Fantom G v Kronos

Forum for Fantom-G6/7/8
User avatar
Quinnx.
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11:28, 13 January 2005
Location: HomeTown Ireland: Current Location USA

Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Quinnx. »

Okay i have do some research and while the kronos is impressive it has some drawbacks..

compared to the G

It only has your standard 16 midi channel/tracks
cannot control external hardware independently

Audio recording is limited to 16 tracks mono or 8 tracks stereo

still only has 4 outs

can record 4 simultaneous inputs

Poly is cpu share

Each engine has a max poly as follows..

SGX-1: 100 voices*3
EP-1: 104 voices
HD-1: 140 voices
AL-1: 80 voices
CX-3: 200 voices
STR-1: 40 voices
MOD-7: 52 voices
MS-20EX: 40 voices
PolysixEX: 180 voices

Max poly of each engine requires 100% cpu usage
so to use any 2 or more in combination, you max poly is an average of the combined engines and not a total..

Its strengths
multiple synth engines
multiple channel audio recording 4 channels at once
seamless patch/soundset swapping with no dropout regardless of FX setup between setups.
Complete FX routing manipulation of any configuration
Playing samples/instruments directly from storage as appose to loading all in to ram allowing very big sampled instruments.
File system a lot more flexible

Weaknesses
Audio tacks only 16 Mono
midi limited to 16 tracks and no separate external sequence control
no pads (i have read it can use the touch screen as pads)

Overall
its still a tool for the mass`s
there appears to be no barriers when it comes to creating sound any more..
more info as i get it..

So what do you think..?
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by mojkarma »

Regarding the outputs: the Kronos has 6 total analog outputs if that's what you mean.
The polyphony is obviously dynamically allocated. Hard to say anything before one tries it. The HD-1 engine is the classic sample based sound engine and with 140 note polyphony it's slightly above the actual competition. On the other side, the Piano (SGX-1) has a 100 voice (not note) polyphony and that is significantly more than what we have with a Fantom G. A stereo sampled piano on the Fantom G with an additional layer for the soundboard (sympathetic) samples would put the polyphony down to just 32.
And here comes the somehow complicated math (because the exact specs are not known):
If you play 32 notes on a piano patch on Kronos (out from 100 available), that's 30%. The rest (70%) can be used for other engines. If you play the same piano patch on the Fantom with 2 stereo layers sounding at the same time, you spent the whole available polyphony.
Regarding the sequencer, well, Korg doesn't advertise the Kronos as the ultimate recording solution and that's IMHO a good thing. It's enough there to lay down your basic ideas and even develop the song further, but the Kronos doesn't try to replace your DAW.
In that regard, I don't need separate external controlling channels. 16 are enough for me. They are used for both, internal and external. For me, that's enough.
gospelone
Posts: 187
Joined: 05:54, 11 November 2010

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by gospelone »

But...Is it worth the significant extra cost?
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by mojkarma »

What extra cost?
User avatar
Quinnx.
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11:28, 13 January 2005
Location: HomeTown Ireland: Current Location USA

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Quinnx. »

Piano (SGX-1) has a 100 voice (not note) polyphony


Actually its 400 voice and 100 note because it uses dual stereo samples with occupies 4 voice for each note played.
apex
Posts: 1114
Joined: 00:17, 21 December 2009
Location: Arkansas

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by apex »

gospelone wrote:But...Is it worth the significant extra cost?
extra.... man, these units have been pretty awesomely priced considering what's in the package.
User avatar
Quinnx.
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11:28, 13 January 2005
Location: HomeTown Ireland: Current Location USA

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Quinnx. »

What will probably make the kronos is its sampling abilities and the fact that you dont have to loads samples to play them so they can be as big as you want with practically no limits.
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by mojkarma »

Infact, you have to load samples and the limit is also there. The so called EX libraries are loaded on boot up or by the user and user samples are loaded completely into the RAM.
User avatar
walgrafix
Posts: 120
Joined: 16:50, 20 November 2010
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by walgrafix »

Fantom-G
The best after Kronos
kenchan
Posts: 1876
Joined: 23:46, 22 December 2008

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by kenchan »

all Roland needs to do is update the damn sequencer and add a ARX-Piano and they are set for a while. :D

kronos to me is more like a tone generator than anything else with a 'decent' keybed if 88/73key. they need to impliment the pianoroll editor in there like the M-Expanded. great hardware for live situations, i suppose. in the studio it's more redundant tone generators for me.
User avatar
Quinnx.
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11:28, 13 January 2005
Location: HomeTown Ireland: Current Location USA

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Quinnx. »

It looks like Playing samples directly from storage is exclusive to things like the supplied libraries and the user cannot take advantage of this..
which is one feature i thought gave the kronos the edge..

so when its all said and done..
compared to the fantom does the kronos offer that much more above the G?
misuspita
Posts: 91
Joined: 16:19, 19 December 2008

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by misuspita »

From what I've heard on the internet, it's got every bread and butter tones covered.

