What Keyboard has all of this?

[SammyJames]

Wow Vlad. I guess that you like the PC3xx. I guess I'll have to take another look at Kurzweil sometime.


Sammy

[G-Man]

Hmm... let's see. No sampling (thus no skip-back -)) ) so no dinamic pads. No live mode. Unlimited tracks, but 128 MIDI tracks inside the FG (plus the 24 audio) are more than enough. There's 960 resolution not 1366 or whatever number you wrote there -)) It's limited to 16 parts, even if it seems to be loaded with additional synth engines from the factory. The FG is 48 plus external. By the way... ARX.. There is a larger number of total effects on the G. I've been taking a look at it but it didn't convince me (more than mr G). It seems quite confusing and the display/interface kind of sucks. The display configuration is like an Akai sampler, something like that.

[Vlad_77]

Well G-Man, I suppose that's why there are different brands

No "Live Mode"? Yes there is... Setups... completely configurable
More insert FX than FG
Synthesis architecture? The FG is STILL JUSt a ROMpler, though it is powerful, but essentially not THAT much moreso than the FanX. And you are stuck with that. And while it IS admittedly powerful, there are things you can do oon the PC3 series that are impossible on the FG
Organ emulation? The KB3 is a dedicated engine built in with sweet draw bar controls in real time.
There is no denying that Kurzweil is known throughout the industry for its strings, orchestral sounds, and pianos - acoustic and electric
No sampling... true, but, if you have that covered - and I do, it is no big loss
16 independent latching arpeggiators
Yes the screen is smaller and I addressed that well I think.
Pound for pound, sound for sound, parameter for parameter, the PC3 series is truly light years ahead of the big three. Korg tried to make a powerful workstation with the OASYS. It failed with price point, and it is not open architecture as originally promised. Furthermore, succeeding workstations and synths from them all have features "distilled" from the now defunct OASYS. Korg missed the boat both in price and in promised power and performance.

As for the G, I have posted many places that I did not see a difference significant enough over the X to make the move. Admittedly, I first auditioned the G when it was fraught with problems at release - remember the glaring omission of NO multisampling? In MY opinion - which is not at all expert - I still feel the G is more evolutionary in terms of progression over the X.

And, ARX was touted as the next great thing in synthesis, and yet there are only I think two slots for it? Whereas the PC3 has all of that sort of naturalness for acoustic emulation parameter jiggery pokery built right in.

Is ANY hardware workstation perfect? No. But, then, it depends upon your needs and what suits individual needs. What suits my needs is sheer synthesis power in a hardware unit, so for me, the PC3 series is the ticket. For you, the FG fits your needs, so all is good in the end. And to a third, the Motif is the best. So, as they say, your mileage may vary.

My original post was intended for the now banned Elwood who had a lot of MIS-information about the Pc3 series. The subsequent post was to compare the PC3 to the Clavia Wave.

But again, it is what suits. Monied people choose between Bosendorfer and Steinway and Bluthner among others. Guitarists will rage on and on concerning Gibson vs. Fender, etc.

But, I like the debate

[G-Man]

Hmm... not really. The FG has significants advantages over the X. The most important are : FX system, sequencer and expansion capabilities, but there are more actually. And no, I don't think Kurzweil is miles ahead. It can only have 16 parts and no sampling, and that sucks. I'm not surprised there are only 2 expansion slots in FG due to the fact that a single ARX can have 16 parts, poliphony, effects etc. Theoretically FG can have 48 parts plus the independent 16 parts for external devices. That's a total of 64, just like the Cubase. For a keyboard at this time, it's enormous. Somehow a lot of people misunderstand the expansion capabilities of FG; if they've seen 4 exp slots on the X they now would expect 20 on the FG, they don't take into account what an ARX actually is. And yes, maybe the FG is just a (very powerful!) rompler, but only if it's not expanded. Besides, if you really know how to work with the FG, you can emulate so many things. Taken overall, the FG wins against everything so far including Kurzweil, even if there might be certain aspects in wich other manufacturers surpass. Your choice depends on how much you care about those aspects, how important they are for you.
P.S. Live Mode on FG permits seamless switching between layers, wich is an unique feature.

[Parsifal]

First - Vlad, thank you for your kind words! And resourceful as always
G-Man - I tend to favor Vlad's opinion on this. While the "potential" of G is enormous, it's at the same time very much untapped. You said that ARX cards could be 16 part multitimbral and tens of notes of polyphony each. Let me say that - apart from ARX 3 which is only 14 notes of polyphony and the most successful up-to-date - the other 2 are mostly a dissapointment from your very own point of view. Any relevant ARX (16 multi-timbral, at least 96 notes of polyphony) still have to be created. I've learnt not to live in the future and deal only with "now". Can you honestly say that any ARX currently released and on the market is up to your own standards? I'll let you answer that.

