Well, lookie here... Roland's got something new in store for the Fantom

[Keyboardplayer]

From the Roland Japan website… FANTOM Future,

 

What are you most proud of about FANTOM as a synth?  

 

We are proud that the synthesizer bears the FANTOM name and is constantly evolving to meet the needs of this era’s customers.  

What can FANTOM users look forward to soon?  

 

The FANTOM Development Team has been working hard to unveil a MASSIVE BREAKTHROUGH: bringing Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) to FANTOM. We are excited to share this, plus other new expansions and features, with all FANTOM users very soon. The evolution of this creative hub continues. Look out for an exciting FANTOM announcement this November.

 

Source: https://articles.roland.com/roland-engineering-designing-fantom/?fbclid=IwAR2LrOdx3Kv7jkxSKJ0307WtENCj67fve0USHdXK206mFn3aRiN-4BSalLY_aem_AZ-ZEcOPE_HH8lKgzEjpCwH5usg6LzVzbsg09qPEpb0BaMQxG2k-Pll6o1R5p7aiqgc   Scroll to the bottom of the page.

 

Not sure whether this will be a new hardware version of the Fantom or simply an OS update to the current Fantom. From the wording, it appears to be software. We'll find out soon enough. 👍

[AnotherScott]

The announcement sounds targeted largely at existing Fantom owners, so I'd say not a new hardware version, but probably new model expansions... and I'll be pleasantly surprised if they are free. 😉 And I wonder if this will apply to the Fantom-0 as well.

[TJ Cornish]

This is timed to try to keep a few Fantom owners from jumping over to the new Montage M - I think the article first appeared on the day the M was announced. 
 

I am grateful for any new development on the platform; I remain hopeful they will address some other limitations of the board other than ACB. Based on the nZyme expansion, they will probably try to charge $150 for the new functionality. I’m happy to pay for that if it does useful things - development isn’t free, and $150 is a lot less money than a new board. 

[TJ Cornish]

"With each version release, we noticed increased positive feedback from our customers. Our product has steadily evolved along with this input."
 

i lol’d at this - that’s quite the positive spin for “we originally released a half-finished keyboard and took three more years to finish the other half”. 

[RABid]

Been lusting for a Fantom for a year. Been holding off to see if they release a new Fantom. The current top of the line model has been out over 4 years. I hate to buy now, then have them release something new and improved. When the Montage M came out my hope was a new Fantom with poly-aftertouch would be coming soon. Have to say Roland has been great at supporting and updating their products. My TR-8S just got a vs. 3 update with new features including new FM models. The MC's have also gotten nice updates. My RD-2000 will run the new virtual piano (but I have not tried it yet). The only real problem is the excellent Zenology engine can eat up a lot of polyphony. Watched a YouTubber complain because he was trying to layer 6 different orchestral patches, then play full chords without dropping any notes. 

[David Emm]

This may sound heretical to emit on KC, but its always taken roughly a year for me to feel like I really knew even my simpler synths. The worry that the next model will somehow debase the previous one seems a bit iffy. I've been there and I finally realized that I was sweating a non-problem. By all means, make use of every update & patch set you can, but even the merest synth rig these days can turn you into a demigod.

      

If a Tuber said Xenology was choking their computer, they need an M1/M2 Mac, heh! I often run a wad of orchestral patches and nary a burp. One piece under construction at the moment: 5 Alchemys, 6 Cloud D-50s, 2 Elka-Xs, 2 GX-80s, 5 Spitfire orch sections, 3 drum sets in Sampler and 2 more of effects patches. No glitches. They probably just need to do a system cleanup and optimize a few things, such as making sure all of their cores are made available. That dropped-note thing should be nearly extinct by now.

 

Xenology does tempt me, because its a meaty engine. The D-50 is scratching my old D-50 itch beautifully, but I'm still wary of off-site synths. I'm kind of old-fashioned; I want it in my own drive's hands. Alchemy is a 4-layer synth, so I'm not going all FOMO over Xenology.

[ElmerJFudd]

Hmmm due to bitching that they offer ACB (in limited polyphony) on inexpensive hardware - so why only zen engine on the pro boards?  Zen is the “lesser” of the methods as far as accuracy goes - but Roland chose greater polyphony over ACBs detail. 

