Some dude demo-ing the Fantom G6...

[SilverDragonSoun]

But the leaps and Bounds made by computers, software, softsynths, samplers and sequencers(DAWS) is making this a huge uphill battle. Its like to comparing a windows 95 system with a Windows XP one and that may be a generous comparison. For every workstation that comes out, computers have moved at least 2 steps ahead.

 

come on, latest motif XS runs on very much up to date linux OS,

there is no technical problems with implementing high end software into workstations.

 

 

But what about the incredible limtations on the all the current workstations. Sequencers on computers have unlimited amount of tracks, Sounds have unlimited polyphony... I could go on and on and that's the point. All the workstations have limitations that hinder some people. As an example: using the Fantom-G can only record Audio to its RAM. It can't record to external storage such as flash drives or hard disks. The sequencer looks nice, but it's almost useless because it can only record to a maximum of 544 MB ram, pointless over 24 Audio Tracks.

 

Delerium don't get me wrong. I really do like the Motif XS alot and respect and appreciate what they've done with it. I think all three realize the power of the computer segment of the market which is why they are catering much more to that market. The problem is they haven't been able to implement the power side that computer users benefit from in their OS's, at least not yet

[delirium]

SilverDragonSoun,

You're right but it's only because of cost and common sense.

Why you ever need unlimited tracks or unlimited poly or whatever?

Just to be able to say I have it?

 

This is like with cars, do you really need 300 horse power SUV

to drive to your work? I don't think so...

[RABid]

...

My biggest complaint is that the Big 4 are not making much BESIDES workstations (off all of them, I give Korg the exception). Even when they had a great opportunity, Roland saddled the Juno-G with more generally useless, repetitive features and at the other end, starved the SH-201.

...

 

Did you forget about the V-Synth? I think Roland has done more than any of them outside the workplace moarket.

[MusicWorkz]

No, I didn't say they didn't have any, but for the most part, where does the V-Synth play in the market? The upper end. The V-Synth is truly innovative, but again, it is only going to fill a niche and at $2,900, is a luxury when you have most anything else you want already at your disposal.

 

So while it is on my Wish List, if i had $2,900, I'm looking for something that is going to fill a need in a way and manner that what I already have doesn't. And that speaks to my point.

 

There is a gap between that $2,900 V-Synth and the $600 SH-201. This gap is filled with different iterations of the same DAW. Because if they build it good enough, it will become a NEED. We all have primary keyboards (for the most part). We all want and even need great secondary ones. This is where I see Roland missing an opportunity in the market.

[RABid]

I paid half that for my rack mount V-Synth and thought that was a very good spot for the market.

[MusicWorkz]

I paid half that for my rack mount V-Synth and thought that was a very good spot for the market.

 

I agree, it Is a very good spot-I wish it was me. But please correct me if i am wrong, that isn't where the V-Synth entered the market, correct? I'll be a believer (and customer AGAIN) when Roland drops a decent synth in the $1000-1200 range that doesn't include all the features we don't need.

[burningbusch]

 

A Much Better Demo

 

Busch.

[Matocaster]

But what about the incredible limtations on the all the current workstations. Sequencers on computers have unlimited amount of tracks, Sounds have unlimited polyphony... I could go on and on and that's the point. All the workstations have limitations that hinder some people. As an example: using the Fantom-G can only record Audio to its RAM. It can't record to external storage such as flash drives or hard disks. The sequencer looks nice, but it's almost useless because it can only record to a maximum of 544 MB ram, pointless over 24 Audio Tracks.

 

Delerium don't get me wrong. I really do like the Motif XS alot and respect and appreciate what they've done with it. I think all three realize the power of the computer segment of the market which is why they are catering much more to that market. The problem is they haven't been able to implement the power side that computer users benefit from in their OS's, at least not yet

 

 

If you feel hindered by the big three, then you must think outside of the big three! www.openlabs.com Their power is endless. I use the Miko and I also have a Motif XS. i could probably live without the Motif, but I do like the tweakability. I'm as guilty as the next guy of G.A.S. I'm actually interested in the G. I couldn't justify having two workstations. The solution is to mimik the sounds into my Miko. There are options. Don't always look to the big three to lead the pack. There are lots of great boutique companies making incredible gear.

