Keyboard for ‘extra’ sounds.

[lsj]

tough question.  everyone that has a certain keyboard will be the best for them.  I have many keyboards and I have the yamaha modx6.  great keyboard for a variety of sounds.  I know some people will say the keybed is not to their liking.  I adapt to the many synths that I have.  being a Hammond player, every synth is different.  

[Ibarch]

The Fantom and Fantom 0 boards have the best interface for live performances if lots of patch changes are involved. 

 - 16 parts on one scene 

 - unlimited split points which are quick and easy to set up

- 8 faders and 8 knobs for changing part settings, fully assignable 

- on/off buttons for 8 zones. Not dumb mutes like on my VST host that start playing the previous chord but ones that only start listening when switched on. Invaluable for quick part changing 

- 16 pads that can do various tasks, from playing samples,  switch groups to turn groups of the 16 parts on/off at a single press, playing midi sequences (great for customised control of parts such as fade out for  3 parts at a single press, then restoring their volume levels ready for next verse) 

- 2  mod wheels and  a Roland paddle 

- 2 expression pedal jacks plus hold pedal

- latchable buttons

 

For performing complicated song arrangements, it is way ahead of most of the suggestions here in power and flexibility. Sounds great too. 

 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

While it's true that Rolands were big in 80s synth-pop, those were analog synths (e.g. Jupiter 8). Fantom-06 with its VA emulations would be the better choice there than Juno DS which is all samples.

Cover tunes only require reasonable facsimiles of the sound(s) played on the original recording.   

 

The most iconic KB sounds recorded have become presets in ROMplers and workstations.

 

Diving into the KB and tweaking a sound(s) that's close enough will take it across the finish line.😎

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, lsj said:

I have many keyboards and I have the yamaha modx6.  great keyboard for a variety of sounds.  I know some people will say the keybed is not to their liking.  I adapt to the many synths that I have.

and we're generally not talking about first rate actions here anyway. For me, the MODX6 feels a bit better than the DS61/VR09/FA06 (same action on those three, I believe) or Fantom-06. Though some people are bothered by the fact that the Yamaha "full size" non-hammer actions are narrower octave-to-octave than anyone else's.

 

7 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Cover tunes only require reasonable facsimiles of the sound(s) played on the original recording.   

 

The most iconic KB sounds recorded have become presets in ROMplers and workstations.

true, and even though most of the Juno DS sounds come from the first decade of this century, they probably do include samples of the big 80s synth sounds. Still, if you were to ask me which would do a better job at these sounds, I'd think it would be the Fantom-06, whose VA modeling should give you, not just the basic sounds of those earlier synths (sampled), but being modeled, more accurate behaviors (e.g. when using portamento or pulse width modulation).

[ProfD]

1 minute ago, AnotherScott said:

Still, if you were to ask me which would do a better job at these sounds, I'd think it would be the Fantom-06, whose VA modeling should give you, not just the basic sounds of those earlier synths (sampled), but being modeled, more accurate behaviors (e.g. when using portamento or pulse width modulation).

Agreed.  VA modeling would definitely give a bump in that regard.😎

[CEB]

FA’s architecture makes a great slave.  Each studio set is a virtual 16 space rack.  It isn’t conceptually much different than running Cantabile.    It adds a lot to my Kronos 2-88 rig.  The FA action still sucks.  Many FA sounds are way more responsive from the RH-3. 

[analogman1]

Does the FA-06 support the use of “scenes”? Frequently I have a few changes within a certain tune and it would be nice to dial up those variations. 
I know the MODX can do that, IIRC…

that’s the main reason I never use my Modal Cobalt 8, live. 
the patch management is too cumbersome (to be fair, the excellent Modal app makes it really easy for programming but for live use, and what I’m doing, I’m willing to swap a little bit of “VA authenticity” for something that handles song/scene changes.)

[Sean M. H.]

3 hours ago, analogman1 said:

Does the FA-06 support the use of “scenes”? Frequently I have a few changes within a certain tune and it would be nice to dial up those variations. 
I know the MODX can do that, IIRC…

that’s the main reason I never use my Modal Cobalt 8, live. 
the patch management is too cumbersome (to be fair, the excellent Modal app makes it really easy for programming but for live use, and what I’m doing, I’m willing to swap a little bit of “VA authenticity” for something that handles song/scene changes.)

 

I've had both the FA-07, and now the Fantom-07...I don't recall the exact terminology that Roland uses (i.e. they might not be called "scenes") but yes, they do have some implementation of this sort of patch handling. 

 

One of the cool things about these boards is that you can configure the drum pads for different functionality.  Obviously you can trigger samples and loops...but there's also a mode where each pad corresponds with one of the 16 sounds in your live-set/combi/multi.  So you can easily switch between these individual sounds on the fly (or within a song)...even more useful though, another mode allows you to setup Keyboard Switch Groups (think I'm recalling that name correctly)--where each pad can have any combination of your 16 sounds assigned to it!  So you can set up for instance:

Pad 1 = intro = sound #1 (piano) + sound #2 (strings)

Pad 2 = verse = sound #1 only

Pad 3 = chorus = sound #1 + sound #2 + sound #3 (horns) + sound #4 (organ)

 

....and so on...