[GovernorSilver]

ZenCore has - historically - allowed more polyphony than the ACB version of virtual analog synthesis.

 

Roland figured the demographic most likely to buy the pro boards won't care as much about ACB vs. ZenCore VA as long as the polyphony meets their needs.

 

This seems to have worked out for Roland as the customers who care the most about ACB's alleged authenticity are buying virtual TR-808s, SH-101s, etc. to make beats, not take the keyboard chair in somebody's band.  In other words, two different customer bases - although there's a bit of overlap.

[TJ Cornish]

I use the Fantom as my main board. I play in the church world, so my typical setup is piano, 2 different pads, and usually 1-2 key splits for special things. I use VPiano for piano which has dedicated polyphony. I have NEVER had trouble with polyphony on the Fantom with Zencore sounds. I did have trouble on the Kronos occasionally. Can you load up a giant performance with hoggy patches and get into trouble? Yes, but use a little brain power and you are fine. Roland does what everyone does - put a ton of work into ear candy stuff that takes a ton of polyphony and is appropriate for solo stuff, but isn’t essential in a mix and can usually be culled back to something reasonable.

 

I spent some time with the Montage M today - there are some things that the Montage can do that the Fantom can’t, however I think the Fantom architecture is really great for most players - the effects are fully allocated, and for the most part you can just line up the sounds you want in zones and go.

 

Will Roland replace it soon? I’m guessing no. Will I use ACB? Probably not, as I already avoid the Jupiter/Juno stuff for polyphony reasons, and it just doesn’t matter in a mix for what I do. I am hoping they extend the length of the sequencer and that they fix some timing issues - especially the LFO which doesn’t sync to the main keyboard time.

 

One longstanding complaint has recently been addressed - a guy from Italy just released an editor/librarian. I haven’t had a chance to try it yet, but plan to ASAP.

[DmitryKo]

 

 

Quote

FANTOM Future

 

The FANTOM Development Team has been working hard to unveil a massive breakthrough: bringing Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) to FANTOM. We are excited to share this, plus other new expansions and features, with all FANTOM users very soon.

This announcement sounds like a new Fantom to me.

 

They do have four BCM (Behavior Modeling Core) chips in both the Fantom and the Fantom-0, which is an embedded CPU/DSP that can do ABM (Analog Behavior Modeling) for emulation of historical synth models, V-Piano physical modeling, and Zen Core sample-based tone generator for SuperNatural and sampled sounds. They also released a new n/zyme synth engine back in 2022, which combines sample-based wavetable synthesis with analog-style phase/shape modulations and filters.

 

It would be quite an achievement to implement ACB (Analog Circuit Behavior) with a DSP designed for less demanding ABM virtual analog engine - unless a dedicated ACB chip was onboard the Fantom / Fantom-0 all this time, which would be silly to withhold for 4 full years after the initial release. 

They also mention custom FPGA chips but only in the context of sample loading time, so I suppose these are used for sample compression.

 

So while there are some references to continued development of new synthesis engines, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[DmitryKo]

 

 

BTW here is what Roland CEO said about BMC and ABM modeling in the Jupiter-X back in 2019:

 

"Never chase a ghost": Roland says analog remakes aren't coming - CDM Create Digital Music

https://cdm.link/2019/11/roland-analog-remakes-statement/

 

Quote

It’s encouraging to see that the CEO of Roland, Jun-ichi Miki, is also an engineer. His latest comments on the Jupiter site are likely to frustrate fans who want analog remakes of Roland gear ...

 

"We are very aware of the very strong passion that synth fans have for the JUPITER-8, and some continue to wait for us to introduce a true analog version. This is something we do not plan to do. Our founder Mr. Kakehashi always said, “Never chase a ghost”, and I really understand his meaning. “Chasing the ghost” of the original JUPITER-8 or TR-808 does not make sense as we will never catch them, and this effort would not align with our vision for the future. ...

 

We invested a huge amount of time and money to develop a new system-on-a-chip called BMC, which stands for Behavior Modeling Core. Proprietary to Roland, BMC contains a large array of DSP and CPU core blocks plus hardware logic; it is incredibly powerful.

