Hey everyone... my name is Jim and I have been researching a synth setup for the past couple of weeks. I was classically trained on piano in my younger days but haven't played in over a decade. I just started getting re-interesting in playing, but also want to do some writing, mixing and tweaking. The primary genre of music I am into is Dance/Trance/Techno, and I'd say that will cover 95% of what I want to do with my setup.

So, here is my proposed setup:
Roland Juno-G
Roland MC-307 Groovebox
A pair of KRK RP5 Rokit Studio Monitors

Eventually, I want to add the KRK subwoofer, but that will have to wait for now.

Unfortunately, this setup is likely to cost me about $1,500-$1,600, which is quite a bit higher than what I was originally looking at. The research I've done indicates that these are solid products with really great sounds, but I want to get a little feedback before I consider dropping that kind of money.

I was originall looking at Yamaha's... like the YPG-525 and such. However, once I started looking at Roland's, they seemed to have better sound quality and also be geared a bit more to modern sounds that are better used in dance music.

I first looked really hard at the SH-201, and although I think that is still probably a great learning machine, there are several things about it that I just don't think would make me very happy in the long run... like only 49 keys, no onboard sequencer, no drum kits, and much fewer patches. Granted, by using the Groovebox with it, I could get around some of that, but I thing I would prefer to have all those features on the KB itself... even though Juno-G runs $400 more than the SH-201.

Anyway, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track here. I don't mind spending the extra money for what seems like a huge jump in quality (over the Yamahas) and features (over the SH-201 and Juno-D) but I'd like to hear from some people with some real-world experience on these products.

Thanks!

Honestly, this stuff is okay but it isn't worth the money you will have to pay for it. I know that Roland try to market their new Juno synth line as well as some of their grooveboxes as being great for beginners and all but there's better stuff out there. Not a shot at Roland or anything.

I think if trance is what you are planning on writing then you will have to involve using a computer rather then relying on just hardware synths. I don't know what the specs of your computer are so I'm not going to suggest anything for you to run out and buy. Not yet anyway. But I can see you getting much much much better results using something like Ableton Live (as your main audio/ sequencer application), something like the Native Instruments Battery 3 for drum tracks and a few other software or hardware synths for all the pads, basses, arps and all the sounds that make you think of trance music as you're reading this.

So to sum it up, I think what I'd like you to do is check out the specs of your computer. If they are up to date so to speak then will take it from there. If not, I guess will have to take it from there too, but in a slightly different direction.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-13-2007).]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I doubt my PC will be able to run these apps very well, but here are my specs anyway:

P4 @ 3.06 GHz
384 MB Ram
SoundMax Integrated Digital Audio
NVidia GeForce4 Ti 4600

I've got a nice 19" Flat Panel NEC Monitor and pretty decent 3-piece yamaha speaker set.

I also have about 40GB of free hard drive space.

Looking at this, I would assume that I would need a better sound card (I actually think this one is integrated on the motherboard but I'm not sure) and more ram at a bare minimum. But I would be interested in your assessment.

Also, are you saying that you can create better sounds more easily with the software you mentioned, as long as the PC running them is powerful enough?

Thanks again.

sorta. I use reason 3.0 on a 600mhz machine with the same amount of ram. You don't even need the better soundcard, as long as you can hear what you are doing, thats enough, as once you burn your songs to disc, you have bypassed a soundcard altogether. For my monitors, at first I just used a really good pair of headphones, but ended up buying a thrift-store marantz 220r reciever (10$) and a pair of 1980 kenwood 3-way floor speakers (free). This was my setup for many years until I upgraded to a real pre-amp,power amp, and mid-70's JBL speaker set up. I still use an absolute garbage soundblaster card(24$) to record hardware synths(ack!) I have an Audiowerk card coming soon to fix that.

I think your computer is plenty kick-ass. More ram is a start.
Monitors are the least of your worries.
The roland gear you mention is not hardware. They are computers, so if you can get a digital output on them, you can bypass the analog stage and record straight to computer. That way may save your wallet.

GAZDATRONIK

.

Short answer would be yes.

Although I've only mentioned one host application (something that takes care of MIDI and Audio recording as well as it can host plug-in instruments and FX). and *one* out of many many many many many many many many many many many many many software synths. Too many to mention. To get some taste of what's out there just go to native Instruments website and check out their demos and listen/ view tutorials.

On the other hand Propellerheads Reason is another nice peace of software too. It is not a plug-in instrument that requires a host application. Its a standalone software workstation that has its own synths and FX and is basically like a virtual studio of its own. Way wway way more powerful than something like the Juno G.

To second what Justin said your computer is well up to specs. Don't worry about audio card as the built in audio will do the job. Unless you are planning to record real acoustic guitars or hardware synths there's hardly any need for you to go out and spend your money on an audio card. Just redunndant at this point. Save your money and get a nice KB controller instead.


-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-14-2007).]

OK... just so I am clear on this... are you guys saying that I'd be better off using just the software synths/sequencers for this type of music? Or that using some of the goods ones in conjunction with a decent keyboard is the way to go? The main reason that I like the Juno-G is that it has all of the features that I want on board, but it sounds like you're saying that most of these are better using soft synth packages? If this is true, then I could get by with a cheaper KB... say the Juno-D... and still not be losing much?

I haven't done exhaustive research on the software end yet, but the few packages I looked at were around $500, which is going to get really epxensive if I have to have 2-3 of them to achieve everything I want.

Oh, and what can you say about Sonar LE? This is currently bundled with the Juno-G. Is that a decent piece of software?

Thanks again for your help!

