The moment you go to "or more", you've nullified your point, and Jason's comments about flexibility come back into play, as the only ways to have more Elements in the Yamaha way is functionally equivalent to adding more Partials in the Roland way of doing things.

[quotePost id=115723]The moment you go to "or more", you've nullified your point, and Jason's comments about flexibility come back into play, as the only ways to have more Elements in the Yamaha way is functionally equivalent to adding more Partials in the Roland way of doing things.[/quotePost]
Well, you could leave out "or more" and then the Yamaha advantage would "merely" be having sounds of up to 8 elements instead of up to 4 partials... but in fact, the "or more" further emphasizes the difference, rather than nullifying it. That's because when it comes to sampled sounds, Roland provides absolutely ZERO single-instrument sounds with more than 4 partials, while Yamaha DOES provide single-instrument sounds with more than 8 elements.

From my point of view, they're both not good enough, so the blank slate tooling is what counts, not that Yamaha manages to use multiple parts and still not make good enough pianos on the MODX.

So, again, half a dozen of one, six of the other... with the other having the ability to model pianos in two extra ways, too.

Plus, let's be honest, it's kind of a big deal that 16 parts of the Roland are under keyboard control. That sort of equals it all out, in the mix, so to speak.

[quotePost id=115725]From my point of view, they're both not good enough, so the blank slate tooling is what counts, not that Yamaha manages to use multiple parts and still not make good enough pianos on the MODX.[/quotePost]
Again, that's subjective. Not everyone would say the MODX does not have good enough pianos. (Nor would everyone say that the Roland does not have good enough pianos.) Either way, the percentage of people who buy either of these boards primarily as "blank slate" boards to program (as opposed to primarily to use the sounds they come with or mildly tweaked versions thereof) is probably rather small, whether talking about pianos in particular or the sounds in general.

[quotePost id=115725]So, again, half a dozen of one, six of the other... with the other having the ability to model pianos in two extra ways, too.[/quotePost]Two? I guess you're talking about the full Fantom with the V-Piano? At that price, you're competing with the Montage, whose pianos you like out-of-the-box anyway. But here we're talking about MODX vs. Fantom-0, which has just one "extra way" modeled piano sound, SuperNATURAL. But again, you can't do much to edit SN. If you don't like them out-of-the-box, game over. And as it happens, I don't. And as I said, I can get a quite satisfying piano sound out of the MODX, with very minimal effort. YMMV. But if you want to tweak the pianos, there's still a difference between the ability to tweak a 19 Element piano on the MODX, vs a 4-Partial piano on the Roland (or yes, you might like the SN piano, but if you don't, you can't do much about it). Again, though, this isn't really about piano, it's about having factory-supplied sounds of up to 4 Partials on one, and 8--or more--Elements on the other. Just as an example of a facility that is better on the MODX than the Roland.

[quotePost id=115725]Plus, let's be honest, it's kind of a big deal that 16 parts of the Roland are under keyboard control. That sort of equals it all out, in the mix, so to speak.[/quotePost]
Heck, the Roland has LOTS of advantages over the MODX! But that wasn't the question. I was answering the question, "Other than FM-X, what does the MODX do better?" That's a different question from what the Roland does better!

But to your specific point here, pIcking up from what Jason was saying, and something I think he previously said elsewhere, you could say that 16 parts times 4 partials creates the same number of potential sounds as 8 parts times 8 elements, its 64 max either way... except again, the MODX user actually HAS access to lots of AWM2 instrument sounds that have more than 4 elements, while the Roland user does NOT have access to any PCM instrument sounds that have more than 4 partials, unless he samples them himself. The issue isn't whether you do or do not have simultaneous keyboard access to 64 elements/partials, few people will ever use that anyway, in either keyboard. The issue is whether you do or do not have access to factory sampled sounds that have more than 4 elements/partials. Yamaha yes, Roland no. That allows Yamaha to provide instrument emulations with more velocity levels, more articulations, more ancillary sonic artifacts of the instrument (and by extension, similarly gives you more ways to tweak those sounds in those respects).

Think you need to read Jason's posts more carefully. He makes a great point about why the envelopes of the Roland are more responsive. 6:6

Which is my point about 16 under key control. 6:6

Nullifying the claim that MODX is better in that element way, because it's countered by the way Roland does things such that it's not a clear win, like... actually I don't know... I'm not seeing a clear win, other than FM-X, if that's your thing. I happen to get along, somewhat, with the FM-X engine. But if I was in the market today, I'd forgo that for the Roland, as it has so many other wins - if it had poly aftertouch.