 

I should add one caveat.  These may not be considered true "scenes" in the traditional sense, as scenes normally include all the board settings IIRC--such as controller values and button/switch states--not just which sounds are active/inactive.  However, in practice this isn't really an issue IMO.  With up to 16 sounds available, if I really needed to recall different controller values for different parts of a song, it would be an easy workaround to just create another version of a patch (say a "dry" version of a piano, and a "wet" version of a piano)

[Dan32]

On 6/6/2024 at 5:20 AM, Sean M. H. said:

One of the cool things about these boards is that you can configure the drum pads for different functionality.  

 

So useful live. I'd probably take that and the better keybed on the 06/07 over the MODX6.

 

TBH, any decent rompler keyboard will do the covers band job fine. 

Just depends on what your preferred key action is, workflow and what features you'd find useful.

I like one of my boards to be a workstation. Not so much now, but I used to use the sequencer on a few songs (XP80) with a click going to the drummer.

Now that did require a fair bit of preparation work.

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, Dan32 said:

So useful live. I'd probably take that and the better keybed on the 06/07 over the MODX6.

 

Even though I actually prefer the MODX action and also its MIDI functionality and generally its sounds, I've ended up switching to the Fantom-0 mostly for its interface (though it still has shortcomings there of its own).

[Sean M. H.]

37 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

 

Even though I actually prefer the MODX action and also its MIDI functionality and generally its sounds, I've ended up switching to the Fantom-0 mostly for its interface (though it still has shortcomings there of its own).

 

 

I have a MODX as well.  It's the 88, so I can't really compare actions...but in terms of everything else, I agree--neither is without flaws/compromises, but both are great value for what you pay, and can handle just about any gig you'd throw at it.

 

I think in terms of sounds, the two actually complement each other fairly well.  Generally speaking, I think Yamaha has better acoustic emulations: pianos, brass, woodwinds, strings, etc...but I do feel the Roland has "better" synths, pads, and of course a more capable organ engine (still can't believe they put 8 sliders on it instead of 9 though).  Roland's synths tend to be warmer/ballsier (vintage sounding?) to my ears, whereas the Yamaha tends to be brighter/cleaner (modern?)... overgeneralizing of course.

 

Both interfaces have their plus and minuses of course.  I'd give the edge to the Fantom generally.  More controllers, the drum pads I've already mentioned, and a slightly more straightforward architecture IMO.  Yamaha has some useful things as well.  You can set up named pages of sounds (Live Sets, I believe they call them) for quick access/switching.  Also, the superknob, while it may apppear gimmicky, is actually pretty darn useful.   Back to what the OP is looking to do, there are times when it makes more sense to gradually switch/morph between sounds during different parts of a song, as opposed to instantly switching over.  The superknob is perfect for that sort of thing.  Yamaha loses a point for me though because many of their better sounds (especially the acoustic stuff) take up more than one "part," which can make patch management and things more convoluted than it should be.

[Dan32]

5 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

Even though I actually prefer the MODX action and also its MIDI functionality and generally its sounds, I've ended up switching to the Fantom-0 mostly for its interface (though it still has shortcomings there of its own).

 

I'm used to a screen based interface with the Triton. Someone here mentioned that they thought the MODX organs were terrible. 

Have had a listen on YT and there's a huge selection and they sound great.

Not as good as Roland's tonewheel but surely better than the ones on my Triton.

[AnotherScott]

19 hours ago, Sean M. H. said:

I think in terms of sounds, the two actually complement each other fairly well.  Generally speaking, I think Yamaha has better acoustic emulations: pianos, brass, woodwinds, strings, etc...but I do feel the Roland has "better" synths, pads, and of course a more capable organ engine (still can't believe they put 8 sliders on it instead of 9 though).  Roland's synths tend to be warmer/ballsier (vintage sounding?) to my ears, whereas the Yamaha tends to be brighter/cleaner (modern?)... overgeneralizing of course.

 

I agree that Yamaha wins on acoustic emulations. I have gotten very acceptable brass and strings out of the Roland, but it has taken layering and tweaking, whereas on the Yamaha, the stuff tends to sound the way I want right out of the box.

 

Roland clearly has the edge here on tonewheel organ and VA synth, though Yamaha gives you the FM synth. And again, while I like the Roland's synth functionality, I almost always have to tweak the factory sounds... if nothing else, they almost always seem to have effects I don't want.

 

19 hours ago, Sean M. H. said:

Both interfaces have their plus and minuses of course.  I'd give the edge to the Fantom generally.  More controllers, the drum pads I've already mentioned, and a slightly more straightforward architecture IMO.  Yamaha has some useful things as well.  You can set up named pages of sounds (Live Sets, I believe they call them) for quick access/switching.  

 

The named Live Set Pages are nice. But while navigating unnameable pages of Fantom Scenes is a pain, the Fantom equivalent to a Live Set (i.e. "pointers" grouped/ordered for live performance) is actually the Scene Chain, and Scene Chains *are* nameable. But I wish you could re-name the Scene Chain entries, it lacks the something like Yamaha's "slot name." When grouping/ordering sounds for a set, it would be useful to be able to see the song name, as opposed to the name of the sound.

