Fantom G production terminated?

[StepLogik]

Very interesting and long-winded thread on Roland Clan about the Fantom G workstations and Roland's refusal to support them: http://forums.rolandclan.com/?action=sh ... d=8&page=1

The speculation is that Roland has already abandoned the Fantom-G line. Personally, I think this happened a long time ago but people who have held on to the instrument are still waiting around for OS updates with bugfixes and obvious missing features.

I wonder if this means workstations in general are dying on the vine or if Roland just really botched it with the Fantom G series. If they actually roll out a new generation of workstation then people are going to be livid.

There is also an interesting sister thread ( http://forums.rolandclan.com/?action=sh ... d=8&page=1 ) about Roland's refusal to participate in customer interaction on forums, etc. It is a pretty damning accusation.

[meatballfulton]

The Clan has also put a hex on Roland for refusal to fix what they feel were bugs on the MC-808 groovebox. Tough crowd over there

There were some Roland support guys who used to hang at the Clan but they all left the company...

[Diametro]

Imo, the Fantom G is dead ... Sales have never been strong, and they're now in the cellar, I imagine ... Doubt it will see the long-awaited v2.0 update as well as any more expen$ive, underwhelming ARX cards ... Three and out for Roland here ...

There were so many bad design decisions with this workstation (big expensive screen that doesn't really see good use, all-new "power sequencer" that fell flat and needs updating, not to mention even less responsive trigger pads, unit is bigger and heavier, rather expensive) ...

But the worst of it by far was the relatively small, bland and uninspired soundset ... A Fantom X with even just a couple of well-chosen SRX boards is a better choice than Fan-G in terms of available sounds ...

Roland really s**t the bed with this Fantom-G ... and it's left a bad feeling for those that got with this workstation, and a strong lingering smell for those who witnessed ...

[mharris80]

Imo, the Fantom G is dead ... Sales have never been strong, and they're now in cellar, I imagine ... Doubt it will see the long-awaited v2.0 update as well as any more expen$ive, underwhelming ARX cards ... Three and out for Roland here ... There were so many bad design decisions with this workstation (big expensive screen that doesn't really see good use, all-new "power sequencer" that fell flat and needs updating, not to mention even less responsive trigger pads, unit is bigger and heavier, rather expensive) ... but the worst of it by far was the relatively small, bland and uninspired soundset ... A Fantom X with even just a couple of well-chosen SRX boards is a better choice than Fan-G in terms of available sounds ...

Roland really s**t the bed with this Fantom-G ... and it's left a bad taste for those that got into bed with this workstation, and a bad lingering smell for those who witnessed ...

They've had several of these expensive missteps lately, haven't they? Makes one wonder how many a single company can afford to make.

[tekkentool]

I think it's interesting small companies can put out perfect product after perfect product (DSI, access anyone) and arguably one of the biggest ones hasn't put out anything relevant in 5 years. V-synth, yeah super cool. But there's nothing else that even tickles my fancy the slightest in their current lineup.

[Ashe37]

Workstations aren't doing well in general, and between the M3 being a grand cheaper (and having a 24-voice VA synth you can add for $300) and the Motif XF being the about same price, I would guess that Roland is getting their a**es handed to them.

[tekkentool]

I Just don't think workstations are relevant at all anymore.

[Ashe37]

I dunno, i dont like working purely on my M3 (dragging sequencer notes on that tiny screen is a pain) but i like having a nice flexible rompler with a good synth in it. I *could* work entirely from my M3, but dont see any reason to.

[StepLogik]

i really like the idea of composing at a workstation and not having to use a computer (i'm an all-hardware type of guy). but you cannot deny the ease of sequencing and editing complex patches at a computer. roland really had the right idea with the FG, they just botched it completely in implementation and now the damage is done.

it will be interesting to see what they do with their new sequencer - it is VERY good. the FG implementation was just so half-assed that it caused too much frustration (the piano roll was only partially implemented, the mouse didn't work in the edit screens, etc). i could definitely see their new sequencer showing up in the next version of the MV or the next MC groovebox.

also, there is a lot of speculation that roland might be moving into a different area. they've started getting more into the home/consumer market and into professional audio and video production. maybe they are going to concede the pro workstation market to yamaha, korg, and kurzweil and just keep making plastic VA's and low-end ROMplers (Juno series).

[Hybrid88]

I think it's interesting small companies can put out perfect product after perfect product (DSI, access anyone) and arguably one of the biggest ones hasn't put out anything relevant in 5 years. V-synth, yeah super cool. But there's nothing else that even tickles my fancy the slightest in their current lineup.