Truth be told, I'm never buying something without it, now that I've tried it and loved it (Hydrasynth), and I think Waldorf has fully understood this, as seen in the new Iridium Keyboard model.

I think Korg will likely be the first Japanese synth maker to realise poly aftertouch is the new "must have" for synth focused machines.

How about you, why would you buy what you'd buy, today?

My whole point is this, from the perspective of a shopper. I think Yamaha has to do something to give the MODX a chance and leg up against the Zero series Fantom. It's a compelling product. I hope that's adding sequencing in a form that's hyper suited to the making of note, controller and drum arps, and actual event editing of content in sequences, preferably with some kind of visualisation that's selectable, so we can see what the factory arps do, and begin there.

[quotePost id=115728]Think you need to read Jason's posts more carefully. He makes a great point about why the envelopes of the Roland are more responsive. 6:6

Which is my point about 16 under key control. 6:6

Nullifying the claim that MODX is better in that element way, because it's countered by the way Roland does things such that it's not a clear win, like... actually I don't know... I'm not seeing a clear win, other than FM-X, if that's your thing.[/quotePost]
It's apples and oranges. The fact that the Roland can do some things with its envelopes that Yamaha can't doesn't mean it could give you, for example, a piano sound with 19 distinct samples in it. Again, I'm not denying that Roland has its advantages. I'm just saying Yamaha does too. And there's no direct balance of "this Roland advantage directly/completely offsets that Yamaha advantage" or vice versa. They're just different advantages. And whether you care about them or not is also not the question, I'm merely pointing out some differences that exist. More flexible envelopes or 16 keyboard playable parts do not directly equate to having a library of sampled sounds that have more than 4 elements, any more than having virtual analog in one directly equates to having FM in the other. Are there some overlaps in things they might let you do? Sure. But they are still fundamentally different, and each ultimately gives its board something that is not in the other.

Personally, whether it's because they have more elements, or because they can have 2 insert effects rather than 1, or just because of whatever Yamaha's skills are in creating samples, I find that I generally think Yamaha's sampled sounds simply sound better than Roland's, and that's a significant Yamaha advantage for me. Though again, there is subjectivity there.

[quotePost id=115728]Truth be told, I'm never buying something without {poly aftertouch}, now that I've tried it and loved it (Hydrasynth)[/quotePost]
Well, there's another Fantom-0 advantage for you... If you connected it to your Hydrasynth, the Roland will recognize poly AT, the MODX won't (though both recognize the more common channel aftertouch).

[quotePost id=115728]How about you, why would you buy what you'd buy, today?[/quotePost]
I buy everything. 😉 Okay, not quite, but I do maintain something of a stable of options. The main board-pairing I expect to use for my upcoming gigs happens to be a Yamaha YC73 and a Kurzweil PC4-7, which is what I think I'd buy today (for my main gigging purposes). I've also got a Roland SE-02 in there, which gives me a nice knobby synth (which is even actual analog instead of VA). Though for an upcoming gig with no drummer (where I will need to provide some backings), I might sub in my Korg PA1000 for one of those two boards. For my purposes, I think the Korg will do the drum backings better than the Kurz does (and the Kurz does them better than the MODX does).

I've used the MODX7 a lot... it's been the top board above numerous bottoms (including the Kurzweil). But having just picked up the YC73, I think the MODX7 may be relegated to the back bench at the moment. I really prefer to have a board with aftertouch in the rig, so if I want to use the YC73, the other board is going to be the one with the AT, or I'd need a compelling reason to sacrifice AT. If two boards can fill the need about equally well, and one has AT, that's the one I'm going with.

It's not by design, but it seems like Yamaha and Casio have been the most consistent presence in my rigs. This century, almost every 2-board gig pairing has included a Yamaha. First it was the S30, which was replaced by a MOX (sadly losing the aftertouch), then the MOXF, then the MODX, and now it looks like the YC73. It just happened to work out that way. I've had pairings that have included Korgs, Nords, Kurzweil, Dexibell, and Roland, but more often than not, there's a Yamaha up there with whatever else. Despite whatever limitations, it had the sounds/functionalities I most wanted. Casio has been the other really common gig choice, offering me the best feel in a sufficiently flexible yet lightweight 88 for a bottom. One thing I'll lose in the YC73 is the nice shallow Casio profile that helps keep the upper and lower keys in close proximity and similarly helps keep the stage footprint low, but the YC is just proving to be too much of a temptation! The Kurzweil has become my other recent near-constant, just because there is finally a lightweight board with aftertouch that can do all the other things I need the board to do.

