Triton , motif , fantom all repackaged ...is this good ?

[Dan O]

Korg introduces the Triton . 2 years later we have Triton Studio and now a Triton Extreme .

 

Same thing with Yamaha and Roland,.Motif and now Motif ES , Fantom , Fantom S , Fantom EX ...etc...

 

Have keyboard manufacturer's been making mistake's with their workstation designs ?

 

Upgrade internally and repackage their products , is this all Korg , Yamaha and Roland can think of ?

Do manufacturers think we'll all upgrade from one model to another ?

 

What do you think ? Dan O'

[MusicWorkz]

Manufacturers are getting lazy. With competition from the soft-synth market, the cost of developing a whole new-product line vs. repackaging an existing one is extremely unprofitable for these guys. Add a few MB's of sample ram, a few new 'must have' features and more sounds, and ship them enmasse to Sweetwater GC, and Sam Ash...

 

I recently bought a MOTIF becasue they were being blowout at a decent price. The cost/benefit ratio of trying to get the ES wasn't worth the time. With the change I am picking up a Gigasmapler...

[RABid]

I think it is a matter of ROMplers maturing. What more can you do to one but increase polyphony, memory and effects. They already have routing as good and VA's or soft synths. There is no need to abandon ROMplers as the workstation of choice, and we do not quite have enough processing power for modeling that many parts. I think it is fine that they keep updating Triton, Motif and Fantom as long as they keep developing things like V-Synth on the side.

 

Robert

[Dan O]

Originally posted by MusicWorkz:

Manufacturers are getting lazy. With competition from the soft-synth market, the cost of developing a whole new-product line vs. repackaging an existing one is extremely unprofitable for these guys. Add a few MB's of sample ram, a few new 'must have' features and more sounds, and ship them enmasse to Sweetwater GC, and Sam Ash...

 

I recently bought a MOTIF becasue they were being blowout at a decent price. The cost/benefit ratio of trying to get the ES wasn't worth the time. With the change I am picking up a Gigasmapler...

This is exactly what I was thinking , but not one major company is stepping up and making something different . Musicians are hearing the same sound engine's with some modifications and all manufacturers are still trying to get a piano sample better than the last model .

 

So , what everyone saw at NAMM 2004 , is it . Korg is going to run a few years with the new updated Triton . Roland and Yamaha are doing the same thing .

[RABid]

Hey, if you don't like those updates then you have one bright side. Kurzweil did not announce the K2700. They chose to be innovative and release something called a VA.

 

Robert

[Botch.]

This happens in most technology-driven areas; major leaps in technology result in an all-new design, with evolutionary, smaller steps taking place in the in-between years. Think the computer industry (HD revolution, upping the ROM evolution), the auto industry (the first SUV, the Toyota Prius being revolutionary, the "next-years-model-with-2.5"-extra-leg-room-

in-the-rear-seat" being evolutionary), etc.

Let's face it, manufacturers want to have something new to sell, if they don't have a revolutionary new technology to sell you can't blame them for improving/upgrading the existing designs. I actually appreciate an older design that may have improvements in ROMpler memory, ease-of-use, etc; but then I'm not trying to write a Top-40 hit with the newest "Digital Native Trance" sound on it.

[Dan O]

Originally posted by Rabid:

Hey, if you don't like those updates then you have one bright side. Kurzweil did not announce the K2700. They chose to be innovative and release something called a VA.

 

Robert

K2700 Yeah ...that's cool, but Kurzweil has taken a few hits over the years . Wholesale price reductions and losing GC as a seller has to hurt .But even Kurzweil recycled some of the K2500 series into the K2600 . I've always kind of asked myself , "why purple" ?

[Pursuitboy]

The Clavia Nord Electro seems like a technological change from the others. Same with the Motion Sound amplifier system. Unfortunatly,these products seem to be mail order items only. Guitar Center and Sam Ash just fill there showrooms with the same ol same ol. Upgrades and blowouts. We need an alternative

[realtrance]

Hey, what about that color LCD screen on the Fantom-X -- that's cool, isn't it? You know they'll have to create an upgrade version of the V-Synth with same now, won't they. I'll wait for that.

 

rt

[Dan O]

Originally posted by realtrance:

Hey, what about that color LCD screen on the Fantom-X -- that's cool, isn't it? You know they'll have to create an upgrade version of the V-Synth with same now, won't they. I'll wait for that.

 

rt

A color screen does not effect the sound .

 

Dan O'

[realtrance]

Of course it does! With a color screen the sound is more dimensional. It's an obvious difference, anyone can hear it!

