M3 or Fantom G?

[GregC]

I've voted for Fantom G for the reason of sound. For me it important that I can use the gear straight away out of the box and the M3 if frustratingly not like that due to the limited presets programs available.Korg could have just filled up all the banks with professionally programmed sounds rather than pass on the burden of programming to owners.The banks can be rewritten anyway so what's their problem?Anyway I am not a happy owner of the M3 just because of this simple reason. Forgive me for saying this but Roland Fantom G is way ahead in sound. The M3 is just in my opinion from a user point of view a triton labeled having a new sound engine w/ Karma because there is not much of a difference in sounds.

I'd say Fantom G is the way to go unless Korg releases the programs it promised and they better be good.

I am impressed that you have all this hands on experience with the G

Care to share how you arranged this ?

[GargoyleStudio]

I've got a TritonEx76 and a FantomX7. They're entirely different in sound and I put this mainly down to the manufacturers choice of ROM waveforms, and perhaps in a minor way also due to the (I say) better effects available in the TriEx.

I've auditioned the M3 quite a lot and to my ears it has the same general sound as the TriEx but it's a bit more precise in some areas. I like that! I haven't heard the FanG so I can't say anything about it, but I'd expect it to be pretty close to the FanX sounds but equally better.

But, for me, the deciding factors aren't the sounds: First, I need a 76 note keyboard, so that pretty much rules out the M3 (sadly). Second I use both keyboards entirely for live work so it would be really useful to finally have smooth patch changes (albeit on 8 parts only!).

Verdict - I'll be upgrading the X7 to a G7 and keeping the TritonExt76 until Korg make a 76 note giggable keyboard (call me lazy but I just don't want to relearn/rezone any of my music for 73 keys!).

Finally though, I like the M3. I love the touch screen and I love the sounds!!

Mike.

[sani]

I've voted for Fantom G for the reason of sound. For me it important that I can use the gear straight away out of the box and the M3 if frustratingly not like that due to the limited presets programs available

There is one thing which a lot of people don't realise at the first moment:

Korg doesn't provide you just with some preset programs, they also give some great, deep, fantastic sounding combinations, and that is a part where most other keyboards fall short.
You cannot count just the programs on a M3 and say that there aren't much of them. There are also great sounds in the combination mode which obviously required a lot of time for programming them.
I had a XP80 some years ago. It had a lot of patches, but the performances where just a joke. Even worse, there were 64 performances (equals to combinations on a korg keyboard) as presets (not rewritable) and just 32 user rewritable memory slots for performances.
Now, tell me please, what the hell where rolands engineers thinking? Who on the earth needs preset performances? And just 32 slots for your own. Could you imagine to use such a keyboard as your main axe on the stage with just 32 memory slots for your splits and layers? And the last keyboard, the fantom x stil only has 64 (and 64 on a memory card). That's 128 compared to 1500 on a triton extreme or M3.
Neither the performances on a motif, nor the performances on a fantom come close to the combinations of a triton/m3. There are some rich evolving pads which you can listen literaly for hours.

I agree, I would like to see some more sounds and variety on the m3, but it has to be said that korg always provided greatly programmed combinations, while others (mainly yamaha and roland) just quickly programmed some arranger type of performances which were there just for demo purposes.

And I think that korg has some really great sound designers. For example, the motif is often considered as a better sounding workstation on the acoustic side. But their programmer for some strange reason forgot to implement aftertouch on 90% of the patches. Now, try to play a guitar sound and apply a pitch bending and vibrato (by using the modualtion wheel at the same time) at the same time.

[Synthoid]

And the last keyboard, the fantom x stil only has 64 (and 64 on a memory card). That's 128 compared to 1500 on a triton extreme or M3.

Only 128 slots for splits and layers on a Fantom X? Wow.....that is lame.

[soulidstate]

I am impressed that you have all this hands on experience with the G

Care to share how you arranged this ?

I never mentioned me having a hands on xp with the G. I owned a fantom S months ago and saw the video of the G demoing sounds like the grand piano,punch bass, etc and they are excellent. Roland sound has depth and expressiveness sound that Korg doesn't have. The new power sequencer, mouse interface,128 tracks with 4 audio and big TFT LCD says it all that makes it an obvious choice. At least for me.

[Sina172]

...

[Synthoid]

I think it's safe to say that bashing the M3 on this forum is inappropriate.

All keyboards have both strengths and shortcomings......I'd rather play my music than nitpick.

[BillW]

I think it's safe to say that bashing the M3 on this forum is inappropriate.

All keyboards have both strengths and shortcomings......I'd rather play my music than nitpick.

Exactly...I have an M3 and a Fantom X6 and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[GregC]

I am impressed that you have all this hands on experience with the G

Care to share how you arranged this ?

I never mentioned me having a hands on xp with the G. I owned a fantom S months ago and saw the video of the G demoing sounds like the grand piano,punch bass, etc and they are excellent. Roland sound has depth and expressiveness sound that Korg doesn't have. The new power sequencer, mouse interface,128 tracks with 4 audio and big TFT LCD says it all that makes it an obvious choice. At least for me.

"I've voted for Fantom G for the reason of sound" is your statement.

The brief noisy Fantom G NAMM video is no basis to judge its sound.

C'mon, we all know Roland and we can read spec.

Your 'opinion ' of the Fantom G sound is based on faith. And spec . Your call.

That is all

[GregC]

I think it's safe to say that bashing the M3 on this forum is inappropriate.

All keyboards have both strengths and shortcomings......I'd rather play my music than nitpick.

