Jump to content

Fantom G Manual and sound list


nielsh

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

^It is sad. It was an actual useful and fun to use performance tool.

 

 

Agreed. I had it on one of my first workstations, a General Music S3. Because of that experience, I have never ever liked channel aftertouch. It just seems so...one dimensional after playing with Poly AT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hmm ... As someone who has SRX-01, 03, 05, 06, 07 ... (after a quick run-though) ... there sure doesn't seem to be much new in there (seems like Roland kept most of the SRX names) ... and frankly, how could they ... Between 65 mb for the piano and the rest for 950 mb of SRX patches, where WOULD the new stuff go?

 

That said, it did seem like the best SRX patches were there ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I'm actually a little burn't on the Fantom S/X and SRX sounds. I hope Roland comes out with a couple of better ARX cards.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Hmm ... As someone who has SRX-01, 03, 05, 06, 07 ... (after a quick run-though) ... there sure doesn't seem to be much new in there (seems like Roland kept most of the SRX names) ... and frankly, how could they ... Between 65 mb for the piano and the rest for 950 mb of SRX patches, where WOULD the new stuff go?


That said, it did seem like the best SRX patches were there ...

 

 

Thats odd

 

"Some " SRX"" per Eric Klein

 

Eric Klein of Roland US said mostly new samples for the G, brand new raw samples

 

its from the video interview at NAMM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They may have kept names but replaced sounds so that you could import sounds from the older models and have them sound somewhat the same (though probably not exactly). Its just a thought.

 

If they have a set naming convention, and they have limited character space for names, then its also just possible that they reused the old names..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The official Fantom-G Overview Video ( http://www.roland.com/demos/en/i0064/index.html ) states (at 1:05):

 

The Fantom G's soundset contains waveforms from the Fantom X series, select waveforms from the entire SRX expansion series, as well as all-together new samples captured using the highest quality microphones, pre-amps and converters avaiable

 

 

I would suspect the majority of the samples are NOT new; however is that really a bad thing?

 

"Waveforms" are not the same thing as "patches/programs". Even the same samples can sound better if they are put through a different sound playback engine and run through better hardware converters.

 

Although the Fantom X and G may share a large number of samples on their sample list, aren't many of the patch names different (implying new sound programming)? The presets can sound fresh and new even with "old" samples if the sound programmers did a good job.

 

Creating usable samples for keyboard workstations is expensive. Not only do you have the expense of the recording sessions, you have a lot of work to edit the samples (and many times loop them) so they are ready to be used by sound set programmers.

 

Using the three categories of samples makes sense to me:

-- Fantom Samples: there are many of these that are probably "classic Roland" samples. Why would you throw these away?

-- SRX Samples: at 64MB a set, Roland spent a lot of money on these (producing 12 SRX boards). I liked many of these samples better than the factory samples, especially on the SRX cards that were dedicated to a few instruments (like the newest SRX-11 Piano and SRX-12 Classic EPs). Given many of these are good samples, why not use them?

-- New Samples: Probably consist of areas Roland thought could be improved.

 

In the end, the Fantom-G will be judged more on how good it sounds (i.e. the presets) rather than the breakdown of "old samples" to "new samples".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think the preceding conversation was about waveforms or samples, Martin ... We were talking about patches, as you know, are collections of waveforms ...

 

To me, if a patch name is the same, it generally means it's the same patch ... If it was a signficiantly new re-working, I'd think Roland would rename it appropriately to reflect the change in sonic character ...

 

As it seems like the only change in the synthesis section anyone's able to discern is the expansion of the step LFO from 16 to 64 steps ... it doesn't seem like much re-programming will be going on ...

 

the sonic difference will be heard in NEW patches, more effects and new A/D hardware ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The official Fantom-G Overview Video (
) states (at 1:05):



I would suspect the majority of the samples are NOT new; however is that really a bad thing?


"Waveforms" are not the same thing as "patches/programs". Even the same samples can sound better if they are put through a different sound playback engine and run through better hardware converters.


Although the Fantom X and G may share a large number of samples on their sample list, aren't many of the patch names different (implying new sound programming)? The presets can sound fresh and new even with "old" samples if the sound programmers did a good job.


Creating usable samples for keyboard workstations is expensive. Not only do you have the expense of the recording sessions, you have a lot of work to edit the samples (and many times loop them) so they are ready to be used by sound set programmers.


Using the three categories of samples makes sense to me:

--
Fantom Samples
: there are many of these that are probably "classic Roland" samples. Why would you throw these away?

--
SRX Samples
: at 64MB a set, Roland spent a lot of money on these (producing 12 SRX boards). I liked many of these samples better than the factory samples, especially on the SRX cards that were dedicated to a few instruments (like the newest SRX-11 Piano and SRX-12 Classic EPs. Given many of these are good samples, why not use them?

--
New Samples
: Probably consist of areas Roland thought could be improved.


In the end, the Fantom-G will be judged more on how good it sounds (i.e. the presets) rather than the breakdown of "old samples" to "new samples".

 

 

listen carefully

 

http://www.piaknow.com/fantomgvideo.htm

1:04-1:12

per Eric Klein of Roland US ... "most of the patches are BRAND NEW, brand new patches, brand new raw samples" and it ALSO collects a lot of patches from our SRX series boards...

 

There ya go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

listen carefully



1:04-1:12

per Eric Klein of Roland US ... "most of the patches are BRAND NEW, brand new patches, brand new raw samples" and it ALSO collects a lot of patches from our SRX series boards...


There ya go

 

He may say that, but if the sample names are the same, they are most likely the same samples. I highly doubt most (implying more than 50%) of the samples are brand new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


He may
say
that, but if the sample names are the same, they are most likely the same samples. I highly doubt
most
(implying more than 50%) of the samples are brand new.

 

 

I won't argue this point ( surprisingly)

 

Roland has , on occaision, confused customers with unclear statements regarding where the new sounds are DERIVED from.

 

Can we all agree SRX sounds , Fantom X sounds, Sonic cells sounds are not

' brand new ' ? Based on the samples AND Patches used on current boards through 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The way it's worded seems to me that it's the patches that are mostly new, and the "new samples" was an aside. As in "mostly new patches" and some "new samples". Not "mostly new patches" and "mostly new samples".

 

Either way, it'd be impossible to include a large portion of SRX samples with a ROM size of 256MB.

 

One thing I noticed in the manual, however, was the mention that each ARX board adds up to sixteen parts. That means the G could potentially sequence 64 destinations (16 internal, 16 external, 32 ARX with their own polyphony) across 128 MIDI tracks. The ARX01 and ARX02 don't appear to be multitimbral, but does this mean there might be, say a 16-part, 128-voice orchestral board in the works? Or an 8-part analog modeling synth board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...