 

rt

[keynote]

The Roland Fantom X is said to have a brand new sound engine in it. Here is the video from NAMM if anybody missed it: Fantom X Video The video is a Real Media (RM) file so you will need the Real Media Player to watch it.

 

Mike

[aliengroover]

I saw about half of that video.

 

New engine or not, new gear pushes down the prices of older gear...older gear that, mind you, still gets the job done. It's the same with computers and cars. They look the same, but they're this year's models, so last year's model goes for hundreds (or thousands in the case of cars) less. Plus, as I've stated elsewhere on these forums, it's a case of the companies playing catchup with each other spec wise.

 

Once upon a time, we used to wish that companies would give us more. Now that they do, we (me at times included) complain.

Peace

[Jeebus]

Development of an engine is very heavy R&D work, and is quite costly I would assume. It's only natural and economical for a manuacturer to milk an engine for everything it's worth before developing and relelasing another one. This means incremental updates in terms of poly, effects, gimmicks, and the other usual suspects.

 

If the Fantom X contains an entirely new engine, they should have named it something else to signify that. Most users will pass it off as a repackaged Fantom.

[Analogaddict]

Originally posted by pursuitboy:

The Clavia Nord Electro seems like a technological change from the others. Same with the Motion Sound amplifier system.

Funny you should mention those; they are the centre of my gig rig!

 

My feeling regarding all this is that the big ROMpler manufacturers always hold something back; it seems there´s a lot of great technology and options that aren´t included until the competition makes it absolutely nescessary.

 

/J nas

[Tusker]

I thnk all this repackaging is a sign that the underlying technology is getting cheaper, faster. Yet creative new product development is getting too expensive as manufacturers have more and more of their investment tied up in the samples.

 

What it means for us:

 

- Incrementally better sounding instruments every few years. Upgrade continuously if you like, or skip an upgrade and catch the train at a later station. You have choices.

 

- There is nothing truly unique about the instrument you are playing. Some part of it has been shared with cheaper or differently marketed units. When you market yourself (if you do) this can be a factor. How do you brand yourself uniquely if you use (verifiably) the same tools and methods as everyone else?

 

And there's something else missing. I would prefer synths to get deeper (more types of control, architecture etc.) before they become commoditized. Forgive my negativity, but we are not getting a fraction of the tonal control available in other instruments today.

 

I define that statement with questions like, would I listen to a _____ (insert name of instrument) playing solos for 30 minutes? Or would I listen to a performed (not programmed) ______ concerto (insert name of instrument).

 

I might say yes to saxophone, guitar, etc. but probably not synth, and definitely not a rompler, today. Even though I might listen to a 60 minute Tomita cd and love it, I would not hear more than 30 seconds of a single "instrument" continuously in that cd.

 

The issue is mostly the interface, but it's also the sonics, and the architecture. I want that addressed! Every musician wants to be able to tell a story with their instrument. At this point the synth seems relegated to short stories and clever haikus. The ability to maintain interest with a single voice is where the upgrading needs to be. The improved sample size and features don't move us toward a worthy musical goal.

 

(sigh) Thanks for reading my rant.

 

Jerry

[RABid]

Originally posted by Jerry Aiyathurai:

.... And there's something else missing. I would prefer synths to get deeper (more types of control, architecture etc.) before they become commoditized. Forgive my negativity, but we are not getting a fraction of the tonal control available in other instruments today.

....

This is a good point and something I have been happy with as far as upgrades. Using Roland as the example, I started with the JV90 (I think that was the early 76 key ROMpler). I loved the touch of the keys, did not care for the short vertical throw of the joystick, and made do with two sliders above the joystick. I never could figure out how to assign filter amount to one slider and resonance to the other. Neither could the Roland rep. Then the XP50 came out. I upgraded because I could tell the difference in the sound. The bottom was smoother. The bonus was more control options and a better joystick. After that came the XP-80 and XP-60. Same sound, but still more control from the panel. My rig consisted of an XP-50 and XP-80. I was in heaven with those dedicated sliders for filter control. (Nightmares of my old DX-7 still haunt me.) Of course the Fantom eventually followed with better sound, more polyphony, and a different control surface. I have mixed feelings about the controls. The screen is nice and I love the method of recalling favorites, but I am not sure the 4 assignable knobs and buttons are better than the controls that were on the XP-80. Then you have the Fantom S and Fantom X and suddenly you have drum pad on top of your keyboard. If I did not already have an Emu XL-7 I would upgrade again. Luckily I have this covered. The Fantom X even addresses the biggest complaint of early Fantom users, low polyphony.