Getting back to the Fantom-07 vs MODX7 (which is the main topic of the thread after all), it would be a tough call, if those were my two choices...

...For me, the Roland's main advantages are the control surface, less restrictive seamless switching, some of the SuperNATURAL Acoustic stuff, and some things I like better about the interface. I also think it would be better for my occasional use of backing drums (picking up from what I said above about the Korg PA1000). I like that the drum patterns, by default, have on-the-fly selectable intro, verse (x2), fill (x2) and ending patterns. I know I could do something similar with MODX Scenes, but from what I can tell, it's not automatically done for me as it is on the Roland. Other secondary advantages would be the VA synth and organ. The VA synth functions are nice, though as I said, I've also got the SE-02, which can integrate nicely into the MODX7. The SE-02 is mono, but I care less about analog/VA on polyphonic sounds, where I'm more likely to be perfectly happy with the sampled and FM sounds in the MODX. Though that could be seen as a skewed comparison, since it's no longer "Fantom-0 vs MODX" but rather "Fantom-0 vs MODX+SE-02." As for organ, it is a Roland advantage, but for non organ-centric gigs, I can often get by okay with the MODX organ, or I can get a better organ from an attached smartphone; and if I'm doing something more organ-centric, I've got better solutions than the Fantom-0 (which still doesn't give you 9 drawbars, for example). So these particular Fantom advantages wouldn't sway me, though they might sway someone else.

...MODX7 advantages for me include the FM, and that I probably prefer more of Yamaha's sampled sounds over Roland's than I do vice versa, and having actually just gotten a chance to briefly lay my hands on a Fantom-0, I can also say that I like the Yamaha action better. (BTW, in this VERY brief play with the Fantom-0, I experienced a dropped note polyphony issue! I hadn't assembled anything particularly tasking, I was just using one of the factory supplied main sounds on the first screen when you turn the keyboard on, and I easily got dropped notes. That one experience is not enough for me to conclude that the Roland is inherently more polyphyony challenged than the MODX, but it was surprising, and could be another MODX advantage. I have played the MODX a lot, and never experienced a dropped note, whereas I managed to get them within a couple of minutes on the Fantom-0, for whatever that's worth.)

I've left out lots of potential advantages either may have over the other, because they don't matter to me. Sequencer functions, DAW functions, motion control, playing more than 8 Parts from the keyboard, user ARPs, are some things that I just wouldn't use so wouldn't be relevant to my decision. (BTW, from what I've read, user ARPs may be another advantage MODX has over Fantom-0, but it's not anything I really know about.)

The mention of getting an organ sound from a smartphone prompts me to return to one earlier comment...

[quotePost id=115546][quotePost id=115543]* MODX has class compliant audio over USB, so for example, you can connect an iPad and connect just a single cable for MIDI and audio[/quotePost]Essentially have to be done off-board with the Yamaha, so, in sum, am not sure this is a total benefit, rather than just a different way to accomplish much of what can be done inboard on the Rolands.[/quotePost]
If you want to get a sound from an iPhone, on the Yamaha, you run one cable out of the keyboard, and you've got your audio and MIDI connection. On the Fantom-0, you'd need to run USB to the phone, and then run another cable from the phone's audio to the Roland's audio in. In the case of the iPhone, this may be more significant than the nuisance of an extra cable to run, since iPhones no longer have analog headphone outs, so now you also need to get an audio adapter for the phone, one that also supports the USB MIDI connection (and keeping the device charged, if need be). It's an expense, and can give you a bit of an octopus of cables and adapters, which is sloppy and has more connection points of possible failure. This is a nice Yamaha feature.

I'm not sure what you meant about there being some kind of in-board Roland equivalent. Maybe you meant you're less likely to need to get sounds from an iPhone, since the Roland has an organ engine and a VA synth engine built in? But there are still lots of sonic capabilities that can be enhanced externally, whether it's iOS apps that arguably have better sounding organ and VA than what's in the Roland, or just something like a piano you like better.

If you read the Roland forums - you'll get an ear-full of complaints from Roland owners discussing their own gear. Not dissimilar to here. It's all healthy. I think we all strive to push the feature envelope for our gear and are vocal when a perceived wall is run into.