 

ZEN-Core is an expandable and customizable synthesizer engine running on BMC, and is the heart of the new JUPITER, FANTOM, and GROOVEBOX synth instruments. The combination of BMC and ZEN-Core are like a highly tuned F1 racing engine for sound synthesis.

 

At the base level, ZEN-Core integrates next-generation PCM and Virtual Analog, with advanced features such as new Virtual Analog oscillators, precisely modeled filters, ultra-fast and smooth envelopes and LFOs, high-resolution parameters, and expandability. The JUPITER-X Series uses one of the first product-specific expansions to the base engine, Analog Behavior Modeling or ABM, which is the technology behind the Model Bank feature. For your interest, the second product-specific expansion to ZEN-Core is V-Piano on the new FANTOM synths."

 

Here’s where we get into some Roland logic. Roland has two technologies now, one called Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) and another is now called Analog Behavior Modeling (ABM). The name ABM is newer, but the actual tech for ABM appears to be older. But there’s a hedge here – ACB does more to actually emulate the way physical circuits behave. This isn’t only significant to remakes; it can also be employed in new instruments, as was done on the SYSTEM-1 and SYSTEM-8. And it brings Roland’s sound engines beneath the hood closer in line with recent developments in modeling filters and other features now found in current-generation desktop software instruments, software modular, and even some digital hardware modules.

 

Roland seems to have backpedaled on their more computationally expensive and innovative ACB, and the superior sound of the Boutique and AIRA products, and gone back to just cramming gear with a bunch of PCM and previous generation virtual analog.

 

 

 

Some more excerpts from that Fantom development team Q&A article which also serves as ACB announcement:

 

Roland Engineering: Designing FANTOM - Roland Articles
https://articles.roland.com/roland-engineering-designing-fantom/

 

Quote

FANTOM is more than a synthesizer, though its synthesis power is astonishing. Combining ZEN-Core, PCM, multisampling, SuperNATURAL, and V-Piano technologies, it’s a sound design wonderland. Anything but static, FANTOM is also a continually evolving platform for emerging synth engines like n/zyme. ...

 

Chips Ahoy 

 

FANTOM comes with [four] of our custom BMC chips — the most in any Roland product. We implemented three extra chips (CPU, FPGA, etc.) to maximize the power of the extra custom chips and further enhance expandability.   

 

We have taken great pains to shorten boot time. FANTOM has a new system that can load 2 GB of waveforms and be up and running in less than 30 seconds. This makes full use of our custom chips and FPGA. ...

 

Performance Breakthroughs

 

...  I could minimize the time to load a large amount of waveform data at startup and maximize the performance of the custom chip ...  by utilizing FPGAs, which I often employed in my previous work.  

 

FANTOM has had regular system program upgrades since its launch in September 2019. We’ve added features like Supernatural Acoustic Strings Brass, Roland Cloud support, multi-sample, Ableton Live support, and n/zyme. ... Our product has steadily evolved along with this input. This gives us confidence that our overall development process is moving in the right direction. 

 

New Possibilities

 

n/zyme combines wavetable oscillator layers, phase and shape modulation, resonant filters, and two-step LFOs. ...

 

n/zyme is a brand-new synth engine ... With n/zyme, the range of changes in phase and shape of the sound can be charted and automatically changed over time. The speed and depth can also be varied, making it possible to effectively change the sound in the latter part of a phrase.  

 

 

[AnotherScott]

2 hours ago, RABid said:

Been lusting for a Fantom for a year. Been holding off to see if they release a new Fantom. The current top of the line model has been out over 4 years. I hate to buy now, then have them release something new and improved. 

If recent history is a guide, 4 years is nothing for Roland.

 

Juno DS has been out for 8 years, no replacement yet.

FA was current for over 7 years before it was effectively replaced by the Fantom-0.

Gaia was around for 13 years before the Gaia 2 came out a few weeks ago.

JD-XA and JD-XI came out over 8 years ago, both still current.

VR-09 is over 10 years old and still current (though they changed the case colors, and added a 73-key version).

