Fantom G next logical step from X?

Forum for Fantom-G6/7/8
micwells
Posts: 11
Joined: 16:28, 1 May 2014
Contact:

Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by micwells »

Fantom G?

I have had my fantom X for a long time. I have grown to love it, and I am still finding useful features as i grow into it. Also, there are areas I have not even begun to use. Just knowing they are there adds to the awe I have for this wonderful keyboard. ALso, I was impressed with the Roland Clan forums, and the vast amount of free sounds i can get from the internet for this keyboard.

I have begun to think of what to do to replace this, because it wont last forever. I am now scared because of what i am reading about the fantom G. I had been going to my local sam ash and playing the fantom G, thinking it must be a step up from my awesome fantom X. One thing i read that concerns me greatly is that the fantom G does not have mute or solo in mixer mode? is that true? I have made tracks for some of my original songs and often have musicians join me in my performances. I need to be able to mute bass if i have a bass player, etc. Also, I sync my keyboard to my multi-track software to record a track at a time to my computer. Could it be that thisa feature is gone? That could be a deal breaker right there?

Also, can i use my existing seq files on the fantom G? I have them on the internal and on an SD plugged into a pcmcia adapter. What kind of file sharing can be done.

What else does the G NOT have that the fantom x has?

I have been intrigued with skip back sampling, but find it difficult to make phrases that i can loop . I know the G tries to address this with phrases, but they may have mucked up the recording features with this, as i have heard complaints.

ALso, If I DON'T upgrade to fantom G, what would the learning curve of lets say a Korg, or yamaha be? Also, I love the LCD screen, and see using something with less visual area or a monochrome window as a serious step back.

I use my fantom to:

1. record backings for my original songs
2. transfer to computer a track at a time for recording
3. Live performances with my favorite patches, and playing backing, and layered performances with split keyboard features.
4. Routing my lead guitar through the input and using some effects for live performance

does the G allow for all of that?
micwells
Posts: 11
Joined: 16:28, 1 May 2014
Contact:

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by micwells »

nobody has any thoughts about this? this might be my answer :-)
howardS
Posts: 1759
Joined: 03:22, 10 March 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by howardS »

nobody has any thoughts about this? this might be my answer :-)


Hmm, depends how you read the lack of response. ;)

There are lots of posts on this forum comparing the X to the G. Have you looked at any of those threads?

I think many people here think the G is not the successor to the X, In fact a number of members here purchased the G and kept their X.
Kljavi
Posts: 22
Joined: 21:26, 25 January 2014

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by Kljavi »

I dont see any reason why not to go on G...It is better technology integrated inside, everthing...I would go if I were you...
I purchased G7 recently and untill now I didnt have Roland keyboards, but now I can say that Fantom G is top workstation...
My frind have X7 and he dont want to change and go to G7 because he use it in LIVE gigs and he programed it for live gigs...now he should spend too much time to programe it from the start in G so...
howardS
Posts: 1759
Joined: 03:22, 10 March 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by howardS »

It sounds to me as though micwells will have the same problems as your friend, Kljavi, since he already has an X as well.
Kljavi
Posts: 22
Joined: 21:26, 25 January 2014

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by Kljavi »

yes..this could be the case..two years work and programing,filtering etc...and then move to another new one...uff
For example, korg triton series you could put PCG from triton classic to studio and extreme and this is good but then korg presents m3 and all programs and combi modes could not be put in M3...that was disaster for me....
Roland also should do some with this problem in the future...dont you think?
howardS
Posts: 1759
Joined: 03:22, 10 March 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by howardS »

Well, I don't want to guess as to why Roland didn't do it. I accept that the G is not backwards compatible to the X and leave it at that. Many synths have that problem so I accept that. I just want to try and stay on topic and address the original poster's question though which is why I suggested that the G might not be an automatic upgrade for him/her.

Here's a question for you, micwells. If you like the X why would you pay to upgrade it. If a switch or pot goes you can just fix it and the used market will probably have more and more X's around so you can always buy another one to replace yours or to have as a spare. Why upgrade now?
Kljavi
Posts: 22
Joined: 21:26, 25 January 2014

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by Kljavi »

howardS wrote:Well, I don't want to guess as to why Roland didn't do it. I accept that the G is not backwards compatible to the X and leave it at that. Many synths have that problem so I accept that. I just want to try and stay on topic and address the original poster's question though which is why I suggested that the G might not be an automatic upgrade for him/her.

