[quotePost id=116408]

Andertons is a store. Their videos, whilst fun and light and seemingly frank and truthful, are advertising and promotion: Never critical.

It's very difficult to find truthful reviews, extremely difficult to find critique.

Both models of Roland Fantom have some loop making and editing facilities far ahead of MODX/Montage in terms of features and fun, and bordering on a Ableton Live-Lite experience for moving between "loops" and states to piece together a song.

If you play well, the MODX 8 keyboard you'll likely dislike, especially if coming from a real piano. The Fantom-08 keyboard is better, but still not great. If you're good on a piano, it's well worth considering a great MIDI or mid level but great piano action piano keyboard and an MPC. The MPC range are much, much funner than any DAW on a PC.

Go to a place that sells the family oriented keyboards and try them all out. In there will be some Yamaha models that have the same GHS as the MODX, and many other types. I feel a huge difference between keyboards and I'm not a good player, and know it's highly personal for some players. Some of the Casio models of piano keyboards do have what feels (to me) to be remarkably good actions, especially for the money.

If you're loop focused, and drum focused, too... unless you really want FM-X and know how to get goodness out of sound designing within FM-X (a lot of work, even for someone that knows FM somewhat well)... I don't think the MODX is the best choice.

[/quotePost]

Thanks for your comment! I would not say that I am good player. I learned to play the keyboard without any hammer action for 7 years and then a proper piano for some time. I like the hammer action very much and would want some altough for someone it does not make sense for the synthesizer. My playing is mainly influenced by the sound coming from the device. I can play much better if there is a good connection between a great keybed and the sound. However, I do not know what to prefer (sounds or keybed). I think I am good at "hearing" the music, mixing the sounds, I was good at improvisation but was limited to my piano skills.
What I knowis that the sounds of MODX are amazing, especially the guitars are top notch. If buying a MODX I am thinking to buy an iPad with Cubase to replace the missing proper sequencer in the MODX.

I think P125 has the same keybed (GHS) as the MODX8. I have tried it in the store. It was not great, not terrible. I think I can live with it. Next to it was CP88 which was a different league. However, I do not want a stage piano with a few sounds. I want to layer sounds, to play with the settings etc. for which a synthesizer works much better.

Regarding the Kurzweil PC4, do you think it has a better keybed than Fantom 08 and MODX8?

[quotePost id=116410]
Regarding the Kurzweil PC4, do you think it has a better keybed than Fantom 08 and MODX8?[/quotePost]

It has aftertouch, so is feature wise, superior. I consider aftertouch very important, now that I've become addicted to it. And Kurzweil has long prided themselves on their keybeds... this one is made by the makers of the ASM Hydrasynth, so it might be very good, as the Hydrasynth Deluxe, IMNSHO, has an amazing keybed. Best there is, I think. Try it. As a controller, alone, it's a life changer for expressive playing and sound design opportunities/creativity. Not a hammer action, but the polyphonic aftertouch AND release is a game changer, I (quite literally) feel.

After days of watching and reading various reviews, I have decided to order a MODX8. What motivated me was the price which was in my case 500$ less than for a PC4 or Fantom 08. I am pretty sure I will be pleased by the sounds of it. What is unclear to me is the quality of the keybed. I have watched many reviews of GHS (also on PianoForever channel) and also tried one by myself on the P125. However, I think the most important is the connection between the keybed and the sounds, which can vary throughout different models even with the same action.

[quotePost id=116409]Much of what is true of the market for marquee products at the beginning of an approach is not true for later models based on that tech and facing middle tier markets and customers, and certainly not well into the life of tech like ZenCore, now that it's a known quantity, and the recording and editing facilities of the Fantom are known. etc.[/quotePost]
Even if that's true, I don't see how that's relevant to the point about the Fantom-0 and Juno-X coming out at around the same time.

If you're saying you think the Juno-X should have come out later, because now it will cut into Fantom-0 sales, I'd say that, despite the similar underlying technologies, I think they largely appeal to different buyers. As I kind of said, to the extent that Juno-X appeals to people who might otherwise have bought some other Roland, I think a user is at least as likely to compare it with a System 8, a Jupiter Xm, or a Jupiter X as they would a Fantom-0. Operationally, it's more similar to those other three. It presents itself much more like a "synth" than as an "almost workstation."