The still-current Integra-7 is 11 years old.

So "almost 4 years old" is pretty much still a new release for them. 🙂 

 

49 minutes ago, TJ Cornish said:

there are some things that the Montage can do that the Fantom can’t, however I think the Fantom architecture is really great for most players - the effects are fully allocated, and for the most part you can just line up the sounds you want in zones and go.

 

Each can do a bunch of things the other cannot, but effect allocation is somewhere where I'd say Montage has the advantage... 2 dedicated insert effects per Part, no matter how few or how many parts you use (which I think is what you mean by fully allocated?), Fantom only has one such effect per part. But it's not cut-and-dried because Fantom lets you assign 16 parts (sounds) to the keyboard, Montage only lets you assign 8 (the other 8 are available to be triggered externally). OTOH, the Fantom drops to 8 (entirely) if you turn on its seamless scene transition

 

49 minutes ago, TJ Cornish said:

One longstanding complaint has recently been addressed - a guy from Italy just released an editor/librarian. I haven’t had a chance to try it yet, but plan to ASAP.

 

It looks very nice, but it is only a Zen-Core tone editor/librarian. Personally, the thing I really want on the Fantom is a scene editor/librarian.

 

11 minutes ago, DmitryKo said:

This announcement sounds like a new Fantom to me.

 

They're addressing "Fantom users," i.e. existing users. It would not be an exciting announcement to specifically address to existing users if you're telling them that they need to trade-in their not-so-old "expandable platform" Fantom for a new model in order to get these exciting new features. 😉

[TJ Cornish]

27 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

 

Each can do a bunch of things the other cannot, but effect allocation is somewhere where I'd say Montage has the advantage... 2 dedicated insert effects per Part, no matter how few or how many parts you use (which I think is what you mean by fully allocated?), Fantom only has one such effect per part. But it's not cut-and-dried because Fantom lets you assign 16 parts (sounds) to the keyboard, Montage only lets you assign 8 (the other 8 are available to be triggered externally). OTOH, the Fantom drops to 8 (entirely) if you turn on its seamless scene transition

 

 

It looks very nice, but it is only a Zen-Core tone editor/librarian. Personally, the thing I really want on the Fantom is a scene editor/librarian.

 

By fully-allocated I mean you can put any 8 (or 16) tones into a performance and they sound the same as when they were alone, as opposed to the Kronos and Kurzweil architectures where there are a certain number of shared effects units so that even if you have polyphony left in a performance with several parts, you may be out of effects processors. The Roland has the primary insert effect per part, but there are a number of these effects that are actually a couple combined things as a chain, which reduces some of the need for more. My main area of felt pain here goes back to the fact that the main tone LFOs don’t track with the MIDIClock - they are set to a value that is “close-ish”, but drift over time. The only LFO that truly syncs is the effect LFO, so if that’s important to you, you lose your ability to have a part effect there.

 

Bummer on the software only being a tone librarian - I agree with you, I need to arrange my scenes more than my tones.

[ElmerJFudd]

Does Roland have a Poly AT board currently in production?  
 

Has Roland updated firmware of their pro boards for MIDI 2.0? 

[AnotherScott]

23 minutes ago, TJ Cornish said:

By fully-allocated I mean you can put any 8 (or 16) tones into a performance and they sound the same as when they were alone, as opposed to the Kronos and Kurzweil architectures where there are a certain number of shared effects units so that even if you have polyphony left in a performance with several parts, you may be out of effects processors.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant, which I described as "2 dedicated insert effects per Part, no matter how few or how many parts you use" (or 1 on the Roland). Korg and Kurzweil don't use dedicated effects per part; rather they have a "pool" of available effects that that the parts can draw from. The advantage is that you can put 5 effects on one sound if you want, but the disadvantage is exactly what you say... you can't count on the sounds sounding the same in combination, because that depends on available effects resources. By dedicating effect resources to each Part, you assure they are always available, which solves the problem... but it also means that, if you're playing only one Part, you have lots of effects in the board that you can't use, because they must remain dedicated to other Parts to be available in case you want to put something there without changing the sound. Allocated, dedicated, either works... they have a fixed assignment which assures they are always available for a given sound, even though that makes them unavailable to combine in other ways.

