby or slider-y, and soon. good luck, in any event!

The Fantom series is a four tone architecture. It makes killer patches for pads and leads. Considerng that performance mode allows you to layer 16 patches, you get awesome keyboard splits and stacked sounds. The performance editing is very easy with the real time graphical keyboard display.

If I recall correctly, the Fantom S is 64 voice, while the Fantom X is 128 voice. The patch editing is very easy on the X with the color screen.

Mark

If you're using menus on the Fantom or MK to build patches, that's your problem and your own fault. There is no lack of immediancy when you use software editors to build patches. When you have a deep and powerful synth/sampler engine, there's no way to have enough knobs/faders/displays for everything, nor would you want to limit the depth of the engine based on how many knobs you can fit on the panel. Software editors solve that. They also organize the functions of the engine in ways you can't easily do with hardware controls. And with a real computer, you aren't limited to the tiny little screens they can fit in the panel of a keyboard.

I use knobs for live control of selected parameters of patches I've designed, not to build the patches. It's also why I prefer the R3 to the Radias, because I find 4 assignable knobs with LED feedback and LCD displays to be better for live tweeking than button pressing and searching for the right knob at the right time on a panel filled with knobs, buttons and faders. With the editor software, the R3 has more knobs and controls than the Radias hardware, and better organized too. I also use the editor for the Fantom X6 and I wouldn't build a patch without it.

Well this isnt really con of the engine but the presets of my sonic cell sure are programmed in less than 3 seconds... Out of the "big 3" roland has no clue how to program so dont expect insta great sounds (and there are only 32 combis - that all pretty much suck). There is one patch I like though and thats the "autotrance" on pulse forms.

Some samples arent that great (maybe SRXes help).

One thing that really kinda bugs me is that there are 3 FX and then there are 2 completly useless mastering FX that you cant really configure almost at all, and thus are almost useless. 3 is not enough.

The filters arent that great.

And finally roland will always sound like roland so if you dont like that sound stay away, it is warm and a bit sterile on the highs and lows.

software?!!!....

i'm sorry, i just fainted dead away. i'm back now.

you better believe that when i'm tweaking a synth, the absolute LAST thing i want to do is stare at my PC monitor. i don't even like using it for recording, though i've finally relented after many years of a PC-free studio.

i concede that software editors can be powerful or even intuitive, but i just don't operate that way (and i'd be shocked if i were even close to being the only one). i try to buy synths based on what they can do -- not what they can do along with a computer. for example, the mK is a tremendously powerful little synth, and i create patches on it just fine without a PC. it's not a problem, as you put it and i find no "fault" in doing so. does it take me longer to build a pad on the mK vs. my Ion? perhaps, but not so significantly that it's not worth using standalone! in fact, one of my favorite late-nite pastimes is to kick back in bed with the mK on my lap, with my headphones on, before going to sleep. i've created some of my favorite patches this way.

anyway, frogmonkey made it sound as if they were interested in the Poly Evolver, which is so completely laden with immediate, front-panel controls that it seems as if that's the sort of layout they're after, and neither the Fantom nor the mK is going to provide that sort of front-panel immediacy.

i still say an analog or VA with gobs of controls is the way to go, unless we're specifically talking about wanting to incorporate ROMpler sounds in your patches.

killedaway said: "i recommend getting something knobby or slider-y, and soon. good luck, in any event!"

Yeah, man you're right. I'm a little scared of the Poly Evolver's price, but I think it might be the right one.

xmlguy I hear you, those tiny menus are a bitch. I'd like to use the computer more in sound design, but for various reasons it's a pain in the neck to connect to my performance keys to my laptop. I think I'm starting to find a flow with the fantom's interface.

Well... I resolved not to buy a new synth until I've created 5 new, usable patches on the fantom. I think I've got a couple. Oh, wait a minute, I'm going to record it and post it.

be right back...

The power in those lies in the structures. If you haven't read the Fantom Tweakbook, you should.

"i concede that software editors can be powerful or even intuitive, but i just don't operate that way (and i'd be shocked if i were even close to being the only one)."

