Is the Integra 7 still relevant?

[Al Coda]

12 minutes ago, Rod S said:

 

If they are do a rack again, I would hope for a a 2U.  The motif racks are 1U but so deep they create havoc in my rack and more clumsy to carry to gigs.  I like the 1U format they used for the CS6r for example.  

 

 

I wrote "MODX" in the hope it wouldn´t need the depth of a (imaginary) "Montage" rack.

 

A.C.

[AnotherScott]

16 hours ago, rickzjamm said:

FA-06...has excellent sounds that are taken from the I7. 

In the FA, it's mostly the synth stuff that's taken from the i7. The only FA "instruments" that are taken from the Integra are the SN piano, EPs, clav, organ, basses, acoustic guitar, and ensemble strings. While the rest of its "acoustic" sounds are among those included in the Integra, they are the older legacy sounds from the XV-5080 and (if loaded in as expansions) SRX cards.

 

But your interest in Integra rather than Fantom-0 in order to get down from 2 boards to 1 is similar to why I'd gig with an Integra rather than adding a Fantom-0, not wanting to go from 2 boards to 3! Fantom-0 looks great, but the 88 hammer action wouldn't be good replacement for my current lower board; the 76/61 wouldn't be a good replacement for my current upper; and so it would become yet another board in the stable fighting for a position as the most desirable board that won't be coming with me to the gig. ;-) I was going to expand on that here, but I think I'll move that to the Fantom-0 thread, since it's more appropriate there than in this Integra discussion, though it's also related to the fact that your rig includes the YC88.

 

Though if part of the appeal of the Integra (over either your FA-06 or a theoretical Fantom-06) is to get down to one board, what do you see as the main advantage of getting the rig down to one board? Is the issue tight stage space? Is it aesthetics, preferring the "clean, lean" look of a single board rather than a pair? (Because connecting an Integra to your YC instead of bringing that second board is not likely to save much if any setup time nor travel weight, and you are losing some inherent 2-board advantages, like hammer-and-non-hammer actions, backup if a board goes down, and more sheer key real estate so you can reduce reliance on splits, reducing patch creation time and the problem of accidentally crossing into a wrong sound.)

 

14 hours ago, Al Coda said:

True,- but to change that, THESE warriors can go w/ a DP´s focus on piano and all the extra soundware delivered,- p. ex. a RD2000 or such.

No need for a workstation because most of the customers you mentioned use factory patches, edit a bit (if at all) and rarely dive deeply into a machine.

 

RD2000 is an extremely capable board, itself! I guess all that keeps it out of the workstation category is the lack of deep sound editability and a sequencer. Though the single-board gigger could sometimes want those things too... sometimes they could want a sequence as a backing track, or may really want to get closer to a particular sound. Though picking up for your comment there, I think some people may like having the ability to edit ("just in case"), even though they end up not using it.

 

But I think the bottom line in wishing for (if I understand you correctly) something like a K2700 without high quality piano sounds (to use an example) is, what would they gain? How much cost savings would there be, vs. how many sales would they lose and how many complaints would they get? After all, pretty much every board has a bunch of things some of its purchasers won't care about. You may say the high quality piano sounds are a waste, someone else will never use the pads, someone else will never use the sequencer, someone else will never use the KB3 organ, someone else won't care about being able to do VAST programming, someone else won't care about loading samples, someone else won't care about FM synthesis, someone else won't care about aftertouch, etc. etc.. I would guess if you surveyed K2700 buyers on which capability they'll never use, piano would not be at the top of the list!

 

[stoken6]

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

Because connecting an Integra to your YC instead of bringing that second board is not likely to save much if any setup time nor travel weight, and you are losing some inherent 2-board advantages, like hammer-and-non-hammer actions, backup if a board goes down, and more sheer key real estate so you can reduce reliance on splits, reducing patch creation time and the problem of accidentally crossing into a wrong sound.