 

23 minutes ago, TJ Cornish said:

The Roland has the primary insert effect per part, but there are a number of these effects that are actually a couple combined things as a chain, which reduces some of the need for more.

Yes. Yamaha has a bit of that as well. One of the single effects is, itself, a combination of compressor/distortion/delay, and another is gate/compressor/EQ. But Fantom does have a good number of single effects that are, themselves, 2-effect combos. 23 of them, I believe. Not as flexible as being able to just pick any two you want to begin with, but yes, it helps narrow the gap.

 

[TJ Cornish]

7 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

Allocated, dedicated, either works... they have a fixed assignment which assures they are always available for a given sound, even though that makes them unavailable to combine in other ways.

I had a Roland XV-5080 20 years ago. It was a 32-part multitimbral synth, but it had a whopping 3 insert effects; the other 29 parts sounded materially worse in performance mode than in program mode. The Kronos has 12 IFX, but as you mention, many factory programs don’t use just one, so you tend to run out with about 3 or 4 programs in a combi sounding correct (and there was the odd choice of sticking a compressor for the drum track on every program that took up a slot and was almost never actually used and had to be edited away). For my purposes, the pool model “worked” only to the extent that there were enough resources in the pool to draw from. Kurzweil never had enough, and the Kronos barely had enough. 

 

Everything in life is a trade off; for my live work I have practically had more trouble with effects limitations than polyphony limitations.

[DmitryKo]

 

 

11 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

It would not be an exciting announcement to specifically address to existing users ... to trade-in their not-so-old "expandable platform" Fantom for a new model 

 

They said they are excited to announce, but it doesn't follow that the users should be excited as well.  To me the wording like "bringing Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) to FANTOM" implies a new model in the Fantom line. This Q&A with Roland engineers was originally conducted in Japanese, hence some awkward phrasing and too literal translations, but at least the translator seems to know the distinction between definite, indefinite, and zero article. Of course that's a secondary observation to the main point, i.e. whether ACB modeling can magically appear out of thin air at this point in the product life cycle, when Roland clearly did not consider it in their original ptoduct planning.
 

11 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

If recent history is a guide, 4 years is nothing for Roland.

 

If you consider the timeline of Roland flagship modules and workstations based on the 128-voice SuperNatural engine, i.e. XV-3080/5080 (2000), Fantom FA76 (2002), Fantom-S (2003), Fantom-X/Xr/Xa (2004), Fantom-G (2008), Jupiter-50/80 (2011), Integra-7 (2013), and FA-0 (2014), and also count-in their current flagship Zen Core engine models, i.e. Fantom and Jupiter-X (2019), and Fantom-0 (2022), it seems like 4 to 5 years would be the average time between most recent product releases. The earlier models, which were struggling to compete with Korg Triton and Yamaha Motif series, were replaced at a much faster rate.

[RABid]

9 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

So "almost 4 years old" is pretty much still a new release for them. 🙂 

Not for Fantoms. In 20 years they have the FA76, Fantom S, Fantom X, Fantom G, and finally the Fantom FAO. They temporarily jumped names and released the Jupiter 80 which was an updated fantom with the colored buttons of the Jupiter, then went back to Fantom, then followed by the Fantom O as a cut down version. Out of those I've owned the FA76, Fantom X and Jupiter 80. I've owned the same number of Motif/Montage in that time but currently have a Kronos 2. So by Roland's history it is time for a new premium Fantom.

[AnotherScott]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, TJ Cornish said:

For my purposes, the pool model “worked” only to the extent that there were enough resources in the pool to draw from.

I agree, I prefer the dedicated effects model as well, but I do see why some people might prefer the additional flexibility of the other, even if it does require you to get into the nuts and bolts more often.

 

4 hours ago, DmitryKo said:

They said they are excited to announce, but it doesn't follow that the users should be excited too  To me the wording like "bringing Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) to FANTOM" implies a new product in the Fantom line.