Yes...at that point, why not just use a software synth? The CPU power of today is nothing like 5 or 10 years ago.

One might also consider something like a Behringer BCR-2000. Learn map the parameters you want instant access to on it. Great buy for the price. Certainly a lot more economical than buying a whole other synth just because it has more knobs.

i own a BCR-2000, and mainly use it to edit an HS-10. it's excellent for the price, but it certainly has its limitations and frustrations too. i don't know if i'd buy one and use it with a Fantom in lieu of purchasing a different synth, but it's so handy that i'd almost recommend it to anyone with a sizable vintage synth collection, or at least one that includes lots of tactile-challenged 'boards (ie: almost anything from the late 80s to early 90s).

The SonicCell has 64 user and 64 preset combis, which I count as 128.

As for the effects you have a programable chorus, reverb and random effect of your choosing, which to be honest isn't that bad. Not to mention the fact that in a Combi you can have different effects on each part. The mastering effect is mainly for sorting out EQ and stuff as far as I'm aware.

And the presets, I guess that's a matter of taste. I like them. But programming on Roland stuff scares the crap out of me, too many menus.

Oh, yeah, the Tweakbook! I forgot about that book... It's been a while since I've dug into it, and I never finished it. I think it's time now, though. I've got a better grasp of the Fantom and of synthesis in general. Artemiy is one of the Fantom's best features

lhm1138, When you speak of "the structures", do you mean the stuff in the TMT menu? I've never figured that stuff out, though reverse-engineering some of my favorite patches sometimes leads me there.

Mmmm, that BCR-2000 looks sweet. I might have to get one of those, too.

While I am definitely wanting a knobby interface to make programming more intuitive, it isn't the only consideration. For example, I'm starting to suspect that the fantom's filter resonance is harsher than many others-- and maybe that's the source of one of my programming difficulties.

Definitely when I tweak the filters into "self oscillation" the sound is painful-- am I correct in thinking that this isn't always the case?

And things like ring modulation, distortion, self-oscillation... all these *emulations* of analogue mayhem, seem a little lame on the Fantom-- add some digital noise and call it a day. It's not like I want all-out NASTY in-your-face all the time. But I like an element of that even in my pretty sounds, just a hint.

There is another factor: credibility and coolness on stage. OK, ok...I know that it's a hollow goal, and that how you play is more important than what instrument you play. And I play pretty good (i think). But when the competition plays a Moog on top of a B3, I start to wonder how anyone can take me seriously with my digital piano, my rompled synth and organ, and my little microkorg. I mean, how freaking COOL would I be with a Poly Evolver on top of my Rhodes, with the Fantom on the side? Answer: very freaking cool.

Anyway, I probably wont replace my Fantom in my gig rig yet-- whatever I get (probably the Evolver) will replace the Microkorg. If I get sick of the Fantom-s' small sample memory, I might upgrade to an x or something, but I actually love the thing.

Here's a couple patches I made from scratch on the Fantom recently:

http://www.andricseverance.com/synthesizer/b163vox3b_again.mp3

http://www.andricseverance.com/synthesizer/rave2sinr2c.mp3

One of the biggest shortcomings of the Fantom series is the difference between its waveforms and the older waverform set from past instrument linage XV, XP JV.

It's a blunder that still to this day raises issues for many people who would have upgraded to the Fantom line but either find the old waveform set superior or perferable or have used XV, XP JV synths extensively on so much of their work that they need the older sounds and waveforms and dont want to switch or have semi-duplicate equipemnt.

Roland should have either included the past waveforms with new ones so users can upgrade like past instruments and bring over their sounds or simply come out with a SRX board with those waveform and sounds.

If you go to the fantom boards, people are still taking about it and asking for comparisons to the XV-5080 and Fantom converted sounds.