[delirium]

Matocaster,

looks interesting, but also pretty expensive. What are the stock sound quality comparing to big three, and what is the keys action?

I'd rather stick to big three for half the price...

[RABid]

DAW's don't have unlimited tracks and unlimited voices. The tracks and voices are limited "only" by the processor as the software companies like to say. Sometimes that processor limit can be less than a good workstation.

 

I like to compose on a piano. If I can get good music out of two tracks, one for left hand and one for right, then I should be able to create some good music from a 16 or 32 track workstation. Imagine what it was like to work with a 4-trak tape.

[richwhite9]

A Roland G6 fully expanded is $3,300 street. The Open Labs items are a bit higher but more expandable w/ superior DAW features. I don't like their integrated approach but it's an option.

 

A good rack mount DAW with quad core, 8 gig RAM, Sonar, 4 hard rives, RME interface, monitor, RAID, etc and good 88-key controller can be had for ~3.6 K street. VSTs and Samples extra.

 

The point being it's getting to a point where the 3,500 plus workstations (fully expanded) are an endangered species.

 

There should be more downward pressure on the 2K to 3.5K range next year (2009) when the 3.0 quads are shipping in bulk and 8 gig RAM is the norm.

 

 

 

 

[zvenx]

DAW's don't have unlimited tracks and unlimited voices. The tracks and voices are limited "only" by the processor as the software companies like to say. Sometimes that processor limit can be less than a good workstation.

 

:-) yeah if your computer is 25 years old.... my 1997 macintosh which I keep around to run SVP occasionally easily runs 24 audio tracks with plugins etc.....

 

I am very curious to know how many people who have bought the Oasis for insance run it as a partial Daw.

 

By the way, in passing, Roland mentions the usb for audio/midi aspect of the new Fantom. Does this mean like the Access Virus TI, it can function solely as a VSTI? allowing midi and audio processing and use just like any vsti does, using your main audio card? I notice it is mentioned in passing, almost like that aspect isnt' ready yet or that is low in the totem pole for Roland.

rsp

[delirium]

frankly, I don't get it why you guys need 1000+ tracks for recording. Do you really need to put each e.g. drum on separate track? Maybe my recording is too simple but let say on track 1 I have piano (both hands of course), track 2 bass, track 3 guitar, track 4 some strings, track 5 drum kit, track 6 vocals and I have still plenty of tracks left even on 16 tracks workstation. So I can add all kind of noises, effects, solos, samples etc.

On Fantom G with 128 tracks...thats a lot, as I said before unless you're recoding whole symphony for 100 instruments why you ever need more?

 

[zvenx]

different workflow for different people......

background vocals for me alone is sometimes 16 tracks doubled, tripled, harmonized etc.

rsp

[zephonic]

frankly, I don't get it why you guys need 1000+ tracks for recording. Do you really need to put each e.g. drum on separate track? Maybe my recording is too simple but let say on track 1 I have piano (both hands of course), track 2 bass, track 3 guitar, track 4 some strings, track 5 drum kit, track 6 vocals and I have still plenty of tracks left even on 16 tracks workstation. So I can add all kind of noises, effects, solos, samples etc.

On Fantom G with 128 tracks...thats a lot, as I said before unless you're recoding whole symphony for 100 instruments why you ever need more?

 

It's not just about high track count (although I habitually go way over 24), ultimately it is about flexibility. No matter how advanced a hardware workstation may be, it can never be as configurable as a DAW.

