kday wrote:Roland offered nothing basically in terms of innovation, but more of the same, more FXs, like who cares, 2 ARX boards, like we're supposed to dig that? It's a great and wonderful workstation for new buyers, but nowhere near enough for their core base of buyers the Fantom X users, who they rely on to sustain the workstation sales market.
I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the FX per part. As long standing Roland user that solved on of the biggest drawbacks most of these kinds of keyboards from all manufactures have had for years. Yes the ARX boards were underwhelming in scope but they are way beyond the stock Fantom X or G sounds in terms of realism and dynamics. Yes it is a great workstation but perhaps it there as more of a "through line" from the X, more X users would have jumped across. That's basically what you are arguing Yamaha got right. Flash memory is only impressive if you use lots of samples. BTW the sample storage on the Fantom G is way better than the X. USB sticks being much faster and more flexible. Mine loads reasonably quickly. Around the same time as a Kronos takes to switch on, in fact a bit faster.
Motif XF was a major advancement, going from No Flash Memory to having Flash Memory is unbeatable!
Only for sampling...
Korg Kronos was was a major advancement having multiple synth engines and SSD onboard is also unbeatable.
Yes this had to happen. I applaud Korg for it.
But there is another issue. Do players like the Korg or Yamaha or Roland sound. Subjective value.
Roland has to come out swinging to compete, they can't risk another lackluster or dismo synth sales year.
That's why Roland is taking a long time, because they have to redesign a new interface, design these new features, new sound cards that will be available for the next synth, new software, new synth engines, Flash Memory or SSD options, etc. They know what they have to come with, or they know if they don't, then their synth department may be looking to have to go out of business.
Yamaha and Korg are on their momentum roll, they've succeeded in retaining or regaining their loyal fan base, so the pressure is much lower than what Roland has to endure. But Roland should succeed, unless they try to offer a rehash of the G with just more sound cards and not too much of anything else that's truly innovative. They need either Flash Memory, or onboard SSD to compete with where Yamaha and Korg are at or where they are heading in the synthesizer design department at the moment.
Generally I agree. It needs to be advanced, sound fantastic and be flexible and easy to use. The user interface on the G is outstanding in my view, not a view held of other workstations. Despite all negativity Roland actually have a lot to build on, they just need to dot the i's and cross the t's
Anyway guys, this subject has been discussed death (including by me) but is all opinions and conjecture at this point. If Art was still here I'd suggest to him to lock the thread, so if you guys agree and the admins think so, lets do it. We've been over all this a gatrillion times. Let's just use the G forums to help each other get more out the what we have. When the new one (if it does) get's announced, lets discuss it then. Just an idea.