And to me it doesn't. 😉 In part, I guess, because they said bringing something new to Fantom (which reads to me like existing Fantoms), as opposed to introducing something new to, as you put it, the Fantom line or family. (Though even the line/family phrasing could conceivably mean Fantom and Fantom-0.) But semantics aside, I don't see it being a new Fantom also for the other reasons I alluded to, i.e. they're addressing the announcement to current Fantom users, which would not be the biggest market for a new Fantom, and in fact would be a disappointing announcement for many, considering the board is still relatively new and was promoted as a platform they would be building on. Heck, when Yamaha was about to announce the Montage M, they actually pre-announced that, while the Montage was also sold as a platform they would be building on, they felt they had taken it about as far as it could go, without being left behind by new tech... and that was after 7 years. But anyway, I don't see current Fantom owners running out to upgrade to a new Fantom so they could get ACB, which would make this kind of pre-announcement of a new model so targeted to owners of the existing model pretty pointless, IMO.

 

4 hours ago, DmitryKo said:

This Q&A with the engineers was originally conducted in Japanese, hence some awkward phrasing and too literal translations, but at least the translator seems to know the distinction between definite, indefinite, and zero articles. Of course that's a secondary observation to the main point, i.e. whether ACB modeling can magically appear out of thin air at this point in the product life cycle.

Translation variables aside, interviews from 4 years ago from when the board was released show what they were thinking then, it doesn't mean that they didn't change some of that thinking in the subsequent years. Things change. And in this case, not only did they apparently get a lot of feedback that consumers wanted ACB (whether Roland originally thought it was a good idea or not), they are also competing against Yamaha who has now upped their VA game (and people have suspected there would be a Yamaha move in this direction for a long time, simply based on when they registered their AN-X trademark). I don't think it's coincidental that Roland announced updates to their VA just after Yamaha announced theirs.

 

3 hours ago, RABid said:

Not for Fantoms. In 20 years they have the FA76, Fantom S, Fantom X, Fantom G, and finally the Fantom FAO. They temporarily jumped names and released the Jupiter 80 which was an updated fantom with the colored buttons of the Jupiter, then went back to Fantom, then followed by the Fantom O as a cut down version. Out of those I've owned the FA76, Fantom X and Jupiter 80. I've owned the same number of Motif/Montage in that time but currently have a Kronos 2. So by Roland's history it is time for a new premium Fantom.

DmitryKo had a similar perspective. I would agree that the flagship timeline is original Fantom (2001), S (2003), X (2004), G (2008), Jupiter 80 (2011) (not really an updated Fantom, but took its place as flagship), new Fantom (2019). But like I said, I was talking about "recent" history, things were different 15-20 years ago. One thing that happened in the interim is that Roland almost went out of business, which could be one reason things are done differently in more recent years than they were back then. Though I think everyone's rate has slowed down. I think at least part of that is that new features that in the past would have required a hardware update now can often be added in software, allowing them to get more mileage out of an existing hardware design. Also, I think the overall market for high end boards may be smaller than it was 20 years ago, since so many musicians have moved to computer-based systems over the last 20 years (younger musicians didn't even have to "move," it's probably often where they started!), and that may make it less economically feasible to change designs as frequently.

 

(Actually, Roland arguably had no high-end board of this type for a while, as the Jupiter 80 was gone and the new Fantom wasn't yet released... the top model was the budget-oriented FA from 2014.)

 

As for Fantom-0, it's not a new flagship, it's a lower-cost derivative. The lower cost derivatives of the Fantoms used to be called Junos. (They still make the last of the Fantom-derived Junos, the DS.)

 

But anyway, my point remains, I don't think any Roland synth released in the last 10+ years has been superseded by an updated model in less than 7 years. So 4 years would be awfully soon, based on that. And especially when the model we're talking about was specifically marketed as something that would have a significant future via updates (which is part of how they justify its premium price to begin with).

 

[ElmerJFudd]

The reason I asked if any of the current Roland models have poly AT or have been prepped for midi 2.0 is because changes in the marketplace may compel them to push out some software updates and possibly hardware to better compete.  If they are already on top of that - then we’re not likely to see deviation from their regular time lines.  