Here's a question for you, micwells. If you like the X why would you pay to upgrade it. If a switch or pot goes you can just fix it and the used market will probably have more and more X's around so you can always buy another one to replace yours or to have as a spare. Why upgrade now?
Yes we can accept that because we dont have any other options...or maybe not?
For example kurzweil workstations are backward compatible.....they have platforms compatible with previous models...
Think that brands like Roland, Korg etc could think about this option for sure becuse automatically purchase of new models will be better I m sure.
If new model comes out and it is compatible with previous model I would buy it:)
trommis
Posts: 56
Joined: 09:20, 9 April 2012
Location: Ålesund, Norway

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by trommis »

Kurzweil PC3 series is not 100% backwards compatible with the 2000/2500/2600. I own both The PC3 and the Fantom G7, and they are both great boards. In fact, I would rather sell my OASYS than the Fantom ;-)
howardS
Posts: 1759
Joined: 03:22, 10 March 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by howardS »

Think that brands like Roland, Korg etc could think about this option for sure becuse automatically purchase of new models will be better I m sure.
I'm sure they thought about it and in fact they had it before. I had both an S and an X a number of years back and the X was backward compatible to the S. They made the decision to not incorporate that with the G. I have seen a number of theories for that on this forum but I think we should keep the focus here on what was originally asked by micwells. As the G is not backward compatible to the X micwells I guess micwells could consider a number of options including boards from other companies before deciding to upgrade from the X. I still wonder why bother upgrading at all at this point if the X is performing well for him/her.
Kljavi
Posts: 22
Joined: 21:26, 25 January 2014

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by Kljavi »

I cant give you advices for G because I just bought it but Fantom G is new technology compare to X..probably is much more user friendly with computer as well as for the live playing...do some research on youtube...there is good videos produced by Ed Diaz (Roland Product manager-great man:)) as well as many others where you can see what Fantom G can do..
Also you can ask directly people mentioned above if you have any specific question..
micwells
Posts: 11
Joined: 16:28, 1 May 2014
Contact:

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by micwells »

Thanks for all the replies! It is true that it is performing well, and i that i have not even used or learned about all the features. I guess I was thinking that it is getting old, and if the G is an upgrade, I would keep them both in action but i would have a back up in case the x breaks. but I would get the x repaired if possible.

I have been jamming to arpeggios, and find myself wishing I could play a phrase with a beat , and then loop it easy, so i can play guitar in front of it. Skip-back sampling is difficult for me for some reason. Is anybody here familiar or good at skip back sampling?

One frustrating problem i have is syncing it with my computer software through midi. It seems like randomly it just doesn't work until i load some third party midi programs and play with the port settings. I am still not sure what is really happening but it seems like a bug in the keyboard rather than the computer.

Specifically - the question about the solo and mute missing from the mixer?? is that true?
JunoJohn
Posts: 815
Joined: 08:29, 24 February 2008
Location: Washington DC

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by JunoJohn »

You can mute both Parts and Tracks on the Fantom-G. Solo is not an option, anywhere on the G, unfortunately.
JunoJohn
Posts: 815
Joined: 08:29, 24 February 2008
Location: Washington DC

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by JunoJohn »

micwells wrote:I have been jamming to arpeggios, and find myself wishing I could play a phrase with a beat , and then loop it easy, so i can play guitar in front of it.
The Fantom-X's sequencer has a loop function which I think is similar or identical to the G's. (I have the G, not the X.)

RPS is also an option for looping on both the X and G.
User avatar
G-Man
Posts: 434
Joined: 20:52, 4 July 2009
Location: RCF

Re: Fantom G next logical step from X?

Post by G-Man »

JunoJohn wrote:Solo is not an option, anywhere on the G, unfortunately.
That's probably because when you play a phrase, in the phrase list / phrase edit screen, you hear just the instrument(s) within that phrase, so probably Roland considered that the Solo button is no longer necessary. Fair enough until some point, but a Solo option for the parts in the mixer would have been nice though. Even better - for the tracks in the sequencer.
Post Reply