 

This deserves a QFT. Setting up a module is virtually as much effort as setting up an entire keyboard. 

 

Cheers, Mike.

[ProfD]

On 3/17/2022 at 11:04 AM, rickzjamm said:

I want to add more "other" sounds to the YC88 (love the APs, EPs & the great updated organ) and really don't want to lug a second board to the gigs. 

What are the "other" sounds you're looking to add to your palette? 

 

Rackmount tone generators were great back in the days of limited polyphony and the lack of split/layer capability. 

 

Also, for music that required a number of KB sounds being played and/or triggered at one time, multiple sound sources were necessary.

 

Nowadays, most KBs have enough polyphony, sounds, split/layer capability, etc. to cover a gig with one KB. 

 

IMO, having 2 or more KBs is a function of weighted and unweighted action and different sound sources.

 

in addition to great polyphony, the reason we see fewer rackmount tone generators and desktop modules is smaller footprint KBs. 

 

These 25-, 37-, 49-note KBs weighing less than 10 lbs are basically tone generators with keys attached.  

 

Surely, one could throw an Integra into a rack or on top of a slab but it's really not less cartage.

 

Instead of the Integra, I'd cop an FA-06 if Roland is the desired flavor in "other" sounds. 😎

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Instead of the Integra, I'd cop an FA-06 if Roland is the desired flavor in "other" sounds. 😎

Though the Integra is generally far superior to the FA-06 in its acoustic instrument sounds. (They are comparable in their synth sounds, though.)

[EscapeRocks]

A good friend of mine who's been playing keys in another popular tribute act uses one.

 

Sounds great!.    On their fly-in gigs, he just makes sure to get an 88note board with MIDI DIN, and he's good to go.

Most gigs, he uses an Apex stand, with the Integra in a shallow rack on  the top tier.

 

 

 

[ProfD]

31 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

Though the Integra is generally far superior to the FA-06 in its acoustic instrument sounds. (They are comparable in their synth sounds, though.)

Among the KC contingent, the sound differences between an Integra and FA are probably noticeable. 

 

In a gigging environment and especially considering the type of music being played, those differences will be negligible.😁

 

I gather the OP is just adding more sounds to the YC88 rig.  I don't believe the goal is to mimic the National Philharmonic Orchestra. 😎

[zeronyne]

I have a decent complement of hardware and software synths and I always try to have two of the Big Three current ROMpler engines. But I’m going to stop at the Integra for a while in the Roland department. It’s perfect for all of my needs except I hate having to load a limited number of SN “boards”. But the iPad software is excellent, especially wirelessly, and I consider it the aggregate of all things JV/Fantom. I can tell you that if they made Kronos and Montage racks I would only own controller keyboards, but my use case is sadly no longer relevant to the market.

[ABECK]

1 hour ago, EscapeRocks said:

A good friend of mine who's been playing keys in another popular tribute act uses one.

 

 

Bon Jovi Tibute?

[rickzjamm]

Escape Rocks,

yes that's what I'm going for. A second board (already have the MODX not impressed & the FA-06) has it's pluses & minuses but to have the I7 paired with the YC88 in my mind anyway, is a lean & mean killer set up.  

[RABid]

I was surprised to find that some of the Akai MPC crowd are grabbing I7's when they can find them at a good price. For them it is a lot of good instant access poly sounds that can be driven by their MPC's. For many it is a consistency thing. They know the I7 and if they go into a studio with an MPC and I7 they have a quick starting point for beat making. One positive they mentioned was the patches not being so full of effects and still sounding good if you turn the effects off.

[MathOfInsects]

A rack unit = a less-convenient computer plus a less-convenient keyboard, times nostalgia.

[AnotherScott]

7 hours ago, ProfD said:

Among the KC contingent, the sound differences between an Integra and FA are probably noticeable. 

 

In a gigging environment and especially considering the type of music being played, those differences will be negligible.