With that intro, I'll bring into the fold one of those complaints. Although there are knobs that have 10-bits of resolution - the sequencer, MIDI 1.0 based (and not adapted for the new 10-bit resolution where Sysex could have been used), does not record 10-bits. Therefore - say for something like cutoff that has 10-bits of resolution for the physical knob and local/internal use - the sequencer only uses 7 bits. So there's more "stepping" (low resolution) using the sequencer.

A disclaimer here is that I would have to look more carefully at the date of the discussion then check to see if any later firmware altered this story. I did not see that thread updated to say this condition ever changed.

To circle back to constructing >4 partial scenes ("Performances" ) on the Fantom-0 by combining multiple zones - I started taking a look at the noise samples. My thought was to see if it was possible to construct a PCM (sample based) tine EP with mechanical noise. These noises aren't within the sample set. I didn't find any piano thuds or EP clanks. There is guitar fret noise and some other things for guitars and basses. However, not for piano or EP. Therefore, I didn't have the built-in DNA to start building those things. I think maybe I could filter and pitch shift an acoustic piano to approximate the EP clanks. And there may be other ways to build-up the material using more steps. The tine EP on Fantom-0 is a SN (modeled) sound. Therefore, you don't get access to (all of) the internals that are used to construct these. I searched but didn't find someone "cracked the code" to supply an editor that could maybe sysex to more internal settings as we see available for other keyboards. I think for other more standard uses of elements - I would tend not to try to create multi-zone instruments in the Fantom but rather just use layering more. More of what's already available. Sometimes in Montage (MODX) I run out of layers and have to scale down. Another way to look at this is that Roland chose not to "waste" half of a MODX-style Part when MODX is only using 4 (or less) elements in the Part and chose to divide a Part in half -- and then also decided to only present finished sounds using 4 partials max. At least, that's one spin of using less oscillators per "bundle".

Fantom lets you have multisamples on each partial and those partials can be velocity sensitive or key limited. This is the "same" as MODX Waveforms on elements. The major difference is in content. For SOME instruments - Yamaha provides the essential content (Waveforms) to create instruments that would take more than 4 elements. More velocity levels or other element-bound divisions. Fantom has all the framework to do the same exact thing but not the content necessarily to put the drywall up. You're allowed to carry in your own multisample if it fits. I don't know if there's internal memory ready for content to later provide Fantom multi-zone instruments or if anyone really wants this either for the extra detail or to satisfy a marketing bullet to keep up with the Jones'. Speaking of samples - note that devil-in-the-detail shows Roland has slightly more options in sample playback. At least what I'm aware MODX can do. Roland allows for reverse play and back/forth play (front to end then end back to front) along with the one-shot and loop modes MODX offers.

Fantom SN covers lots of instruments not just Piano and EP. It's a hybrid of sampler and modeling and achieves what Roland would say is a more uniform result vs sample velocity switching alone. I think the end result for certain patches is debatable. The SN pianos were given a low opinion score -- I think I agree. But other categories of SN do fairly well for me. Overall, I tend to enjoy the responsiveness of modeled sounds which is why in the big brother to the Fantom-0 - I like the Vpiano acoustics that the Fantom-0 lacks best (best for that instrument). Others (reviewing Roland) have said they like the sampled pianos better. Again, Fantom-0 doesn't have Vpiano but I mention it as the basis for my bias towards modeled sounds. Some of the qualities of Vpiano are similar to what SN delivers.

I do like the mix of modeling options Roland (SN, organ engine, Zen Core's VA partials, "model" expansions) provides and would be pleased to see more modeling engines from Yamaha in a competitive product. Either by way of firmware or possibly future generations. FM-X is the MODX option for "modeled" although it's not aligned well to provide acoustic sounds like SN which is a hybrid. Yamaha does have a portfolio to pull from with all of the great past technologies available through various product experiments. And there's always new areas to explore. Roads not yet traveled. We'll see how this shakes out.

Slight correction: Fantom sample playback mode has two reverse modes but not the Forward-then-reverse mode. I misinterpreted the two reverse modes. There's just normal reverse (end to beginning, back to end and looping the end to beginning over and over) and a one-shot reverse where it goes end to beginning without any looping.