P.S. I'm also optimistic and hope Roland will eventually add worthwile additions to the ARX slots. When I first saw the much-heralded M3 at its gargantuan price I said to myself "Korg will soon close its quarters". In the past 3 years the M3 has dramatically become cheaper, got 3 free sound expansions and so on and so on. I still don't want to buy an M3 However Korg's efforts are noticed and I discarded my previous opinion. They've just released a - somewhat - affordable stage piano with lots of knobs, rendering - IMHO - the Juno Stage out of bussiness. Unless I see a Juno Stage Mk II with AFTERTOUCH (and hopefully also an AC Inlet) you won't see much talk on Stage forums (and neither many sales).

[G-Man]

Parsifal: I don't own any kind of ARX cards (yet) so I can't give too many details. But as far as I read the ARX 02 for example has 64 voices (or whatever) of poliphony and I think it's quite nice. I would like to have it one day. On the other hand... the ARX technology is still at the begining. They take it easy on the first time-)) Anyway, my opinion is that nowadays the keyboard-workstations are hard to sell. They are expensive and they require a certain investment from the company. If they don't sell... it's bad -) so... a workstation is a risky investment/project. There is a very strong competition and there's also a strong chalenge from computers. Most people would rather go to a friend and give him a few beers in exchange for Cubase etc and some VST instruments. There is also this bad economic situation... So why the hell would worth buying a workstation?! Thus I dear to say that Roland were smart: they made the new flagship-workstation (they anyway had to do it after 4 years) but rather than invest after a few years in a similar project and risking not to sell etc they conceved theese ARX cards wich are a new keyboard practicaly but only containing the processor. In this way the future investment/project will be concerned about ARX cards (at least for a long time). So I think that ARX technology will progress - it has to, otherwise the selling of the FG can be compromised in a certain degree, not to mention the image of the company. Unfortunately this evolution is kind of slow, but I guess that the guys at Roland are preocupated with the products and categories that sell better (for) now. The conclusion is: theoretically we should not worry about ARX, we should see multi-timbral monsters soon -))

[Vlad_77]

Hey GMan,

Cheers and great discussion!

As for seamless switching? Umm, YES, The PC3 series has it both in Switching from Setups, in the Quick Access area, and from patch to patch.

You bring up the no-sampling on the PC3 and I clearly stated at the out set in my first long post that the PC3 has no sampling, so, obviously these is no debate there, even the old funky Casio SK-1 wins there.

Kurzweil intended to set out to make an extremely powerful synthesizer, one that goes WELL beyond even the most powerful ROMplers. And I know that many here think I am out of touch concerning the G, and that's cool. But the X8 works for me and is quite powerful in many ways, and to my ears was not so stunningly better than its precursor. In addition, it made no sense to me that Roland did not beef up the synthesis engine out of the box on the FG. They COULD have fulfilled the promise of the OASYS and made a killing. Instead, you have to PAY for more power by buying ARX. IF ARX ever DOES reach its potential - and I have not seen much discussion here that Roland are busting their arses to make this happen - then Roland IS a step closer to making a more powerful SYNTHESIZER (caps for emphasis, not shouting). But was does Roland DO with ARX on the first go? Electric Pianos. Hmmm. Ok. Not EXACTLY an auspicious beginning and this opinion was voiced by many happy FG owners. And I guarantee you that out of the box, the PC3 far surpasses the best ARX EPs.

Back to the dead and ultimately disappointing OASYS - and yes this is germane to both the PC3 and the FG. I remember well the first rumblings of this instrument being rumoured on Kurzweil forums (fora? lol) at the time. At the time, the K2000 was the most power instrument on the market in terms of sheer sound creating power and possibilities with 34 different synthesis architectures. It seemed then that Kurzweil was blazing a trail to wed the best features of the preceding ROMplers such as the M1 and D-50 and their progeny whilst simultaneously resurrecting the idea of real synthesis. In fact, the K2000 could do FM even better than the legendary DX7, and they originally titled one of the algorithms "FM." But, this had to be removed because Yamaha had a cow in that FM was their trademark. However, FM is still in the K2000 - just under a very unassuming name. Anyhow, the old K2000 didn't just "emulate" analog - it could really DO analog. True, the K2000 only had 24 voice polyphony, but the voice stealing algorithm was a masterwork and people such as Paul Shaffer, Pete Townshend, Richard Wright, Stevie Wonder, Wendy Carlos, and many others used this instrument and gloried in its power. The OASYS was SUPPOSED to be THE synth to end all synths. Korg worked up to its release with the Trinity to Triton to finally, the OASYS. And we Kurzweil owners watched anxiously because by that time, the Kurzweil was really only building on the K2000 with ITS subsequent releases. Well, history has shown that not only did the OASYS NOT live up to its promised potential - and yes OASYS owners, I DO accept that the OASYS IS powerful, but, it never did what was promised and that is the ability to TRULY create one's own synthesis architecture. In some ways, it never surpassed that 24 voice K2000. And really, the price point killed it. I think we can all agree on that.