I think the M3 bashers suffer from diahrhea of the fingers. Extremely boring points that have been rehashed repeatedly since last May

Nothing new there, and extremely zzzzzzzzzzzz

Move along, nothing to be learned

[sani]

The ONLY advantage to the M3, IMO is KARMA and even THEN I can't recommend it because by the time you wrap your head around it, it'll be a LONG time!

You have to realize that every single person has somehow different needs. Just because you cannot wrap your head around Karma doesn't mean that it is a lost thing. Just because you cannot wrap your head around a violin and how to play it well doesn't mean that a violin is a bad or not recommendable instrument. I cannot understand why people always expect from something to work out of factory for everybody in any single case.

I make very complex combinations for my live concerts and I appreciate that the M3 now has 16 timbres. That's more than the fantom G will have and it is four times as much as a motif has. I especially appreciate the fact that every timbre has its own EQ because it is my main tool for sound shaping and placing it into the whole combination/mix. And I still have 5 inserts and 2 aux effects + 1 total effect. If I'm well informed, the fantom g will have only one insert effect in its multitimbral live mode per part/timbre. So, you can either use it for an eq, or for the insert effect which is used in patch mode. In that case you have to risk that it will sound boomy or to sharp or to dull, without any possibility to change it.

The screen on the M3 is simply way the hell too small to get a decent user interface out of it, IMO and I'm only saying that because I've grown REALLY accustomed to that HUGE screen on the OASYS that I can't see myself using an M3 in ANY way.

Sorry, in that case, the problem is not the screen, but you. In fact, this is a really childish statement. If you say that it is "way the hell" to small, you have to remember that korg was the first a screen of this size on a workstation. I'm sure that 99% of keyboard users find the screen size absolutely adequate. And besides that, you don't even know how the programming capabilities on the fantom g will be presented on the screen. I guess it will require a lot of clicking.

Also, I've had my OASYS for almost 10 Months now, and I'm JUST NOW starting to get REALLY comfortable with it in regards to the KARMA Engine. It's an AMAZING tool, but the learning curve is really steep when it comes to programming it and assigning parameters to the control surface, getting the scenes set up, etc. This can REALLY bog down your creativity sometimes.

The more features a program has, the steeper is the learning curve. It is true for all programs/features. Not only Karma. You can always go back to your triton classic and use the arpeggiator with its four parameters which can be changed.

I haven' been very impressed with the M3 and I've been REALLY disappointed about it since day one. There are quite a few REALLY good Combis and Programs, but the sound quality just isn't there. And in comparison to the Fantom-G, this is a no-brainer as it's the SAME price and your getting a LOT more for your money if you went with the Fantom-G and I think the Fantom-G will sound better than the M3 in many ways. And if you REALLY want to go Korg, the Triton Extreme is THE keyboard to get for the money if money is tight.

I really don't understand why an oasys owner would have the need to get a M3??? We all knew that the sounds are some kind of "cut down" versions from the oasys, so what new have you expected from the M3 compared to an oasys?
And I have to say it just again: don't take your own needs as a reference point regarding which one - M3 or Fantom G - is better. It's silly to make such statements while the Fantom G is not even in the stores yet.
And BTW, you will rave about fantoms sequencer and I myself will prefer a software sequencer because any software sequencer for around 100 bucks will beat the hell out of any sequencer in any workstation. You have a computer. With most soundcards for just 200 dollars you will get a cubase or sonar version which does 100 times more than a m3 or fantom sequencer will ever do. Make your sequences on the computer and put it into your workstation. It is not really rocket science these days.

[Bubba]

I have to agree with Sani. Korg shines in the combi department. Now if you don't care about combis then no big deal. I like the Motif XS but other than a few combis (i.e. "Kogarashi") they just don't do much for me. They give me the sense of just being thrown together. But I don't know, I wasn't there when they programmed the thing. I've used Roland over the years too. Maybe the G is "the bomb". Time will tell. But why would anyone with an Oasys even consider an M3? To me it's a mute point. It's little brother. The screen's quite sufficient. And the sounds are alive. Once again, what floats your boat? What inspires you? Sounds? Great sequencers? Sampling? Big screens? I can work with any sequencer so sounds become the most important element of a workstation. And more important than just sounds are Combis. Now if I were a full time musician and had time to become a better programmer then my needs might change. But as it stands now, I rely heavily on the ability of Korgs very gifted sound and program designers.

[soulidstate]

[quote="GregC]

"I've voted for Fantom G for the reason of sound" is your statement.

The brief noisy Fantom G NAMM video is no basis to judge its sound.

C'mon, we all know Roland and we can read spec.

Your 'opinion ' of the Fantom G sound is based on faith. And spec . Your call.

That is all

Ha?What noisy NAMM video? Check Roland website, see and hear the video. Yes, it's my call because every individual is entitled to his opinion.
I don't give mine based on faith. I do my research first.Every person has his own need , taste and preference.My vote is based on them and nobody can take that away from me.

You should also see the whole context as to why I vote for G. It's also based on the lack of good presets on the M3.

I hope this ends this thread of ours Greg.

[GregC]

Most keyboardists make a purchasing decision or preference for it based on the way THAT keyboard model sounds

Other than the 10 " G " patches plus a drum kit plus a few chords using EP's, Thats not much to go on, IMO. ( I am not including the brief ARX demos)
http://www.roland.com/demos/en/i0064/index.html

Roland has promised to include 'all new G Samples " plus the best of SRX

Its been 3 weeks since NAMM and so far , there are no new mp3 " G " demos.

Many are anxiously waiting for actual mp3 demos of the G.

The G was always presented as "not finished" so I understand some "silence" from Roland.

Hopefully, folks will hear more G audio demos from Roland very soon. I am familar ( and own a few) with SRX. Its the new G samples I would like to identify and hear.

[Sina172]

...