[quotePost id=115757]To circle back to constructing >4 partial scenes ("Performances" ) on the Fantom-0 by combining multiple zones - I started taking a look at the noise samples. My thought was to see if it was possible to construct a PCM (sample based) tine EP with mechanical noise. These noises aren't within the sample set. I didn't find any piano thuds or EP clanks. There is guitar fret noise and some other things for guitars and basses. However, not for piano or EP. Therefore, I didn't have the built-in DNA to start building those things. [/quotePost]
Right... when you have only 4 elements to build an EP sound, you can't spare one or two for key noises, which is why they're not there, which contributes to Roland's sampled EPs not sounding as good as Yamaha's. Even without noise artifacts, 4 velocity layers is not a lot for an EP. (Roland does have SuperNATURAL modeling to try to provide an alternate way to get to the same destination, but for whatever reason, it still doesn't quite seem to get there.)

[quotePost id=115757]Sometimes in Montage (MODX) I run out of layers and have to scale down. [/quotePost]
On MODX, you can always "pare down" if you want to remove less essential elements in order to gain polyphony. So you can easily duplicate Roland's "smaller" sound approach on a MODX if you want, but it's not so easy to duplicate Yamaha's "larger" approach on a Roland.

[quotePost id=115757]Fantom SN covers lots of instruments not just Piano and EP...The SN pianos were given a low opinion score -- I think I agree. But other categories of SN do fairly well for me. [/quotePost]Yes, I agree that it is more successful in other sounds that it is in pianos/EPs. Some of it is really nicely done, I'd say.

The architecture doesn't disallow building an EP with 15 velocity layers and mechanical noise. That's what I meant by the framework is there. This would be accomplished the same way MODX does it - by using more than one "Part" equivalent (Fantom Zone). The limiting factor in realizing this is the content. Pianos/EPs/etc tones on the Fantom do not have collections at different velocities. This is a content choice and not a technical limitation. It's not the subdividing that prevents this -- but the available multi-samples (not) in the factory presets.

They (Roland) chose to present the keyboard with single-unit sounds consuming 4 partials max. The detail of normal PCM atomic sounds is therefore less detailed as a result of this content choice. However, the upside is that you can get 16 atomic sounds together at once. On MODX since detail, as I've described it here, means you either use more than half of one Part (5-8 elements) or use more than one Part for a single "sound". The multi-Part instrument. Here I'm not talking about "Performances" that combine a drum Part and piano and strings and ... More about say a piano that uses 3(x8 element) Parts. Or some other instrument (single instrument). You can only get 16 of these MODX sounds together under two conditions: a) Only a single Part is used (5-8 elements ... we're talking about more detailed instruments here) and b) you use an external controller or the "loop back" trick so that you can get MODX to play all 16 Parts together. It's not atypical for one to use the keyboard as-is without an external controller or loopback - in which case you're even more limited in MODX. There is built-in content from MODX that is detailed and breaks this model yielding less than 16 max "sounds" together (or 8 max under direct keyboard control w/o loopback). That is any instrument that takes more than 2 Parts which described some of the "more detailed" pianos that use multiple Parts and other instruments as well. In this case - you just can't have 16 of these instruments or that one instrument plus 15 others because that instrument consumes too many resources to get there. So it's a tradeoff. MODX has you decide if you want less instruments available to you and more detail or not. And the current content from Fantom "thins out" what they give you (only by choice, not design) and presents instruments that consume a single zone.

This is focused on PCM instruments only. Other Fantom engines consume resources differently and have their own rules.

Yet another way to present an aspect of this is to look at the minimum use case and ignoring "packing". If you use only 1 oscillator (element) in a unit of sound (Part) in MODX then you "waste" 7 oscillators (elements). In Fantom if you use only 1 oscillator (partial) in a unit of sound (Zone) then you "waste" 3 oscillators (partials).

If you use the MODX at full capacity (loopback or external controller) then MODX has more going for it in terms of oscillators (16x8). This isn't how I ever gig -- but the capability is there. More "typical" usage I'm not sure there's necessarily a winner or a loser.

How about an ideascale to allow assigning every element to any receive MIDI channel (or part common=current Part MIDI receive channel currently based on Part # or single MIDI send/rcv channel)? That'd teach them.

[quotePost id=115761]They (Roland) chose to present the keyboard with single-unit sounds consuming 4 partials max. The detail of normal PCM atomic sounds is therefore less detailed as a result of this content choice. However, the upside is that you can get 16 atomic sounds together at once. [/quotePost]
This gets back to what I said before, that each instrument has its advantages. MODX provides the detail of 8-element (or even more-than-8 element) single instrument sampled sounds, vs. 4 in the Roland. But Roland gives you 16 parts under keyboard control instead of 8. Neither of these features negates the advantage of the other.