So, the other two thirds of the big three had a golden opportunity to cash in on this. None did. What did Roland do? It came out with the original Fantom FA-76. Nice board - I had one and I DO miss it. In the face of the Triton, it just could not compete, and the original Motif blew it away as well. THEN Roland got serious with the TRUE Fantoms such as the S series. NOW the industry was taking a bit of notice. But, NO ONE upped the ante in terms of synthesis - at among the big three. None of the big three were at all cognizant of the demand for true synthesis - an instrument that could do subtractive, additive, granular, FM, AM, and whatever else was possible and even thought NOT to be possible. Yet K2xxx players were still merrily taking (for example) snare drum keymaps (what Kurzweil calls samples) and creating impossibly rich sawtooth and other waves from them and doing crazy wild sound necromancy. This kind of sample manipulation was not being done to that extent on the much newer instruments of the big three. So, who filled the gap? Waldorf, Nord, Dave Smith, and others. Of course, the big three DID get the hint and hopped on the virtual analog express with great instruments like the JP-8000, the underrated SH-32, the Korg Electribe, and others. And even now, all Korg has done - sorry Korg folks - is create distilled versions of the beached whale OASYS. Sure, I think the RADIAS is pretty cool and I saw one with the expansion for sale at 799USD in cherry condition and I am thinking of picking it up just because it is a pretty damned good deal. But... making distilled versions of your flagship to save your bum is not exactly the way to go. And again, sorry M3 people, but whilst Korg HAS been GREAT with updates and all, the M3 really is not in many ways even close to the Motif XS or the FG (or I daresay the supposedly obsolete FX).

THEN ARX comes along. Look back just HERE on older FX posts prior to FG release and you could almost HEAR users typing their unbridled anticipation of this "new" approach. We all know of course that the FG was pretty lacking at release - again, early FG posts HERE attest to that. And here we are, 1 1/2 years after the FG release, and has ARX fulfilled the promise? No. Everyone keeps talking about about what it CAN do, but, it has not happened. It seems to me at least that Roland would be all over the ARX idea. I mean, truly, a GREAT idea to have ADDITIONAL polyphony apart and in addition to the out of the box 128! A GREAT idea to have additional engines that the aftermarket wanted. All due respect G-Man, but you say you think ARX will progress. And you say it is slow because it is an evolution. But, honestly mate, it HASN'T progressed. If it had, I KNOW I would have gotten aboard the G train in a heartbeat. But, "theoretically" and "we should see" is not the same as having it there. I just do not see ARX going anywhere at this late date. Sure, you are right, Roland are putting their money into products that will sell. That is wise business G-Man and I agree with you. But, are the revenues from the Juno-G and Juno Stage going back into ARX development? Judging from the dearth of ARX cards available, it seems that said revenues are not being spent there. So I ask what Roland is waiting for? Could be that since the the other big two have not seen ARX as a threat, why develop? (I am waiting for the Secret Roland Agent to chime in here )

The big three are in my UNexpert opinion complacent. Each does JUST enough to outdo the other for a time. But, where is the revolution? Kind of like every iteration of Windows: there is JUST enough to keep the suits happy because no one gets fired for buying Windows - and in comparison to MacOS, Windows sucketh, but I use Windows because it has the most applications for high end games as well as killer animation packages.

So, Kurzweil is bought by Hyundai - DEEEEP pockets - and they set out to create a monster. I think they did it, and they are not done. My Kurzweil rep regularly has a real Kurzweil engineer at this store quite frequently. Sweetwater Sound - a pretty good company - is firmly behind this instrument that is not on the radar of very many. The PC3 HAS fulfilled the synthesis promise made by OASYS. It's a damned good workstation too. Of course, I DO wish it had sampling. I imagine all the crazy things I could do processing my own samples with the PC3's insane synthesis engines. Then I realise, I can create wildness on the PC3 and sample THAT into the FX or even a software based sampler and I am cool with that. I admit, NOT the best solution, but, it works for me.