[quotePost id=116409]You wanna bet that something somewhat good/great is not on the near term horizon from one of Roland's main rivals?

This announcement looks rushed by at least a full season, to me.
[/quotePost]
While there is such a thing as corporate espionage, I kinda doubt this board was a reaction to something they know is coming from someone else. Plus it takes a god deal of time to come out wit h a new board. Even if it's based on an existing platform, design and fabrication of those parts that are different doesn't happen on a dime.

AWM2, a core technology in MODX/Montage, is also core in other products (YC61/etc, CP88/etc). And those do not compete necessarily because they're different. What controls you present on the control surface makes a big difference. The mix of "content" (meaning factory preset "patches", arpeggios, samples, etc) in each product goes a long way to differentiate. The mix of engines built-in goes a long way. And, like Yamaha, Roland takes an engine and milks it across different platforms with different target audiences. If you see them as the same, just be aware that many others do not despite similar engine components.

I don't see cannibalism on either side nor anything alarming, interesting, off-putting, unusual, unexpected, short-sighted, poorly executed, or (etc) ... about Roland's keyboard lineup and introduction dates.

Out of Roland's entire mix - at least from past official statements - I think Yamaha has (at least early on ... not sure what they think now) the notion that allowing for software versions of flagship products is the one piece of the Roland strategy that's approaching cannibalism. Because, I believe Yamaha fears, customers wouldn't "need" hardware if they used a VSTi version of the hardware on a computer. I think Roland is banking on incremental sales beyond what they would have received from hardware alone and any defectors to the software-pure side are on the smallest tip of the bell curve. And, since I'm biased FOR a software version of my hardware, I would prefer the Roland model in the Yamaha space. So I can take a MIDI controller (I just invested in another one more suited -- but only 8 zone) and do sound sculpting in a mobile environment. This means mostly on the couch -- but it'd be nice to have a lightweight setup to bring to practice too (sometimes). Most of the time I'm practicing doing the button pressing dance - so I'd probably still practice with the "real" hardware.

And, btw - it's cool if we disagree on this. I think that's going to be the basic sentiment of two out of the 3 pools of potential buyers. Some that see two distinct products that are not the same, some that see them as the same, and others who are both ambivalent and unaware looking for other things as top priority (like paint job, or any other thing not related to the inner workings). There's not really a wrong way to judge a product. At least not for your own investment decision.

if the shipping date slips due to covid, ukraine, chip shortage, container shortages, shipping backlogs and labour shortages...

You're right. Their timing is perfect.

[quotePost id=116483]Because, I believe Yamaha fears, customers wouldn't "need" hardware if they used a VSTi version of the hardware on a computer. I think Roland is banking on incremental sales beyond what they would have received from hardware alone and any defectors to the software-pure side are on the smallest tip of the bell curve. And, since I'm biased FOR a software version of my hardware, I would prefer the Roland model in the Yamaha space. So I can take a MIDI controller (I just invested in another one more suited -- but only 8 zone) and do sound sculpting in a mobile environment. This means mostly on the couch -- but it'd be nice to have a lightweight setup to bring to practice too (sometimes). Most of the time I'm practicing doing the button pressing dance - so I'd probably still practice with the "real" hardware.[/quotePost]

Jason, let me bring in here another point of view:
Yamaha owns Steinberg, Steinberg makes ~30mn$ a year with music software. This include the HALion (and offers quite everything from sampling to modelling - and includes all Motif samples, ...), Retrolog, Padshop...
What would be the additional businesspotential in dooing Yamaha labeled software instruments beside that?
From the businessside of view I makes for me sense to integrate the Montage/Modx platform into HALion (someway similar like Roland did for Jupiter/Juno/Fantom and Zenology) rather than go ino re-invent the wheel under Yamaha labes and making competition to their own dougther Steinberg.
(HALion is overdue for an update, may we see some surprises)

But let's see what the future bring. At the end nobody of us knows it for sure - and the ones who know are not allowed to speak.

Regarding ZEN-Core: Roland has done it really smart and nice. That what Roland calls engines is a the end "only" a virtual abstraction layer that makes the ZEN-core engine looks like a Jupiter or Juno. So you can do marketing for a bunch of synth engines that at the end is just one.

