ROLAND XP80mkII

[zephonic]

Let's massively vote for the Return of the Roland XP80. With the XV5080 engine and presets (plus better pianosounds), practical computer-interfacing and more user memories (say, 128 performances) and a PC-card slot where the diskdrive used to be. Other than that, it should be exactly the same as the original.

[Bill H.]

I'm sorry, but as a long time Roland user I'm just not with you on this one. My Fantom S is so much better than my XP-60 (the 61 key version of the XP-80) in every way...better waveform ROM, stronger synthesis engine with more filter options and TMT, way better effects (the COSM guitar amp sim is the best in the business, and the new VK Leslie sim is a killer compared to the old "Rotary"), much improved keyboard with longer action, and we haven't even touched the new interface and display. To me, a used Fantom S 61 is the best deal in a used rompler out there...they routinely go for under $800 and it's a killer board.

 

What is it that you miss in the old XP's?

[Windreaper]

Originally posted by Bill H.:

What is it that you miss in the old XP's?

Numpad.

[Bill H.]

Yeah...good point there.

[Stephen Fortner]

Don't the drum pads double as a numeric keypad? I recall they did this on the Fantom-Xa.

[Hobo]

Sorry, not with you on this one and neither am I a dance / techno dj. The Fantom X series is in my opinion a massive improvement sonically to both the XP and XV series.

In my ideal world though they'd dust off the A80 / A90 and make them lighter and add usb

[Bill H.]

The latest Fantom S software rev allows some in microscope edit, but still not on more common things like patch select. Fortunately, you can program the pads to trigger all kinds of things, from simple program changes to whole setup changes, but you have to program them to do that. I use this feature all the time in live performance.

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by Bill H.:

What is it that you miss in the old XP's?

1) the looks. I'm still amazed at how horrible the Fantom series looks. The classic elegance of the XP series was replaced by the Korean-refrigerator, designer look of the day...

 

2) I swear I'll never pay for a D-Beam and other outraging "gifts" Roland decided to shove down every user's throat.

 

3) Although that's a personal preference question, I am among those who prefer the XP keybed and find the Fantom's plasticky-feeling.

 

Well, you asked, I answered ...

[Bill H.]

I guess it's a personal preference thing then...aside from the D-Beam, which I don't have a use for either. I have both my XP-60 and Fantom S set up together right now, and like both the looks and the keyboard feel of the Fantom better. The longer keys (from tip to fulcrum) on the Fantom definitely make it easier to get more consistant velocities when you're playing the blacks.

[Tusker]

I don't have a Fantom, and I still synthesize extensively on the XP. I'd take a Fantom anyday for the above mentioned reasons. (who's up for a trade )

 

That said, if I wanted to push Roland in any direction, it would be to integrate the V-synth functionality with the rompler functionality. Keep the V-Synths extra control surfaces please. While I'm asking, how about some parameter smoothing?

 

Jerry

[Dick Ward MP Hall of Fame]

Oh yeah, that D-beam is dumb. Still, aside from that, I love the Fantom. 5 paychecks from now, I will one a Fantom X6, and be grateful for the inprovement over my JV1000.

[marino]

I still use an XP-80 as my main live non-weighted master keyboard. I rarely use it by itself, unless it's just for a reharsal, but I'm very used to to its keyboard touch and OS. I find the XP keybed quite decent; the Fantom keybed is more or less on the same quality range, but it feels very different. I don't care for the look of my instruments, but I'm not crazy for the Fantom's layout. It also weights more than the XP.

[realtrance]

I don't see why people rag on the D-Beam; you can use it to introduce non-repetitive control variations of all sorts, and if you program it for your needs, it provides the means to add a little extra touch of expressiveness you'd normally rely on a ribbon or touchpad for. The only problem is that most of the default D-Beam programming on the built-in patches is a bit too aggressive and thus often sounds unmusical when you use it (depending on how you use it though, smoothly or with chopping motions).