I bought my X7 (with audiotrack-expansion) in '05 because I thought it would be sufficient to make demos. I tried for a bit but it was entirely too rigid and limited for my methods.

 

[RABid]

Or more like "flexibility vs. simplicity". Yes my MacProQuad with Logic or my XP Quad with Sonar is way more powerful than my FantomX7+VirusTI combo but powerful is not always better when in the early stages of composing. But with the FantomX+VirusTI combo I never worry about an OS update breaking third-party AU instruments, Vista headaches, sound card driver updates gone wrong, pops and cracks caused by the video interface, what software is trully multi-core compliant, Rewire breaking after a DAW update, or a lovely pad created in Reaktor taking 50% of the CPU power.

 

The simpler the setup, the more I concentrate on which note to play and when to play it rather than which reverb to use and how much CPU I have left before I have to start freezing tracks. There is a time for that, but for me I like to split the creative process from the mechanics of finalizing a song.

[burningbusch]

One thing about the workstations is that, when you're dealing with audio, it takes FOREVER to load and save. On my M3 (which supposedly uses USB 2.0) it takes five minutes to load 200MB of samples into RAM. Roland has always had slow load times--don't know if that has been improved with the G. Yamaha did improve load times somewhat with the XS.

 

Still, the thing with computer-based DAWs is they STREAM audio from the hard disk and soft samplers STREAM from the hard disk making load/save time vastly more acceptable even when dealing with much larger amounts of audio data.

 

I've never found workstations particularly inspiring. Whenever I play them I tend to just set up some basic sound and play it across the keyboard. Of the many workstations I've owned, I created very little original material using the built-in sequencer. My Tyros 2 arranger is a different story. I have dozens of original songs and ideas stored on it. Splits and layers are just a button push. I can pull up a style and start working through melodic and harmonic ideas and then when I record, everything about the song (style, chords) is saved.

 

Busch.

[delirium]

My Tyros 2 arranger is a different story. I have dozens of original songs and ideas stored on it. Splits and layers are just a button push. I can pull up a style and start working through melodic and harmonic ideas and then when I record, everything about the song (style, chords) is saved.

Busch.

 

Somehow I never thought about arranger keyboards as a tool for recording. Maybe because it did look to me more as toy for playing with music "production" then professional tool, but maybe I'm wrong.

So are you saying you can get similar task completed faster and in more convenient way on e.g. Tyros 2? How about originality, doesn't it impose some prerecorded idea on you?

 

[SilverDragonSoun]

When I am working with someone, you want things to sound as good as possible. The limitations of today's workstations certainly force you cut corners and make decisions about what you're not going to do. If I want to do an orchestration, I have to decide how to get everything into a certain amount of tracks. You can forget about any types of harmonies, vocals and layering as I've already run out of tracks on a workstation. When I started working with other musicians on the recording and production side, I learned very quickly how today's workstations don't cut it in this area. For some quick ideas I come up with personally, I love the ability of some workstations to store and get my ideas down.

 

 

P.S. Delerium you have to check out the Tyros 2, Korg PAX2 and the other top of the line arrangers. I was absolutely blown away by the sounds, complexity and abilities of them. In many ways they rival and dare I say surpass today's workstations with some of the things they can do.

[SilverDragonSoun]

BTW - I wanted to point something out that I feel separates our forum from many others. Look at the discussion in this thread, its evolved, like others do, and there are a variety of opinions and information being shared. The amount of respect shown here is what I love. Can you imagine this thread on HC? The insults would have been flying. Whether I agree or not with the opinions on this thread, I respect them first and foremost. In many ways as I read the opinions and information expressed here I realize that we need this type of diversity thats available in today's market, as we all have different needs and are doing different things. Thanks for making this forum a great place to come and share our opinions and ideas in a respectful way.