 

That kind of gets back to the old arguments about, for example, how many in the audience can tell, not merely a top quality clonewheel from a less impressive one, but even the difference between a top quality clonewheel and a rompler preset! Some will be able to tell, some won't, some might think the band sounds "better" but not be able to put their finger on why. But largely, it's for our own playing satisfaction. Which, some have argued, inspires us to give a better performance, which hopefully some in the audience appreciate even if they don't notice the sound per se.

 

The sound differences in acoustic instruments between the Integra and FA are quite large, I think. With only a handful of exceptions (those being the SuperNATURAL piano, EPs, clav, organ, basses, acoustic guitar, and ensemble strings), all the instrument emulations stock in the FA are from the 20+ year old XV-5080. You can load in some SRX expansions which are often better, but only 2 slots' worth, and are still not generally near state of the art these days (being still quite old themselves, and also including sounds from the even older JV expansions). Integra has a much larger selection of SuperNATURAL acoustic tones, plus a whole set of high quality PCM samples (in addition to having all the XV-5080 and SRX sounds that the FA has).

 

 

[ProfD]

16 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

The sound differences in acoustic instruments between the Integra and FA are quite large, I think.

 

Integra has a much larger selection of SuperNATURAL acoustic tones, plus a whole set of high quality PCM samples (in addition to having all the XV-5080 and SRX sounds that the FA has).

 I'm not disputing the difference.  I'm waiting for the OP to confirm that he needs the advantages of the Integra over the FA especially if it's being split/layered with the YC88. 😎

[AnotherScott]

4 minutes ago, ProfD said:

 I'm not disputing the difference.  I'm waiting for the OP to confirm that he needs the advantages of the Integra over the FA especially if it's being split/layered with the YC88. 😎

Ah. Well, he already owns an FA-06. The advantage he appears to be looking for, though, is primarily that he'd prefer a rack module to bringing a second board.

 

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

A rack unit = a less-convenient computer plus a less-convenient keyboard, times nostalgia.

Except that it can also be seen as a more convenient computer. Ease of initial setup, direct 1/4"/XLR/MIDI connections without an intermediate device, and inherently more road-worthy form factor (including easier stage placement for the device's resistance to damage or theft), are conveniences that favor the module. (Humor aside. ;-) )

[MathOfInsects]

19 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

Except that it can also be seen as a more convenient computer. Ease of initial setup, direct 1/4"/XLR/MIDI connections without an intermediate device, and inherently more road-worthy form factor (including easier stage placement for the device's resistance to damage or theft), are conveniences that favor the module. (Humor aside. 😉 )

Massive half-inch-by-one-and-a-half-inch screen with 1987-era contrast control; handy non-touchscreen to avoid confusing users; clever "scroll forever until you find the sound you want, then scroll back because you overshot" interface; generously requires its own stage or stand space without burdening you with the addition of anything else in return for that space; eagerly occupies space in your car instead of being able to be slipped inside a road-case pocket; conveniently serves no other functions offstage for the money unless maybe you want to stand on it to make a speech. Plus, fortunately, if you need lyrics or charts you still need the computer or tablet anyway, which means you also have all the sounds you need in a second location; and finally, if for some dumb reason you put the same technology inside a keyboard--which describes basically every keyboard in 2022--you also get, you know, a KEYBOARD. FEH!!!

I guarantee no one under 50 is using rack units, except ironically. It was cutting-edge UI in the 1980's. Now it's a whole bunch of bad life decisions in one handy rectangular slab. A horizontal gravestone marking the death of our former glory. A monument to regret. A circuits sideshow scanning for suckers at the carnival of crotchety coots. 

 

[Baldwin Funster]

Yeah but you got that open space in your old 24 space wheeled, double cover road rack from the 90s that needs to be filled. The integra7 would fit in there nicely. 