Agreed, I think a lot of people are thinking the same, JP-8000 and V-Synth were cool but SH-201 and GAIA?!? hmm, this just seems like a downgrade of the product line to me. Comeon Roland it's going to take more than that in 2010 - look at Korg they're coming out with new ideas, stuff that is actually pretty useable. I mean soundwise, a lot of Roland's current VA synths you wouldn't miss much (if anything) if you got something else from any other company, in fact you'd probably be better off.

At least the V-Synth continues to live on with the GT, though for how much longer who knows?

And I'm sorry to bring it all up once again, but I still do not see the point in bringing back the SH/Juno names/colour schemes, and again I appologise for being blunt here but I couldn't care less what the chip on the shoulder, anti-vintage synth whingers want to say, this is not about old verses new, sound comparisons or analog verses digital etc, etc, It is however purely and blatently about cashing in on the past reputation of their classic synths, take from that what you will. Just ask yourself this, what did they have to lose by naming them something new and having a different colour scheme?

[meatballfulton]

I still do not see the point in bringing back the SH/Juno names/colour scheme

Marketing of course.

[cornutt]

I still do not see the point in bringing back the SH/Juno names/colour scheme

Marketing of course.

Yeah, Roland is clearly trading on their past reputation with that. No matter how much you dress up the Juno-G, it isn't a Jupiter-8. It isn't even a Juno-106.

Like some of the above, I'm wondering how relevant the arranger workstation is anymore. You can put together a sequencer/DAW/rompler/digital effects system with a laptop for a lot less money, and even have some extra to spend on a high-end Fatar controller if you want that. Heck, a lot of people these days don't really play keyboard and won't miss it.

To stay relevant, the workstation manufacturers (and everyone else, for that matter) have to offer something that you can't easily get out of a laptop setup. For instance, you can load up a laptop with plug-ins until h**l freezes over, but you still don't have the equivalent of a well-designed and thought out panel. Yes, complex patch editing is easier on a screen, but there is still a whole lot of usefulness in having real,tactile controls. (And this doesn't mean cramming a bunch of itty bitty knobs into one corner of the panel so you can use the same design in multiple case sizes -- I'm lookin' at you, Nord.)

[meatballfulton]

Having worked in computer design for 30 years for companies big and small, I think some (most?) users have no idea what's involved in bringing products to market and supporting them after the sale. OS updates don't come out of the goodness of the mfr's heart, after all...they cost money. At some point the people working to support the Fantom G are needed to design and support other Roland products.

Ongoing support really boils down to things like:

1. Are there a large number of users affected by the bugs?
2. Will adding new features spur sales of new units?
3. How many loyal customers will we lose if we drop support?
4. Are we getting a lot of heat from our dealers?

At some point there's no cost benefit in continuing support. If Roland stops making the Fantom G because of weak sales then why would anyone expect a new OS revision?

[I12]

I would never be an early adopter for roland gear

Just to many unsupported unfinished bug ridden o/ses in the last ten years

It's a joke that they get away with selling such poor instruments, based on their reputation.
All the big 3 do it, just roland seems to be the worst.

Companies like access and elektron do a great job of supporting their instruments for long periods.

[Diametro]

At some point the people working to support the Fantom G are needed to design and support other Roland products.

So is that why so many of their products are ho-hum ... ??? I have a studio full of vintage and digital Roland synths ... but for the life of me can't see buying any of their products for some time to come ...

Who(m)ever designed the Fantom-G should not have ... They destroyed that workstation line through not listening to what Fantom-X users wanted and instead created a "new" product that catered to live players (live sets) and/or those composing on their workstations (power sequencer and that bloody big screen) ... but neither sucessfully because for starters, the sounds just aren't there ...

I feel like who(m)ever headed the design on this thing really didn't understand what made the Fantom-X special and how it needed to be imporoved (which, really, was all about making the SRX sounds standard -- not the horrible "best of SRX" collection in Fan-G that the tin ears at Roland compiled -- including flexible, routable insert effects -- not the waste-of-MFX in "live mode" that permanently connects one patch to one MFX so you can seamlessly switch sounds (hurray!) -- and making the OS/sequencer super tight and more usable as well as upgrading the sampler to a higher quality ...

I did like working on my Fan-X and composing there ... Skip back sampling is something I still use (but more for listening/judging improvised performances) ... but Fan-X limitations (degraded sound after sampling/low sample rate, no automation on audio tracks of even simple things like track volume and panning, etc.) were not fixed on Fantom-G ...

In all, it's been frustrating because after five years of working with Fan-X I feel I deserve to upgrade my workstation, but right now, nothing seems worth it ...