 

But it is not just Roland, Yamaha has done a wonderful job adding control features to their main line ROMpler. I am very impressed with the amount of control available on my Motif ES. Not just sliders and knobs, but jacks for breath controller, multiple foot switches and control pedals, ribbon, etc. Maybe the manufacturers are learning that we want more control over our sound.

 

Robert

[Phil B]

Originally posted by Jeebus:

If the Fantom X contains an entirely new engine, they should have named it something else to signify that. Most users will pass it off as a repackaged Fantom.

And I think they'd be dead on correct.

 

Arrangers are getting more advanced while workstations stagnate. So, I think, sooner than later, those will merge into one and workstations will no longer be "sufficient" for studio pros and semi-pros.

 

I wish I knew a bit more about DSP chip design, but (sorry if I sound like a broken record) if Roland came out with a high quality hardware controller with a built in VariOS-type DSP system, would future firmware/OS upgrades be able to "start from scratch" using the on-board DSP in a completely different way based on the "latest and greatest"? That would be a true incremental advance. The new "X"s by Roland, Yamaha and Korg are just signals to the market that they can't hack it in the new market developing out there without them.

[Tusker]

Originally posted by Phil B:

I wish I knew a bit more about DSP chip design, but (sorry if I sound like a broken record) if Roland came out with a high quality hardware controller with a built in VariOS-type DSP system, would future firmware/OS upgrades be able to "start from scratch" using the on-board DSP in a completely different way based on the "latest and greatest"?

I think that's the intent with the V-Synth. The upside is increased flexibility, so that the DSP doesn't have to carry the overhead from the previous incarnation of the synth. The downside is that this requires re-booting which may be not be feasible in a live context... this may be lengthy in a loaded synth, where the processing runs upon boot up, to get the wave files ready for use.

 

Jerry

[Tusker]

Originally posted by Rabid:

But it is not just Roland, Yamaha has done a wonderful job adding control features to their main line ROMpler. I am very impressed with the amount of control available on my Motif ES. Not just sliders and knobs, but jacks for breath controller, multiple foot switches and control pedals, ribbon, etc. Maybe the manufacturers are learning that we want more control over our sound.

You make good points Robert.

 

I agree they've come a long way in the last few years. I don't want to be ungrateful. The Motif ES does have a lot of advances. I hope this trend continues until these instruments become more expressive, even at the expense of appearing less impressive on paper.

 

That was VA in a nutshell. Sacrificing polyphony (impressive specs) for more expression. That was also the K series and Nord Modular.

 

Smooth sound morphing, non-linear sound morphing, DSP that goes beyond basic subtractive, and various types of controllers are key to to continuing the progress toward expression.

 

Jerry

[flexoffset]

heh. I just upgraded from a Korg M1 to a Motif ES and to say I am stunned is an understatement. A couple of things have improved since 1986 (or 1987).

 

Back in the late '80s, I had become quite proficient programming sequences in the M1. Now that I use a DAW, I can't imagine trying to program the sequencer on this Motif.

 

The great things about the Motif ES are those 1700 arpeggios, and the ability to create your own.

The bad thing is that Yamaha doesn't appear to know about a little operating system called OS X.

[Dan O]

Going from a M1 to a Motif ES is cool , but I'm more curios about the marketing side of selling keyboard workstaions and whether keyboardist are willing to upgrade or feel cheated by manufacturers , because of all the repacking.

Dan O'

[Synthguy]

Actually I don't feel cheated. The Roland synth engine is quite advanced, with some algorithmic programming reminiscent of the Kurzweil VAST engine. Giving it a lot more polyphony, and it gives a LOT more, allows for some very rich programming of very big patches. Loading it with lots of rom waves is essential to giving it fresh sound material for creating fresh patches, as the wave rom is as important as the synth engine. The Triton with its more basic two layer engine is helped a lot by having some excellent variety in the rom, along with some sweet analog sounding filters.

 

Just remember the impact the Motif ES had a few weeks ago here on the board. A slightly refined synth engine with a huge 175 meg wave rom, and people were falling all over each other to praise it. In the case of the Motif, Triton and Fantom, and soon the Kurzweil 2700 or whatever, giving us more of the same can be just dandy. It does mean the Next Big Thing like the Korg Oasys will be a couple of years off still, but with such excellent toys to play with now, the wait is quite bearable.