[AnotherScott]

MoI, obviously the market agrees with you, since rack modules have largely disappeared from the production lines. And I haven't gigged with any rack modules this century.

 

That said, I would not rule out bringing my Integra for a gig that could justify something extra. I don't want to bring my Mac. I'm not sure I want to commit to using a Windows tablet. The iPad has some great sounds/functionalities, and as you say, it would be there for my charts anyway (at least), but iPad apps don't necessarily take the place of what the Integra brings to the table, in terms of acoustic instrument sounds (between the overall sound set and the modeling of the SN Acoustic sounds), the zero load time for different sound combinations, the zero latency. I could get closer to some of that by loading up the iPad with multiple apps, but that also requires putting more effort into configuration and some amount of "stress testing" for stability, which the hardware doesn't need.

 

44 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Massive half-inch-by-one-and-a-half-inch screen with 1987-era contrast control; handy non-touchscreen to avoid confusing users; clever "scroll forever until you find the sound you want, then scroll back because you overshot" interface

None of that is really an issue here. Ahead of the gig, for editing/assembling patches, there is a nice iPad interface. At the gig, all I need to see on its screen is the name of the currently selected patch. Actual sound selection would be done from my keyboard. 

 

Obviously, I'm not saying it's for everyone, or for most, or even for very many people, but it does have places where it excels and could still be the right solution for someone. (And yeah, I could get most of what I like best in an Integra out of a Fantom-0, but I could easily prefer to bring a module rather than bring a third keyboard.)

 

Then again, I'm also over 50. ;-)

[MathOfInsects]

IF YOU ARE USING THE IPAD INTERFACE, YOU DON'T NEED THE RACK UNIT.

Sorry I typed that so loudly. I was trying to hear over the volume at which those words were being said in my head.

[AnotherScott]

14 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

IF YOU ARE USING THE IPAD INTERFACE, YOU DON'T NEED THE RACK UNIT.

Sorry I typed that so loudly. I was trying to hear over the volume at which those words were being said in my head.

 

I was talking about using the iPad interface for pre-gig prep. Not at the gig.

 

The iPad nicely addresses the Integra interface shortcomings you mentioned. It doesn't address the Integra advantages I mentioned (i.e. in sound set, connectivity, latency, rock-solid stability out of the gate). 

 

Again, it's by no means for everyone. It's just not for no one.

[EscapeRocks]

10 hours ago, ABECK said:

Bon Jovi Tibute?

Yep 👍🏼

[rickzjamm]

If there was a rack mount version of the Forte or Kronos I'd lap that up in a heartbeat, to me the I7 take on acoustic is right up there. I primarily do corporate but sometimes clubs & the cover bands I work with aim at the "older demographic " (follow the money) so I need big band brass, strings & symphonic, oboe, ect... the real estate is not always there for my set up so a more compact set up is the way to go. I've done multi tier for years but I'm older now & want a lean mean rig that's easily set up / tear down.

[AnotherScott]

19 minutes ago, rickzjamm said:

the real estate is not always there for my set up so a more compact set up is the way to go. I've done multi tier for years but I'm older now & want a lean mean rig that's easily set up / tear down.

 

The rack can save some stage space compared to a second tier board. Especially with the YC88 on bottom which requires access to a good amount of panel depth, your second board's depth pretty much either has to be almost entirely behind the 14" of the YC, or else significantly above it, which no longer costs stage space, but which may be less desirable for other reasons, aesthetic or ergonomic.

 

OTOH, as I alluded to earlier, I don't think the rack approach is necessarily any more easily setup/broken down, since additional wiring is required, and there may be more placement considerations. If the goal were largely to save the hassle involved with the second tier of a stand, that may be more cheaply solved by getting a different stand than by replacing the FA-06 with an Integra. (Though, as mentioned, the Integra is also superior to the FA in other ways.) This was also touched on in the recent thread about the Hercules KS210B stand... some 2-tier stands move in one piece and are very quick to set up with their 2-tier functionality intact, as opposed to some stands where the second tier requires nuisance-level additional effort to assemble at the gig.

