Originally posted by keybplayer:
I'm guessing you're referring to acoustic type voices. I think Roland put a good portion of their "voice" effort into the Synth, Synth Bass, and Lead sounds on the Fantom G. I also think Roland was coddling up to the hip hop and electronic/techno generation with the Fantom G; in fact, the whole previous Fantom line as well in my opinion.
There are many excellent acoustical type voices on the Fantom G in my opinion, but there are several 'underwhelming' ones as well, such as in the Woodwind section, some of the Acoustic Guitars, etc. What is fantastic is you can edit the patches to your heart's content and it can go a long way in getting the sound you want. Trouble is, many people don't want to get their hands dirty and sculpt the sounds to their own needs and satisfaction, and instead rely totally on the factory preset sounds.
I agree though that Roland could have done better by providing a more profuse supply of excellent acoustic type voices. Maybe they reasoned if they gave it too much sparkle from the get go that they wouldn't be able to entice Fantom G owners to fork over the cash for the new ARX cards hitting the market? I guess they call that marketing shrewdness huh? 
All the best,
Mike
[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]Roland has always coddled the current sound market. Its part of their success. I have had issues with all brands though because I write using as generic voicing as possible.I have always subscribed to the thought "If a tune from my Studio is going to be deemed "dated" it won't be because of the sound set" ever since the gated Phil Collins snare sound in the 80's became all the rage.
Good songs will stand accompanied by generic real instrumental voicing no matter what year they are written.
Previous Topic
Index