I DO agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the issue of competition and the bad economy. Couple that with rampant piracy of Cubase and VSTs and the situation worsens. One wonders how long hardware workstations will be around. I for one hope a LONG time. I thinks VSTs are GREAT in studio situations, but the realities of gigging live night after night - or even just weekend warrior stuff means equipment had damned well better be able to take the physical punishment of roadies, the road itself and/or tired musicians at the end of the night when its 10 below and you just want to get home and warm. Until they make a laptop that can be as tough as a Roland tank, I will stay in the hardware business so to speak.

We BOTH agree however in the end G-Man my friend and colleague that we get what works for us individually. We all know that in a music shop we audition a ton of instruments much to the chagrin of our significant others. And there is always the "one" we keep returning to in that shop. I bought my X8 I believe 5 months prior to FG release. On that day I auditioned an M3, a Motif XS, and the FX. I also mucked about with an S-90ES and a few others including the budget Triton LE. But that X8 - especially that creamy beautiful sexy come hither I am better than ANY groupie UltimatGrand patch on the X - called me back time and again. The X worked - and STILL works for my needs. But, I needed that last bit - REAL synthesis power. The ability to DO what ARX and OASYS promised. One is dead, and the other at this point still in post-natal care. Artemiy's TweakBook and the tips and tricks offered here plus the Planet Packs have made my X even more badass. Having said that, the reality is that the PC3 simply does things the others cannot - including the G. And I do hasten to add that NO workstation is perfect. The G has MUCH in its favour most assuredly. IF Roland would REALLY put some REAL effort into ARX instead of just cranking out distilled versions of the G and X ala Korg, THEN I think the G would be a KILLER and Kurzweil and the other two of the big three would be in some serious trouble. But, it isn't going to happen. Rather, I think this: the initial bad press on the G at release really hurt it. I know more than a few music dealers who either could not sell a G or had MANY returns at release. Yes, Roland fixed what were frankly STUPID omissions. They were drinking some BAD beer (who about does beers) when they nixxed multisampling and piano mode - something the "old" flagship had! So, given THAT, it seems in a sense that Roland with regards to ARX, is not doing better beers. I predict then that in the not too distant future at a NAMM show, Roland are going unveil the killer multitimbral to which you alluded. I believe that Roland will put in the box what SHOULD have been in the G already. ARX or perhaps more accurately, its descendant will be realised in the next instrument, but, it ain't gonna happen in the G. And as to R&D? Roland created the architecture for ARX expansion. It seems logical - if indeed any logic (other than Steinberg's) exists in our industry, that Roland, knowing the architecture, would or should be cranking these out! Look at the ads for the G, what was the BIG selling point even beyond the almost I-Max sized screen and mouse interface? ARX! Well we are STILL waiting, both current G users and those of us who WOULD have made the move had it happened. And let's face it, along with the new Junos being cranked out, the price of ARX in addition could be some tidy revenue for Roland. But even that aside, if you are marketing something revolutionary, then get it out there! If ARX IS the shite, then PUSH it, make it REAL. Don't wank about with EPs. DAZZLE us with the real thing! Where are the REAL cellos that ARX promises? How about that SWEET body resonance of a Martin or - and I WILL get flamed for THIS one - where are the PIANOS? Judging by the hype, ARX should be able to out-Steinway a Steinway.

Believe me G-Man, I LOVE Roland! Five of the ten workstations and synths I have ARE Rolands and I LOVE them all. I WANT to be proven wrong on ARX. I TRULY want Roland to DELIVER on that promise of ARX. I WANT them to show Korg that the OASYS should NEVER have seen the light of day!. Why? Because I am very comfortable with Roland. I love the sound, I love the ease of use. Roland HAS power without the steep learning curve. I was very clear that the PC3 is a BEAR in terms of its learning curve. Even WITH the VERY clean Windows/Mac editor, working with a program that is 32 layers deep with gobs of parameters and weird NASA mathematical equations plus all the other flummery causes my HAIR to hurt sometimes - and I have very long hair, so imagine the PAIN

I do love the debate G-Man. Your points ARE well considered and neither of us have resorted to ad hominem tactics that are sadly all too prevalent on public fora such as these. You REALLY want to see nasty? I am also an illusionist and sleight of hand artist. Magicians play NASSTY, and at THIS point in our debate if we were both magicians - well, if you saw the film The Prestige then you know what I mean when I say one of us would be in the tank at this point

Let's keep making music brother! And... let's pressure ALL of these companies - including Kurzweil - to keep moving forward! I too am tired of the 128 voice ceiling - this was mentioned by someone else in this thread, ingenious voice stealing algorithms aside.