- great piano, great hammond, these two the G is still lacking, although less in piano category, but the hammond is not that good. Also I don't really like the strings section on the G.

No more seamless switching advantage, which was the premier feature that made me switch from my Triton.
User avatar
Quinnx.
Posts: 3439
Joined: 11:28, 13 January 2005
Location: HomeTown Ireland: Current Location USA

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Quinnx. »

It may have all the bread and butter but is it worth either spending $3000 if you already have a G?
now that all the hype is over.. and i have sussed all the technical details...
apart from maybe a better file management and several synth engines it does`nt offer alot more than whats already available.
Like the fantom it has all this potential but its not all given to you..
16 midi tracks is limiting when you get use to 128 tracks of the fantom especial in such an advance keyboard.
same with the Audio.. only 16 mono.. compared to 24 stereo..
I think if i had $3000 it be more efficient to put it into the best laptop you can get and set it up with a DAW and the best Soft synth/instruments and FX you can buy. (but i think Art would recomend a Mac book ;) )
Jan_nl
Posts: 203
Joined: 10:10, 2 May 2008

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by Jan_nl »

No one can make up your mind for you, Quinnx.

16 MIDI tracks is limiting, but I find it preferrable over the 128 MIDI tracks in the phrase based sequencer.
24 stereo audio channels sounds much better than 16 mono audio tracks, but you have to take into account that the 24 audio channels are recording into RAM, 1GB max. Still, the FG is better spec'd in that department.

The FG has no sample format recognition while the KRONOS does have that.
The FX routing is much more flexible on the KRONOS.
It has a touch screen, but then again the FG has a great user interface also, although not a touch screen.

Yes, a computer DAW has much more to offer in terms of performance and flexibility, but the same thing can be said when you compare an FG to a computer. You should not look at the FG or KRONOS as DAW replacements, but instruments in their own right, tools to help you compose and arrange and design your own sounds.

Currently there is no option to upgrade RAM or have streaming for user samples on the KRONOS. If that is important to you it may be sensible to wait until an upgrade is released that will feature user sample streaming and a RAM upgrade.
Mind you, a RAM upgrade alone should make it possible to load 3 GB of user samples in the KRONOS, plus the fact that it recognizes Akai S1000/3000, Soundfont and KORG format.

In terms of hardware workstations I think the KRONOS is a BIG step forward (with exception of the sequencer dept), and neither Yamaha or Roland have something similar at this moment, nor should we expect anything from Yamaha soon that will be comparable to the the KRONOS.
But who knows what Roland will come up with?
If Roland still is in the HW/workstation market they probably have been working on the successor of the FG for quite some time, but whether the successor will be more like the Motif XF or like the KRONOS is impossible to tell.

If you're not really sure I'd suggest that you wait before you make a decision. After all, $3000 doesn't grow on trees.
kenchan
Posts: 1876
Joined: 23:46, 22 December 2008

Re: Fantom G v Kronos

Post by kenchan »

jan- i do look at the FG as instrument on its own and not a DAW since the seq sucks on it but then again, if i already have the nice piano's and organs in my music room (other instruments) it's not like i need to spend another $3.5K on yet another version of the nice instruments i already have. if the keybed is as nice or nicer than PHA3 i would opt to get the Kronos as my digital piano+ extra's, but their keybed is only comparable to MotifXF88's keybed imho (given that the korg's keybed is the same as the M-series 88keybed). and it just doesn't feel good enough for me to spend yet another $3.5k.

what im looking for is one workstation that can do as much as my cubase can in MIDI editing, with no pc connected and good sound engine. only thing missing right now on the FG imho is the sequencer editor and piano's. it's a waste to have nice PHA2 keybed, yet piano's sound like crap.
Post Reply