[Cygnus64]

frankly, I don't get it why you guys need 1000+ tracks for recording. Do you really need to put each e.g. drum on separate track? Maybe my recording is too simple but let say on track 1 I have piano (both hands of course), track 2 bass, track 3 guitar, track 4 some strings, track 5 drum kit, track 6 vocals and I have still plenty of tracks left even on 16 tracks workstation. So I can add all kind of noises, effects, solos, samples etc.

 

A lot of my stuff has 50+ tracks.

[burningbusch]

The Tyros is a great tool for song writing and fleshing out ideas, especially when working with traditional styles. It's also a very good tool for creating arrangements you can pass off to live musicians as it gives them a better idea of the overall groove of the song. I generally don't use the output of an arranger for final production. Final production for me is done in the DAW.

 

The Yamaha XS arpeggios largely come from Yamaha's arranger styles. They sound better on the Tyros2 and have more variations. In performance mode on the XS you can only have four arps going at once. With the Tyros 2 you can have eight channels (equivalent of arp) plus you can have additional splits/layers going on the live keyboard (12 different sounds at once). The XS only allows five variations per performance while the T2 has 15. The MIDI programming in the top arrangers is very good. When I listen to demos of the T2, G70 or Korg PA80 vs. the workstations they clearly sound better to me when doing traditional styles. They are better at creating the illusion of a live ensemble.

 

If you feel every aspect of an "original" song must be 100% original, then an arranger probably isn't the right tool. If on the other hand you are focused on melody, harmony and an overall groove, they're great.

 

Busch.

 

[delirium]

thanks Bush for clarification. From what you're saying looks like a nice keyboard that tyros2, but why they made it look like a toy??? Anyway direct HD recording is nice, not sure if there is a sampler too but still 16 track midi sequencer is good for song writing.

 

Anyway for catching ideas etc motif XS works very well for me too,

for half the price. I didn't know though it took so many features from Tyros2.

[zephonic]

BTW - I wanted to point something out that I feel separates our forum from many others. Look at the discussion in this thread, its evolved, like others do, and there are a variety of opinions and information being shared. The amount of respect shown here is what I love. Can you imagine this thread on HC? The insults would have been flying. Whether I agree or not with the opinions on this thread, I respect them first and foremost. In many ways as I read the opinions and information expressed here I realize that we need this type of diversity thats available in today's market, as we all have different needs and are doing different things. Thanks for making this forum a great place to come and share our opinions and ideas in a respectful way.

 

Sheez, who you callin' respectful?

You take that back now, y'hear?

[RABid]

Different instruments and different methods used by different folks leads to different music.

[zvenx]

That is so true about this forum. I use to visit way more often than I do now....actually I hardly ever come by these parts, but back then and still now it was one of the two forums only that you ever really felt like family and not at war.

is DB still the moderator? credits to him and the members for that.

rsp

[MusicWorkz]

frankly, I don't get it why you guys need 1000+ tracks for recording. Do you really need to put each e.g. drum on separate track? Maybe my recording is too simple but let say on track 1 I have piano (both hands of course), track 2 bass, track 3 guitar, track 4 some strings, track 5 drum kit, track 6 vocals and I have still plenty of tracks left even on 16 tracks workstation. So I can add all kind of noises, effects, solos, samples etc.

On Fantom G with 128 tracks...thats a lot, as I said before unless you're recoding whole symphony for 100 instruments why you ever need more?

 

When I record a choir live with a full band, I am hitting 32-40 tracks out the box BEFORE overdubs. I can easily hit 75-90 tracks by the time a project is finished. Even in the studio, I close mic drums PLUS overheads and room, so I can chew up 10 tracks alone with just that.

 

Commercial R&B tracks? Even worse. They are easily hitting 100+, too, so while some genres may not break 24 tracks on a good day, others hit that mark with ease.

 

 

 

 

[MusicWorkz]

Silver, I agree with you totally . I enjoy the fact we can talk, share and even debate without much enmity while we do. The guys (and gals here) truly are a special sort, and makes me proudto consider myself a keyboard player...