[rickzjamm]

AnotherScott,

That's a great idea! Yes, the problem with the second tier is my On Stage X-Stand doesn't allow for bottom board panel depth so I'm pulling the YC out to the edge & the augmented height (with the second board, iPad & mic boom attachments) blocks my view of the band.  The Hercules looks like maybe it could be a possible solution, the advantage of the On Stage is it has the iPad & boom attachments. It's an old stand so may be time for a fresh one. If the Hercules has iPad & boom accessories that may be a viable solution.

[AnotherScott]

If the Hercules doesn't solve the problem because you'd prefer the top board to be further back relative to the bottom one, the K&M 18880 I mentioned (with the 18881 stacker flipped to face backwards) could do the trick, I've use that combination a lot. (The old Invisible stands had that attribute as well.)

 

For an iPad holder, I use this KDD tablet holder, which would probably work well with any stand that has "square" (rather than round) keyboard supports. I never looked into the tablet or mic attachments made for any particular stand.

[Mighty Motif Max]

15 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

I guarantee no one under 50 is using rack units, except ironically.

 

HX3.5? Some of the electronic music people like rackmount analog synths an awful lot too.

FWIW I use a couple racks for specific sounds [I'm 20]. Not necessarily cutting-edge acoustic sounds of course.

[harmonizer]

I second the comments of Konnector and CEB.

I have an FA-07, which replaced my XV-5050.

I will always have a need for the ridiculously flexible split capabilities in this series of Roland products (which includes the Integra 7).

And there is a bunch of very useful sounds in the old XV set that, while unimpressive standalone, are very useful for certain songs,

and I would not know how to replace them from a different set of gear.

The ability to customize how the sounds work (including removing reverb and unwanted long decay) is a huge plus.

 

For core sounds of Organ and EP I have moved away from Roland and I use a Nord Electro for those.

But I will probably keep using some Roland product in this XV-FA-Integra family for as long as I play in a covers band.

[AnotherScott]

On 3/20/2022 at 12:00 AM, AnotherScott said:

On the synth side, Fantom's VA capabilities certainly seem to far exceed Integra's VA ("SuperNATURAL Synth"), esp. with the optional models, though if you actually like some of those SN-S sounds in the Fantom, I'm not aware that they have been (or can easily be) replicated in Fantom (or at least, I haven't seen anything like that mentioned anywhere). 

Correcting that... ALL the SuperNATURAL synth patches from the Integra have been replicated in the Fantom, it's the Bank D set of sounds. (And Bank C has the Legends expansion sounds.)

 

As for the SuperNATURAL Acoustic instruments, here are ones I believe are not on the Fantom. Even this list is not complete, but I think I got most of them.

reed EP (Wurli)
clavinet
acoustic guitars
acoustic bass
electric guitars
accordions
harmonicas
french horn
bassoon
flute
recorders
flugelhorn
soprano sax
english horn
sitar
ukulele
mandolin
vibes
marimba
glockenspiel
xylophone
tubular bells
steel drums
timpani
additional Rhodes models
additional "ethnic" instruments

[Diwine.uk]

On 3/18/2022 at 6:46 AM, Adam Burgess said:

I was going to write the exact same thing!

Love mine. Always a sound 'good enough' if ya need to find one in a hurry.

Absolutely correct. The I7 is a great toolbox that never expire. All round and with a massive quantity of sounds ... almost all the roland history. And, don't forget the synth section... quite powerful!

[Adam Burgess]

It's quite a deep synth, for sure. Millions of waveforms, 4x stereo partials per part x16 parts.

The Mod Matrix is huge and very capable. 2x LFOs per partial, etc etc… the sheer number of parameters is mind boggling.

I did start to write an Editor better than anything available at the mo! Will finish it one day 🙂