[zephonic]

Well guys, I don't know how you guys play live, but I hate the fact that it doesn't have numeric keypad, and that changing between patches/performances in "live settings" mode comes with a near-second delay entirely free of charge. That "favorite' thing sucks in Performance mode, as you still have to use the dial for changing. I own both the XP80 and the X7, and although I really like the Fantom, I must say that the XP80 is a much more thought-through design. The Fantom has the potential, but is currently -IMHO- a work in progress.

[b3kys]

I own both the XV-5080 and Fantom XR and find the XV more inspiring. There are a few patches on the Fantom that i like but i can always program them on the XV-5080. As far as sounds i don't see that much of a difference. At this point i'll probably get rid of my Fantom.

 

Lately i've been going toward my motifs.

[zephonic]

Ya, I can understand why. Have both Famtom X7 and XV5080, and the Fantom is an improvement in some areas, but certainly not all. And why oh why did they discontinue the tradition of including all previous soundsets into the machine?

[Andre Lower]

I doubt Roland is unaware of what pleases and displeases customers regarding their current workstation, but this thread could help them driving the development of the next generation closer to customer satisfaction. They sure can make wonderful products, and leave me the feeling that their R&D people efforts always end up wasted by poor final decision making

 

Alas, they could also try delegating the manual writing stuff to some kindergarten kid, so long as not from a Japanese school. I mean, it really can't get worse than the usual, can it?

[Tusker]

Originally posted by Andre Lower:

I doubt Roland is unaware of what pleases and displeases customers regarding their current workstation, but this thread could help them driving the development of the next generation closer to customer satisfaction.

Well it's apparent to me that their recent efforts with the Fantom line related to improving te quality of the piano and making the synth easy to use. Both of which they did, without extending the dsp/sample library equity significantly. It's like the new model Camry, you get new headlamps but the drivetrain is the same. Those seem like smaller decisions than the next ones we should see from them ... what happens to the next generation of workstations, and what happens to the next generation of (V-) synths?

 

As they go from the XV cycle to the next cycle, it will be interesting if to see if they choose to change paradigms (theres and ours) or if they simply repeat the same process they started with the JV's although with larger capabilities.

 

Jerry

[Bill H.]

Although as I said earlier, I think my Fantom S is a big improvement over my XP-60, there are some things that I sure miss ...

 

1. 10 key

 

2. The three sliders above the paddle. It was way easier to adjust volume from there, and Leslie speed ...(!) a huge design oversight on the Fantoms. Everyone I know that has an XP-60/80 assigns one of those sliders to modulation so they can latch LFOs and run Leslie speed naturally.

 

3. Dedicated effects and portamento buttons. Roland gave us a paltry two assignable buttons to cover these four important functions.

[zephonic]

quote:

 

I doubt Roland is unaware of what pleases and displeases customers regarding their current workstation, but this thread could help them driving the development of the next generation closer to customer satisfaction. They sure can make wonderful products, and leave me the feeling that their R&D people efforts always end up wasted by poor final decision making

 

Yeah, for magnificent instruments like the D50 or XP80 there's blunders like the JV1000 and the original Fantom...anyone wanna have a laugh about that one?

Sure, the Fantom S is an improvement and my Fantom X is another step up, but the fact remains that the GUI just doesn't work for live stuff. At home it is wonderful, although...why is there NO dedicated undo/redo button? Even the XP80 had one!

[Johnny1982]

I like D-Beam alot!

[RABid]

Originally posted by zephonic:

Yeah, for magnificent instruments like the D50 or XP80 there's blunders like the JV1000 and the original Fantom...anyone wanna have a laugh about that one?

...

I would not call the Fantom 76 a laughable blunder. There are things I don't like about it, but I still use my Fantom 76 more than my Motif ES6. The quick select buttons is my favorite feature and I recommend that keyboard to anyone who needs good sound and 76 keys for around $800. Maybe I'm happy with it because I only use the Fantom in patch mode. I don't need splits and layers live because I have two more keyboards to cover other parts. I'm also very careful about layering parts and adding a lot of effects. When playing on stage, too many layers or effects can create mud.