Though as you point out, there's even a workaround to get 16 keyboard playable parts out of the MODX, with the MIDI loopback. I think you could also do it if you just went Local Off and did all your Part selection via something like Camelot Pro, no?

Ignoring the tricks for using Parts 9-16 (giving MODX a slight handicap here) ...

Slicing this "smaller is sometimes better" pie differently - I currently have a Montage(MODX) Performance where I use multiple parts in order to get multiple copies of the Part-level parameters. One example of this is to create a pedal steel guitar that allows for pitch bending to pitch "glide" between different chord qualities. Major to minor, minor to major, etc. I have to end up using many Parts because these give me note range options. In neither MODX nor Fantom can you set the bend range by oscillator. So, in this case, I could have "packed" a MODX Part and used 4 elements for the sound - but I need different bend settings for up/down. This is where Fantom's less-is-more comes into play. I get to have more buckets (naturally, under direct control) of bend range up/down settings. So I'm "wasting" less going the Fantom route. This same Performance in MODX leaves a lot on the table.

Pitch related (bend, microtuning) in Fantom has some interesting extras ...

Fantom has fine-tuning for bend up and bend down (in addition to the semitone). This is at the "tone" level - which is a thing you can save similar to Motif's older voice architecture.

Speaking of pitch bend, Fantom has a "Catch+Last" option for each zone. MODX doesn't have this. What it does is allows for the pitch bend to only affect the last note played and doesn't pitch bend notes played after until the pitch bend crosses center. In practical application, there's a video of a Fantom G (older tech, same feature) showing C+L for pedal steel. I think something similar is available for Genos SA2.

For Fantom, each zone has its own microtuning for each note. Therefore, there is more microtuning capability under your fingers at once AND more user microtuning ability (not a set of custom microtunings -- but each note in each zone of each scene can have a custom microtuning).

Although - on MODX's side the microtuning range is +/-99 cents (8-ishbit) and Fantom side is -64/+63 cents (7bit) so MODX has 1.44x more pitch range for each note.

Pivoting ...

Polyphony was mentioned. I noticed scanning though Fantom's docs that polyphony can either be prioritized by last note played or by softest note played. I wonder how that was set when it was obvious. Softest note played seems like it could result in obvious drops if you're playing everything in the same general velocity. There's also options for what happens when a repeated note is played. To limit the overlaps (to some "low" value), to have no overlap (next strike of same note cuts off last sample), or to keep stacking until polyphony runs out. Given these options there may be better and worse ways to set these for different situations. Not an answer really, but just some ... Information.

And speaking of polyphony related (loosely) ...

In MODX if you want to create a supersaw or super-anything you would copy the same element over and over and adjust the pitch (fine tuning) of each element. In Fantom there's a "unison size" option where it will play up to 8 notes to every one pressed and there's a single unison detune value to spread out each of the unison-size notes. This seems a bit more economical for the task at hand and is one case where the Fantom can match a MODX equivalent Part that happens to use 8 detuned elements of the same sample. I say polyphony related because I think both eat up a lot of polyphony (without a difference, presumably, in that department). For Fantom it's a chance for 4 to equate to MODX's 8 and also is arguably a better system if this is your task at hand. Not as many envelopes to adjust if you need to make a change to that.

At this rate, i think we can start the countdown to Jason buying a Fantom 0 model. Probably the 6, as there's no point getting the 8 when he's got the wonderful keyboard of the Montage.

[quotePost id=115763]
In MODX if you want to create a supersaw or super-anything you would copy the same element over and over and adjust the pitch (fine tuning) of each element. In Fantom there's a "unison size" option where it will play up to 8 notes to every one pressed and there's a single unison detune value to spread out each of the unison-size notes. This seems a bit more economical for the task at hand and is one case where the Fantom can match a MODX equivalent Part that happens to use 8 detuned elements of the same sample. I say polyphony related because I think both eat up a lot of polyphony (without a difference, presumably, in that department). For Fantom it's a chance for 4 to equate to MODX's 8 and also is arguably a better system if this is your task at hand. Not as many envelopes to adjust if you need to make a change to that.[/quotePost]

This is very cool.

My favourite iPad synths (Zeeon and Sunrizer from BeepStreet) have variations on this idea for their Unison modes. It's mindbending how fun it is to make huge sounds like this, and very quick, too. Then a bit of chorus and stereo delay and the world is writ large!

If you search for JP in the sounds/samples of MODX/Montage, there's a couple of super saws heavily inspired by the JP-8000/8080, my all time favourite digital synth, until the Hydrasynth came along.