At the other side ZEN-Core has it's one limitations (e.g. "only" 4 partials per tone). And as nice Zenology is, you can only programm a tone in Zenology and not a Scene... So also the HW - SW integration is not that perfect it looks in the first impression. The Roland Jupiter X Editor is a catastrophy... please give me J. Melas tools here...
Thera are limitations for sampling / own samples and keybanks in the Fantom too...

Honnestly, I like each instrument for that what it is, but I don't see any of it as so much better as the others.

When I say I wish for a software version of my Yamaha keyboard, I only reference the high-level marketing bullet. Not the details of execution. The wish has Yamaha's VSTi retaining the operation of the "emulated" hardware component.

BTW: previous feedback from the Motif ES timeframe had Yamaha pushing back that a computer couldn't recreate a Motif ES in software due to limitations of the audio path / etc. I think this is a weaker position now so I think this is more of a marketing strategy than one based on capabilities.

However, that was a tangent and more the point being that I think, as a matter of opinion, there is adequate differentiation on the Roland product line and only that the software offering of Roland seems to fit the model of possibly cannibalizing a hardware offering. Although, as mentioned, that is debatable how pervasive/impactful this would be.

Yamaha should watch this video concerning Teenage Engineering regarding updating versus development of new gear and pricing. Im not saying Yamaha goes the way of TE, but this video points out some of the pitfalls out there. Im most focused on the part where the youtuber mentions supporting the user base of previous versions etc. Knowing the target audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ2Vok_W6fQ

[quotePost id=116520]if the shipping date slips due to covid, ukraine, chip shortage, container shortages, shipping backlogs and labour shortages...

You're right. Their timing is perfect.
[/quotePost]
Again I don't think the announcement of the Juno-X will really cut into Fantom-0 sales, because I think they mostly appeal to different players. In terms of Roland products, the Juno-X is probably more appealing to a Jupiter X/Xm type of customer rather than a Fantom-0 customer. But I think you also have to look at non-Roland products. Roland's goal, after all, is not so much to sell Juno-X to people who would otherwise buy other Rolands, but rather to sell it to people who otherwise wouldn't buy anything, or would buy some non-Roland, like maybe a Nord Lead A1 (same price).

But to the extent that there may be some people who would have "settled" for a Fantom-0 even though something closer to a Juno-X is what they'd really want, announcing them almost-together means that these people won't be frustrated (i.e. saying "if only I'd known that was on the horizon I wouldn't have bought this"). That's not necessarily a bad thing, either.

[quotePost id=116529][quotePost id=116483]That what Roland calls engines is a the end "only" a virtual abstraction layer that makes the ZEN-core engine looks like a Jupiter or Juno. So you can do marketing for a bunch of synth engines that at the end is just one.[/quotePost]
Well it is more than how they look, there are also differences in their sonic characteristics/behaviors. But yes, they are probably programming them all over the same underlying architecture, with their own tools that we don't have access to. I suspect the same of Korg. The Kronos/Nautilus similarly have a "native" VA synth engine (AL1), and some specific model emulations (Polysix, MS-20)... I think it is equally likely that they didn't not develop 3 different VA systems, but rather built the behaviors and skins of the models over a common underlying system.

Perhaps I made one hugely wrong guess: that Yamaha might have something new in the wings.

I no longer think it's Yamaha, nor do I think Roland is worried about a single product - I think they're worried for the ZenCore platform, as a whole.

It looks like Korg is close to a vertical platform with products to a budget, that integrate and coordinate with one another well, and are somewhat both ready to run products and user programmable/extensible, and all integrate with one another and the wider Modular world.

In other words, Korg is about ready go vertical, from controllers to FX and everything in between, coordinate with actual analogue, target financial accessibility over polish, with less overlap than the Roland range and more singularly capable and uniquely impressive in each instance, with a lot of the core being close to DIY in nature.

Central to this is probably a Logue 2.0 hardware analogue lushness that features (and/or can be externally controlled by) programmable LFO architectures and chain-able voices, all price consciously crafted for a long recession in which users will come together to make more out of what each of them has, kind of like enabling Co-op mode.