 

Robert

[Andre Lower]

Originally posted by Rabid:

...The quick select buttons is my favorite feature and I recommend that keyboard to anyone who needs good sound and 76 keys for around $800. Maybe I'm happy with it because I only use the Fantom in patch mode. I don't need splits and layers live because I have two more keyboards to cover other parts. I'm also very careful about layering parts and adding a lot of effects. When playing on stage, too many layers or effects can create mud.

Well I'm sure there are exceptions, like people who actually like the D-Beam (!!!) and who use their boards in Patch mode only. I do not know whether Roland R&D is reading this or not (well, probably not... ) But there seem to be a vast number of people who would enjoy the following:

 

1) Extra keys. Many of us (count me in) rely on splits/zoning to make several different sounds available simultaneously for a given song. You know, a bass line, an organ chop, some sort of pad, a lead line and some synth efx all on the same song, i.e. Roland's "Performance". So please make available a good 76-unweighted version on whatever the next workstation generation might be.

 

2) Really practical/effective control surfaces. Please make sure the keybed is good (unweighted action does not equal lousy, plasticky feeling keys...), the modulation joystick actually works (the one on the XP-30 is as laughable as it gets) and bring back the XP-line buttons for numeric selection of patches, Portamento, Solo, etc. A ribbon controller was never out of reach for Roland, but it seems they will drive the horrendous D-beam thing to exhaustion before changing their mind ...

 

3) An extra pair of Audio OUT ports. This way we can get clicks to our drummers and work around some recording restrictions.

 

4) More room for USER storage. I do not know about you guys, but I have problems storing all my patches and Performances in the meager 32 USER addresses. I realize the newer generations feature 64 addresses, but I'd love Roland to offer 128 addresses. Then those who needed more than that would be the only ones forced to store outside of the board or buy the suggested memory cards.

 

5) Considering the success of the XP-30 soundset (i.e. inclusion of three factory-installed SR-JV expansion cards in the deal) and the fact that it is about time Roland really improves their wave arsenal (not that the current one is bad, only that it will inevitably be upgraded sooner or later), the factory-inclusion of one or two SRX boards on the new generation machine would have a marked influence on people's perception of Roland sounds. Many still rate them based on the factory sounds only, whereas the expansion boards transform these synths in something way better IMHO.

 

The rest is market standard, like the availability of a sequencer, weighted keys, sampling, color touch-screen, etc. depending on the specific model in the product line one chooses to buy.

 

P.S. = Make them slim and light. This often overlooked aspect, along with the quality of the piano sounds, is among the most frequent deal-breaker/maker among people buying workstations for live use. Ah yes, and make sure to avoid the present Korean refrigerator looks. Just like for women party dress, nothing beats the classic beauty of the simple black standard .

[zephonic]

Andre, I concur. And Roland, bring back Eric Persing to the sound design team.

[RABid]

Originally posted by Andre Lower:

...

 

1) Extra keys. Many of us (count me in) rely on splits/zoning to make several different sounds available simultaneously for a given song. You know, a bass line, an organ chop, some sort of pad, a lead line and some synth efx all on the same song, i.e. Roland's "Performance". So please make available a good 76-unweighted version on whatever the next workstation generation might be.

This is why I like my Fantom 76 and why I have considered the Fantom X7. I really regreat getting the Motif ES6 rather than ES7 or ES8. But I HATE paying $400 more for each of those steps. I've asked here a dozen times, why do we have to pay $800 to move from a 61 to an 88 key version of a workstation when we can buy an 88 key controller for $500?

 

2) Really practical/effective control surfaces. ...

That has been the general complaint here. The controls were moved and the D-Beam is in the way. I do like the joystick on the Fantom as it is an improvement over earlier JV and XP's. I can do very quick repeated pitch bends that cannot be done on a wheel. Except for some of the cheap keyboards, the Roland synth action keys tend to be very good.

 

3) An extra pair of Audio OUT ports. This way we can get clicks to our drummers and work around some recording restrictions.

Yep. Should probably be on any workstation that is used on stage.

 

4) More room for USER storage. I do not know about you guys, but I have problems storing all my patches and Performances in the meager 32 USER addresses. I realize the newer generations feature 64 addresses, but I'd love Roland to offer 128 addresses. Then those who needed more than that would be the only ones forced to store outside of the board or buy the suggested memory cards.