[GovernorSilver]

2 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

The reason I asked if any of the current Roland models have poly AT or have been prepped for midi 2.0 is because changes in the marketplace may compel them to push out some software updates and possibly hardware to better compete.  If they are already on top of that - then we’re not likely to see deviation from their regular time lines.  

 

Roland was actually the first company to announce a MIDI 2.0 keyboard

https://www.roland.com/us/company/press_releases/2020/ROLAND-INTRODUCES-MIDI-2-0-READY-A-88MKII-MIDI-KEY/

 

But they have yet to release something that can be controlled by MIDI 2.0 😄

 

Imagine if Dave Smith decided to release the first MIDI keyboard 3 years before anybody started making modules with MIDI inputs.  😂

[ElmerJFudd]

29 minutes ago, GovernorSilver said:

 

Roland was actually the first company to announce a MIDI 2.0 keyboard

https://www.roland.com/us/company/press_releases/2020/ROLAND-INTRODUCES-MIDI-2-0-READY-A-88MKII-MIDI-KEY/

 

But they have yet to release something that can be controlled by MIDI 2.0 😄

 

Imagine if Dave Smith decided to release the first MIDI keyboard 3 years before anybody started making modules with MIDI inputs.  😂

😂 as if that would happen.  🤪
 

“Prophets” are always hazy on their predictions.  

[GovernorSilver]

13 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

😂 as if that would happen.  🤪
 

“Prophets” are always hazy on their predictions.  

 

Dave Smith at least was visionary enough to make sure he collaborated with the equally influential Ikutaro Kakehashi on this MIDI thing.  They made sure there would be at least 2 things in the world that could speak MIDI to each other.

 

For Kakehashi's company Roland to release a MIDI 2.0 controller without a MIDI 2.0 sound module was a head-scratcher.

[RABid]

If Ableton can release Push 3 with support for poly aftertouch and MPE you would think that Roland would. On the other hand, If Yamaha could have released the Mantage 6 and 7 with polytouch I'm sure they would have. Insiders say they are scrambling to redesign the keyboards for those models and will probably release updated Mantage M's in a year or two. ... A year or two!?! ... Maybe poly aftertouch is not a simple change for them. But that is what I want out of the next Fantom. Poly aftertouch and more built in engines for their analog synth collection.

[DmitryKo]

 

On 10/21/2023 at 5:10 PM, AnotherScott said:

they said bringing something new to Fantom (which reads to me like existing Fantoms), as opposed to introducing something new to, as you put it, the Fantom line or family.  (Though even the line/family phrasing could conceivably mean Fantom and Fantom-0.)

 

If they are referring to existing Fantom series, why they didn't mention the Fantom-0?  Anyway, we shall see in due time whether they meant existing keyboards or a new product.

 

On 10/21/2023 at 5:10 PM, AnotherScott said:

they're addressing the announcement to current Fantom users, which would not be the biggest market for a new Fantom ...  I don't see current Fantom owners running out to upgrade to a new Fantom so they could get ACB, which would make this kind of pre-announcement of a new model so targeted to owners of the existing model pretty pointless, IMO.

 

The pre-announcement is clearly intended for Fantom users who are considering switching over to competing products like Yamaha Montage M or Korg Nautilus AT, and Fantom users have been petitioning Roland to include ACB modeling for years, so it's hardly pointless.

 

You've already gven this exact same argument below.  

 

On 10/21/2023 at 5:10 PM, AnotherScott said:

interviews from 4 years ago from when the board was released show what they were thinking then, it doesn't mean that they didn't change some of that thinking in the subsequent years. Things change. And in this case, not only did they apparently get a lot of feedback that consumers wanted ACB (whether Roland originally thought it was a good idea or not), they are also competing against Yamaha who has now upped their VA game (and people have suspected there would be a Yamaha move in this direction for a long time, simply based on when they registered their AN-X trademark). I don't think it's coincidental that Roland announced updates to their VA just after Yamaha announced theirs.

 

Surely Fantom users wanted ACB and Roland has been researching it. The question is whether existing BMC chips in Fantom / Fantom-0 series are capable of suporting ACB modeling - and what's important, doing it without interfering with polyphony and sound quality of existing synthesis models and effects. There were reports of voice stealing in the Fantom when using multiple engines, and adding a new modeling engine that vastly increases computional complexity by simulating indivudual discrete components instead of whole oscillator/filter curcuits could be a challenging task.