 

Another useful Yamaha advantage is in how it handles what it calls parts and what Roland calls zones. You can easily move them to different locations within a sound (a Yamaha Performance or Roland Scene), or from one such sound to another. On the Roland, if you want to move something to a different Part or re-use it in another Scene, you have to reconfigure it from scratch. There's no copy/paste or write function for Roland zones (as there are for Yamaha equivalents). It's especially a pain for external sounds. There is something of a workaround for re-using an external sound you've used before, you can copy an entire scene that included the sound, and disable/replace all the other parts from the copy so all that's left is the external sound... but that's clumsy, and doesn't allow for putting the external sound into a different part, or adding it to a scene that already has other sounds you want to use, or creating scenes with more than one external sound (unless you've used that particular combination before). That's why I said I prefer the MODX MIDI functionality, though the Roland does have the advantage of more assignable controls.

 

[Ibarch]

16 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

I agree that Yamaha wins on acoustic emulations. I have gotten very acceptable brass and strings out of the Roland, but it has taken layering and tweaking, whereas on the Yamaha, the stuff tends to sound the way I want right out of the box.

 

Roland clearly has the edge here on tonewheel organ and VA synth, though Yamaha gives you the FM synth. And again, while I like the Roland's synth functionality, I almost always have to tweak the factory sounds... if nothing else, they almost always seem to have effects I don't want.

 

 

The named Live Set Pages are nice. But while navigating unnameable pages of Fantom Scenes is a pain, the Fantom equivalent to a Live Set (i.e. "pointers" grouped/ordered for live performance) is actually the Scene Chain, and Scene Chains *are* nameable. But I wish you could re-name the Scene Chain entries, it lacks the something like Yamaha's "slot name." When grouping/ordering sounds for a set, it would be useful to be able to see the song name, as opposed to the name of the sound.

 

Another useful Yamaha advantage is in how it handles what it calls parts and what Roland calls zones. You can easily move them to different locations within a sound (a Yamaha Performance or Roland Scene), or from one such sound to another. On the Roland, if you want to move something to a different Part or re-use it in another Scene, you have to reconfigure it from scratch. There's no copy/paste or write function for Roland zones (as there are for Yamaha equivalents). It's especially a pain for external sounds. There is something of a workaround for re-using an external sound you've used before, you can copy an entire scene that included the sound, and disable/replace all the other parts from the copy so all that's left is the external sound... but that's clumsy, and doesn't allow for putting the external sound into a different part, or adding it to a scene that already has other sounds you want to use, or creating scenes with more than one external sound (unless you've used that particular combination before). That's why I said I prefer the MODX MIDI functionality, though the Roland does have the advantage of more assignable controls.

 

 

Not sure I get what you mean regarding the scene chains on the Fantom. Each entry in the chain shows the scene name. Are you wishing for something different there? 

 

I agree with the lack of copy and paste on zones. It is a big omission. I use the workaround of copying the scene and deleting other unwanted zones but that doesn't help if you want to paste in two zones. Or even move/copy a zone to a different zone in the same scene. 

 

I've got numerous scenes where there is no logic to where each instrument is at, or with zones 1,2 and 4 for example because I deleted 3 and can't move 4 over without reentering it again. 

 

Sound wise the brass orchestral sounds are the weakest for Fantom 0. The Supernatural strings cover everything I need from them and sound excellent to my ear. I'm using them for pop not classical stuff, whether that makes a difference I'm not sure. Synths and virtual tone wheels are most definitely it strongest suit but I would say that sounds are good across the board generally, even if not always best in class. There isn't much I find missing or too poor to consider using. 

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, Ibarch said:

Not sure I get what you mean regarding the scene chains on the Fantom. Each entry in the chain shows the scene name. Are you wishing for something different there? 

 

Yes. Let's say I have a patch that I use in a few different songs, let's call it "2-part Brass." When I put it in my scene chain, of course it comes up as "2-part Brass." But sometimes I'd rather a sound came up with the name of the song I"m using it in on this gig, so I'd like to be able to rename the Scene Chain entry from "2-part Brass" to, say, "Saturday in the Park." And maybe later in the gig, I use the exact same sound so I put another copy of the same sound into another location in the Scene Chain, and again it's called "2-part Brass" but maybe now I'd rather that entry were called "Superstition."

 

1 hour ago, Ibarch said:

I agree with the lack of copy and paste on zones. It is a big omission. I use the workaround of copying the scene and deleting other unwanted zones but that doesn't help if you want to paste in two zones. Or even move/copy a zone to a different zone in the same scene. 

 

I've got numerous scenes where there is no logic to where each instrument is at, or with zones 1,2 and 4 for example because I deleted 3 and can't move 4 over without reentering it again. 

 

Right. This can also come up on Fantom because certain sounds can only go into certain zones, especially on the full Fantom. But even on the Fantom-0, let's say you've got a Scene that has what you need, except you want to add a tonewheel organ. Well, that has to go into Zone 2. But you can't move the contents of Zone 2 to zone 5 or whatever, you have to recreate it there.