This is a complaint I have on every single workstation I have tried. None of them have enough user patches. Korg was the worst because every expansion ROM you install requires use of a bank in user memory. Motivator.com has a lot of nice patch banks available to the ES, but where do you put them? I don't like to store patches on memory cards and have to call them up that way before use.

 

5) Considering the success of the XP-30 soundset (i.e. inclusion of three factory-installed SR-JV expansion cards in the deal) and the fact that it is about time Roland really improves their wave arsenal (not that the current one is bad, only that it will inevitably be upgraded sooner or later), the factory-inclusion of one or two SRX boards on the new generation machine would have a marked influence on people's perception of Roland sounds. Many still rate them based on the factory sounds only, whereas the expansion boards transform these synths in something way better IMHO.

All three manufacturers seem to be in a race now to have the biggest, best factory ROM banks. FantomX and MotifES have expanded ROM, and Triton Extreem added waves and patches from many of their speciality ROM's. But, I seem to remember someone here complaining about the FantomX not having all the waves and patches from the XP series.

 

The rest is market standard, like the availability of a sequencer, weighted keys, sampling, color touch-screen, etc. depending on the specific model in the product line one chooses to buy.

 

P.S. = Make them slim and light. This often overlooked aspect, along with the quality of the piano sounds, is among the most frequent deal-breaker/maker among people buying workstations for live use. Ah yes, and make sure to avoid the present Korean refrigerator looks. Just like for women party dress, nothing beats the classic beauty of the simple black standard .

If they want to make most people here happy, they will release a 76 key hammer action workstation.

 

Right gang?

 

Robert

[Dick Ward MP Hall of Fame]

Originally posted by zephonic:

quote:

 

Ithere's blunders like the JV1000 and the original Fantom...anyone wanna have a laugh about that one?

What's wrong with the JV1000? The polyphony is crap, but I really love my board.

[Andre Lower]

OK, looks like we already have enough directions here to put Roland back on track for their next-generation workstation. Could someone please translate a compilation of this wonderful thread into Janglish (or Rolish, for they might have the copyright of it) and forward it to Roland's R&D dept.?

 

No, I do not feel I could use some modesty here...after all, they started it, didn't they ?

 

P.S. = I just had this brilliant idea to get Roland back on track as far as the looks of their synths go: Let's get the top Korean fridge manufacturers convinced to release the next generation of their products in matt black, very slim and discreet. I bet it'll work ...

[Dick Ward MP Hall of Fame]

You know, if we're criticizing Roland's current direction here, which I think we are, I want another board that I'm not afraid to put some weight on. All this plastic is doing me in. My JV is heavy and wonderful like that. When I'm jumping around on stage and I lean on the side of my board for a break, I want something that's not going to snap under my weight. The Fantoms just don't feel sturdy to me. (that's the reason I never got a Triton... I can't imagine myself keeping that touch screen in working condition for more than a show or two, lol)

 

You know, maybe a flimsy keyboard would be okay if I could find a really strong midi controller. They also all seem to be light plastic. Stupid wussy keyboard players... stop demanding lightweight gear!

[Nicky]

Here'e my 2 cents.......I sold my XV5080 and replaced it with a Fantom XR. I'm about 3 months into it and I realize I made a big mistake. The user interface is not as friendly on the Fantom XR (only 1 rack space) and I find the software editor and librarian to be unintuitive. And sonically even though there's a few nice samples, I still like my XP 30 a lot better. The Fantom XR overall has a sort of dull and dark quality while my XP30 is bright and sparkly. Just my opinion.

[zephonic]

Andre Lower quote:

 

P.S. = I just had this brilliant idea to get Roland back on track as far as the looks of their synths go: Let's get the top Korean fridge manufacturers convinced to release the next generation of their products in matt black, very slim and discreet. I bet it'll work ...

 

end quote

 

But...then they might also decide to bring back fixed power cables...

 

Nicky, I hear you. The Fantom has the potential to sound really good, but the presets are not very inspiring.