 

So it's not just a matter of simply making a marketing decision to include this feature - otherwise it wouldn't take 4 years just to announce the development of ACB modeling.

 

On 10/21/2023 at 5:10 PM, AnotherScott said:

things were different 15-20 years ago. One thing that happened in the interim is that Roland almost went out of business, which could be one reason things are done differently in more recent years than they were back then.

 

I don't think any Roland synth released in the last 10+ years has been superseded by an updated model in less than 7 years. So 4 years would be awfully soon, based on that.

 

Didn't know things went so bad for Roland. Then again, these longer breaks during 2010s would be a reflection of the trouble they went through, and not a conscious desicion to lenghten the product cycle beyond the typical 4-5 years.

 

[AnotherScott]

48 minutes ago, DmitryKo said:

If they are referring to existing Fantom series, why they didn't mention the Fantom-0? 

Maybe because the new ACB model will only run on the Fantom, and not the Fantom-0?

 

But that's irrelevant the point I was making anyway. What I was trying to say is if they had said they were bringing ACB to the Fantom family (as opposed to the Fantom), that would still be ambiguous, as bringing it to the family could mean either Fantom+Fantom0 OR a new Fantom. At any rate, they said bringing it to the Fantom, which to me pretty clearly means the currently shipping product called Fantom. But as you say, we'll see.

 

48 minutes ago, DmitryKo said:

The pre-announcement is clearly intended for Fantom users who are considering switching over to competing products like Yamaha Montage M or Korg Nautilus AT, and Fantom users have been petitioning Roland to include ACB modeling for years, so it's hardly pointless.

It's not pointless if it's adding the feature to the current Fantom. I think it would be pretty pointless if getting this feature meant having to buy a whole new keyboard. And I think that if teasing a whole new Fantom model was their intent, doing it around ACB would be pretty lame.

 

48 minutes ago, DmitryKo said:

 

You've already gven this exact same argument below.  

Not quite. In terms of the timing of the announcement right after the Montage announcement, and to reduce "M envy" or a feeling that they're being left behind, I think it makes sense, to tell existing Fantom users, "hey, your board is going to be getting some new synth options!" It doesn't make as much sense to tell existing Fantom users, "hey' we're about to make your board obsolete!"

 

48 minutes ago, DmitryKo said:

it wouldn't take 4 years just to announce the development of ACB modeling.

We don't know when the decision was finally made to proceed with that development, or how long it took to do it. It wouldn't make sense to announce something a year or more before it would be ready to ship.

[Artomas]

My guess: One of the selling points for Fantom over Montage was always "better for VA". But now, Yamaha brings out AN-X, long awaited since the trademark filing. In fact, it seems like they almost waited long enough for Roland to be ready with their answer: hey look, we finally put our highest quality VA in our workstation, too. So, people still will be able to claim that Fantom has the better VA, if they're into those debates. At least, the update can let them feel pretty good about it.

 

I bet there will need to be some trade-off at the keyboard... either you lose a bunch of polyphony (talking about the imminent Fantom ACB update) per ACB model, or you can't run the V-piano at the same time as ACB, or something else along those lines. I highly doubt they're talking about new hardware... but I genuinely have no inside info. I'm just guessing based on what makes sense to me.

[ElmerJFudd]

I guess we’ll know soon what the difference is between boutique and Jupiter hardware based on what polyphony they can offer running ACB models on the latter.  
 

Based on polyphony limitations we already see on the Fantom it’s unlikely to affect V-Piano since it has a dedicated chip.  So if you want to layer acoustic pianos you’re better off using the V-Piano over the sampled pianos. Unless the suggestion is that they are running ACB on the Vpiano’s DSP. 

[Franz Schiller]

Whoa, I always thought that ACB sounded so good, I am curious about this. Especially if you can do multi-timbral ACB setups.

[RABid]

I love the sound of my Jupiter X but I wish patch management was easier. I'm hoping a move to Fantom 7 will help with that.