[RABid]

The only time I get upset is when I buy a keyboard or module, and a month later it takes a drastic price drop. This happened to me with my Emu XL-7. It is not totally bad because I later bought a P2500 and took advantage of that price drop. I have also learned to watch for bargains, and decide what items in my setup need to be on the cutting edge and what can lag behind. My primary keyboard is usually new and full of the latest features. I do not buy it because some one in marketing tells me I need it. The purchase is usually a result of reaching the limits of my current keyboard and wanting more features. I don't want to feel restricted on my main workstation. If I keep running out of polyphony, I'm going to fix that problem with something better. It is natural for people to use everything, whether it is closet space, polyphony, or number of notes in a sequencer. And then you want more.

 

My supporting instruments are different. Polyphony, features and even sound quality is not as much of an issue. Instead of getting the latest and greatest I am happy with blow out sells or used. That discontinued A5000 or used Wavestation S/R can give me some nice filler and a good price. The money I save there can go towards a primary instrument.

 

Robert

[SoundMeister]

Kurzweil did not announce the K2700. They chose to be innovative and release something called a VA.

True, though Kurzweil did just come out with the K2661, which some would say is a new, improved incarnation of the old K2000. But it could be argued (and this is pretty much how I feel about it) that the consistency of the Kurzweil K2x00 series is actually a major advantage in terms of the continued evolution and implementation of VAST.

 

Should music technology be a never-ending wave of disposable products that have little or no overlap in architecture and programmability? Realistically, technological innovations are not going to be as important to the quality of your musical productions as your skill level and creativity. It seems to me that if someone makes a point of exploring an instrument's capabilities they'll discover what it's really capable of. Our "NEW = BETTER" mind set could blinds us to this.

 

~Peter Schouten

Pyramid Sound Productions

http://www.pyramid-sound.com

[felix.]

Seems to me that once these companies have invested in branding their workstation lines, they're going to run with that brand (be it Fantom, Triton, or Motif) until the name doesn't sell keyboards any more. Once they figure it's out of steam, they'll come up with a new name.

 

Historically, I don't think that names have always had a direct correlation with the technology.

[dementia13]

Sometimes when a big new thing comes along, it's because there's a style that drives demand for it. In the late '60's/early '70's, experimentation of all kinds was big. It just so happened that there were brand-new instruments waiting to be experimented with in the analog synths, and plenty of groundbreaking prog and fusion bands to use them. In the '90s, the rise of techno spurred the demand for vintage and virtual analog synths. So, what's on the horizon that's going to spur the next wave of keyboard innovation?

[Dan South]

Yeah, those "lazy" keyboard manufacturers! Like Hammond and Steinway.

 

Maybe there's just no market for a major engineering change. Think about it. Everyone listens to MP3's, so what's the point in upgrading fidelity. A generation of fledgling musicians would rather twiddle with prepackaged loops in lieu of coming up with something new. Soft synths and soft samplers have raised the bang for the buck factor, not to mention sample playback realism.

 

How do you combat these trends if you're a synth designer? How do you recoup your R&D investment in a revolutionary new technology that will be appreciated by a handful of tech dweebs and overlooked by the masses?

[coyote]

I don't think it was mere coincidence that incredible musical experimentation came together with the electronic revolution. In the late 60's - early 70s, everything was new. And everything seemed possible.

 

You really can't say that anymore. Our "new adventure" is putting men on the Moon. Uhh, didn't that already happen - in the late 60s - early 70s?? Back then, the pledge was genuine and committed. Did GWB really seem committed when he announced "Mars in 2030"?

 

IMO there will have to be an entire societal upheaval on all fronts - social, technological, etc. - like we had then to spur anything like the creative period that came into being at that time. Until that happens, get used to incremental change.

[Stephen Fortner]

The "repackaging" that we saw in the Motif ES, followed a little later by the Trtion Extreme and Fantom X, was the biggest leap in onboard wave ROM we've seen in a long time. I remember threads on this board saying the main thing wrong with workstations was skimpy wave ROM. To me, it sounds like the manufacturers picked up on this, looked at how perceptions were being shifted by things like Gigastudio, and tried to make products we want.

 

A lot of them are thinking very hard about what the true next-generation workstation will do... really. But as someone here said, developing a new engine, perhaps based on new chips, is just an incredibly big deal. In the meantime, they're well aware of how users get pissed off when their shiny new keyboard is upstaged by a similar but upgraded model. They're more afraid, though, of what'll happen if they don't provide that upgrade. Someone else will, and new users will go for the competition's product.

 

All this means that whenever you jump in and buy gear, you're probably going to wish you'd waited a few months. That's actually true of buying just about any form of electronics. It also means that at any given point, the music technology market is an inherently better place for users, with more value for the money, than it was a year ago. It's not like one can say that about everything in life.