Oh, yeah, the Tweakbook! I forgot about that book... It's been a while since I've dug into it, and I never finished it. I think it's time now, though. I've got a better grasp of the Fantom and of synthesis in general. Artemiy is one of the Fantom's best features lhm1138, When you speak of "the structures", do you mean the stuff in the TMT menu? I've never figured that stuff out, though reverse-engineering some of my favorite patches sometimes leads me there. Mmmm, that BCR-2000 looks sweet. I might have to get one of those, too. While I am definitely wanting a knobby interface to make programming more intuitive, it isn't the only consideration. For example, I'm starting to suspect that the fantom's filter resonance is harsher than many others-- and maybe that's the source of one of my programming difficulties. Definitely when I tweak the filters into "self oscillation" the sound is painful-- am I correct in thinking that this isn't always the case? And things like ring modulation, distortion, self-oscillation... all these *emulations* of analogue mayhem, seem a little lame on the Fantom-- add some digital noise and call it a day. It's not like I want all-out NASTY in-your-face all the time. But I like an element of that even in my pretty sounds, just a hint. There is another factor: credibility and coolness on stage. OK, ok...I know that it's a hollow goal, and that how you play is more important than what instrument you play. And I play pretty good (i think). But when the competition plays a Moog on top of a B3, I start to wonder how anyone can take me seriously with my digital piano, my rompled synth and organ, and my little microkorg. I mean, how freaking COOL would I be with a Poly Evolver on top of my Rhodes, with the Fantom on the side? Answer: very freaking cool. Anyway, I probably wont replace my Fantom in my gig rig yet-- whatever I get (probably the Evolver) will replace the Microkorg. If I get sick of the Fantom-s' small sample memory, I might upgrade to an x or something, but I actually love the thing. Here's a couple patches I made from scratch on the Fantom recently: http://www.andricseverance.com/synthesizer/b163vox3b_again.mp3 http://www.andricseverance.com/synthesizer/rave2sinr2c.mp3

Yeah, I'm talking about TFT. It makes the system more modular, you can reroute the signal path, putting filters after amp section, ring mod, AM..you can also set up serial filters by doing things like using one waveform that is just a blank sample (created in audio editor) and using that in the tone 2.

In system settings you should be able to adjust the filter range if the filter is too overboard. I think it's set at default to the maximum range. If you take it down 30 or 40 clicks it gets less ear-bleeding. Though by nature these filters are pretty harsh and digital...this is where digital filters often fall apart, in self-oscillation and high rez. Changing the maximum value though will help A LOT.

This article was very helpful for me too: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov03/articles/xvjvmasterclass.htm?print=yes

Listening to those mp3 examples, it does appear that adjusting the resonance setting in system would help.

For larger than life synth sounds, try using a JP saw in Tone 1, D50 saw in Tone 2, etc etc. Throw in some FXM and TFT and you've got some powerful mono analog sounds.

If EPs, Rhodes, B3 is your bag, investing in a Vintage SRX is not a bad idea, especially at used prices.

Listening to those mp3 examples, it does appear that adjusting the resonance setting in system would help.

For larger than life synth sounds, try using a JP saw in Tone 1, D50 saw in Tone 2, etc etc. Throw in some FXM and TFT and you've got some powerful mono analog sounds.

If EPs, Rhodes, B3 is your bag, investing in a Vintage SRX is not a bad idea, especially at used prices.

Have you thought of just getting a VA synth?

I learned how synths work on my Roland JP-8080..

Knobs and sliders! Hands on is always a better way to learn..

.

i only have experienced the fantom g, played it extensively at the shop before recommending it to my dad. on their own the emulations don't sound great (ex: d50, juno, jx, etc.) except in a smooth, clean, light pop kind of way. this is why my dad loved it, everything in one stop for layered background tracks with vocals, few listeners will be able to tell the difference.

if you make instrumental electronica, industrial, or minimal compositions it might be better to get a cheap analog synth (roland sh09, jx-8p, juno) if you want to do self-osc rez, or like synthman1 said about the vx, xp, jv romplers. the fantom series can be like using soft synths with a small screen. a combination of daw & original synths might be better, thats how i prefer to work, but then you might need a multi input soundcard/mixer, etc. the poly evolver might be overkill but its an amazing synth