So, until or unless Roland delivers on this potentially magnificent promise of ARX, the PC3 does it all - for me.

Ahimsa,
Vlad

[Parsifal]

Vlad, I've watched the tutorial videos on PC3 as you advised me and there's something I don't get it. You mentioned too - keymaps. I think I remember that guy saying keymaps across the keyboard are fixed (preset). I take there is a set of (single) samples grouped together to form a specific keymap ( = multisample preset if I'm not mistaken) - which cannot be altered in terms of removing a specific sample assigned to a certain key from that keymap (and replacing it with another one from a different keymap). If I'm mistaken please do tell me. This is the only bit I'm unsure of. Thanks in advance (and I hope I don't "hijack" the thread).

[SammyJames]

Guys:

With all due respect to Kurzweil, they didn't really revolutionize music. I hate to write that, because I am proud of having worked on the K2500 manual. It was gratifying to see it come to market while I was working there. But let's face it -- they didn't invent sampling, the workstation, or virtual synthesis. In fact, they didn't rewrite any of the rulebooks on such things. (Unless, as I discuss briefly below, the bang/buck ratio that they helped to shatter.)

Their greatest contribution to music, and I give them credit for this, was making it easier to process samples and have them sound unique. It's difficult to explain, really, something so simple -- which is what it does. It doesn't, you know, munge the samples or analyze them and spit them back out as raw data. All it really does is take the input from the samples that you play on the keyboard, add some effects, and then send the result to the output.

That is all that it is doing!

ANY modern synth, even software, does the same exact thing. Now, in 1992 to be doing that with a price tag of $2,000 was unheard of. The sheer power that their system was capable of was a revelation to many. So again -- I'm not trying to take anything away from them.

What we are seeing now in the synth market is a detente. Nobody wants to take a big huge flying leap into who-knows-what. The fortunes of the very people who launched these companies depend on the ability to move hundreds of thousands of units every year. You won't find anything out there that is affordable that is unique anymore. But what you will find are varying amenities and different options in every product line.

In other words -- if you are looking for something that will truly rock the world, you're either going to have to spend a lot of money on something that is vintage, or build it yourself. Or, as many of us have been trying to do, is to create unique music with whatever tools are at your disposal.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring? All I know is that I'm supremely bored. But that is my disease. Anyway, this is a good discussion.

Thanks.


Sammy

[SammyJames]

And don't forget about the Fairlight!!! It's coming back... god I wish that I could afford one.


Sammy

[Artemiy]

Sammy, sounds like you need a V-Synth! It was and still is about 10 years ahead of it's time. And it's vastly, vastly underestimated.

[SammyJames]

Artemiy:

ABSOUTELY. I owned a V-Synth briefly. If I could have afforded to keep it, it would have been a great addition to my setup. As it was, I needed a single keyboard to drive my computer-sequencing workstation, and I decided that it didn't make sense to have the V-Synth as my main controller.

I love the 2.0 version that came out back in 2006 or so. It literally blew my mind to hear what you could do with the thing. Maybe someday, if I'm ever wealthy, then I may pick one up. That thing really does some neat stuff to samples. I would say that, although there isn't a system on the planet yet that truly analyzes and then spits out its input, the V-Synth does more than merely "fx-processing." That is to say that it does, but does so in STYLE.


Sammy

[Artemiy]

Yes, VariPhrase is what it's all about, it's astonishing. It's pretty experimental but always very musical. There are so many new possibilities and I developed many "recipes" for creating different unique sounds. Also, I am proud to be one of the sound designers who contributed to the OS 2.0 sound set, and I think that it is one of the best sound sets in a Roland synth ever.

[Kristijan]

100% true. Bravo, Artemiy!

[Vlad_77]

I too would LOVE to get my mitts on a V-Synth - even the original. Artemiy's excellent Planet V has me convinced that I made a HUGE mistake when I did not buy a V-Synth.

Can you imagine the possibilities if Roland's next flagship would resurrect the V-Synth as part of the package??? It boggles, simply BOGGLES!!

I wonder though, could Roland do an ARX card that would at least approximate SOME of what the V-Synth can do? I realise that a lot of the V-Synth's wonderfulness also stems from its creamy UI. Still, through ARX, I would imagine that this interface could at least in part be approximated by assigning the real time controllers to virtual ARX functions. Not having ever owned a V-Synth, this is purely conjecture.