Man, get yourself a Roland MC-808 Then get a inexpensive midi controller. You can get an 808 now for less than $800!!! This puppy has a good soundset (fully editable too) sampler (with slice/auto chop), 128 note poly. 16 track sequencer (built in). An MC-808 and inexpensive midi controller will run you $1,000 As far as monitors..., man there are quite a few nice affordable units out there like the behringer MS16's (they sell for under $60.00)

Here's some links:

Roland MC-808 (groove box) http://rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=766&ParentId=84

Here's the Behringer MS16's (I have these) http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHMS16

Sure you can go software down the line, but that too can get costly!!! You're always gonna be wanting more softsynths, more RAM for the computer, blah, blah... If you want a good hardware set up you can't go wrong with the MC-808 The 808 will beat the Juno-G hands down for what you want to do (it's designed for it)

Best Regards,
Squeak

I wanted to add a few more comments here. The reason I suggested the Roland MC-808 over the Juno-G is for several reasons. Both units will give you the "all in one package". However, the MC-808 would be the leading unit for the type of music you want to do. Here's why:

The Juno-G will allow you to record audio, but it's limited. It's not a dedicated sampler per say. It's a 4 track audio recorder. For your styles of music you'll need a unit with a dedicated "sampler" that will allow you to chop and slice samples. The MC-808 will do this. The MC-808 is also as I stated before a "groove box", and that's how the panel is set up too. A great benefit of the MC-808 is it has "motorized faders", that in itself is way too cool especially on an all in one groove box that costs less than $800!


If you still want to go the "keyboard route", and have the "all in one package", I would again suggest you not buy the Juno-G as your stand-alone unit. I would strongly suggest you consider the Fantom Xa over the Juno-G. The Xa will also give you 128 note poly, 3 insert effects, SRX expansion, Fantom sounds, and so on. However, the Fantom Xa has a "SAMPLER", and not an audio recorder like the Juno-G. The Fantom Xa will slice/chop up samples too.

Here's another VERY IMPORTANT thing to consider. Both the Juno-G and Fantom Xa have sequencers, but I know for sure the Juno-G, and I'm 99.99% sure the Fantom Xa too don't have a full "pattern sequencer". The Juno-G and Fantom Xa have a "Rhythm Pattern Sequencer". They will record "drum patterns". You can then chain these patterns together in Song Mode under the 16 track "linear sequencer".

Trust me on this..., for what you want to do you WILL want a unit that has a dedicated "pattern sequencer". The MC-808 will record 16 track patterns, and those patterns can be chained together as well. The MC-808's pattern sequencer is much like the pattern sequencer on my Roland RS-70 (which is also a cool little synth).

Well hoped this info helped. Again, in short, you can go with the keyboards (Juno-G/Fantom Xa), but neither of those will do "Full 16 track pattern sequencing". The 808 is a "sampling groove box" that is loaded with the sounds you need, full sampler, and it's expandable.. (MOST OF ALL IT'S DESIGNED FOR THE MUSIC YOU WANT TO DO).



[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 02-14-2007).]

thanks squeek_D

Just when I think I'm starting to get up to speed on this stuff, I keep finding new things that I don't know about.

About the sequencer... when I think of a sequencer, I picture something that allows me to record different tracks, then layer them over each other. Are you saying that on the Juno-G/Fantom XA I can only rhythm patterns and not the "music" part? And that this can be accomplished through use of the MC-808?

I'm not completely sure I understand the intracacies of sampling, but I will do some more research in that area. It sounds though like it probably something I want for dance/trance/techno type music creation.

Bottom line, I can't swing getting both a $1,000 keyboard AND an $800 groovebox at this point. What do you think about using the Fantom XA in conjunction with the MC-307? The 307 appears to have most of the sounds and rhythms I want and I could use the sampling functionality of the XA. Would that work?

Of course, that still leaves me out in the cold on the "full 16-track pattern sequencing". I suppose I could go to the computer/soft synth for that, but then that would add more $$$ to the mix

Alright... I'm off to research the Fantom Xa.

Thanks again for your help!

See, all in one unit means crap. I'm sorry it just does. Although nobody is saying that something like another Roland MC *** wouldn't make an okay workstation for a beginner.

I write trance (among many other things) and I'm currently using:

Virus TI desktop.
Waldorf MWXT x2, Waldorf MQ, Waldorf Q+. That's for arps, lead, bass and pads. For more generic stuff I use synths like my Motif ES8 (although I've got 2 An1x plug-in boards in that one too). Soft synths... I have way way way too many. Use them all too.

just trying to say that what you want to do ideally is get a number of instruments that you know will each have their strengths. In your case for financial reasons you are probably limited to getting just a keyboard controller (not the JUno D but a dedicated keyboard controller like the M-Audio or CME stuff) and a bunch of software.

The Juno G option with or without Sonar LE (which is okay BTW) doesn't stand up to running several software samplers and synths. It is a simple enough synth with some nice features but odds are you will be selling it way before you think.

Not too sure about the suggestion about that Roland MC808. If it can act as a full blown sampler that is great. Don't expect to write albums with that thing but I'm sure it will at least keep you happy for longer than the Juno G or god forbids Juno D.

I think it is fair to say that until you know what you're up against it is hard to make any decisions. I suggest you put some more time into research. As in download a few demos of soft synths. Go around music stores and play with what's there. Only buy what you will find useful for what you want. Never buy something in hopes that it might be useful to you for ten years. Odds are your setup will grow and what you decide to buy right now will likely be your first real synths. nothing more, nothing less. More will follow eventually.

To sum it up.
A Keyboard controller won't cost you a $1000.00. Just a keyboard and something like Reason will outperform any peace of junk hardware and will cost a lot less. Software sequencer programs like Cubase, Sonar, Live etc will kick the living crap out of any hardware sequencer - period. Trust me, I've been making music for 20 years now. Surely there are people in this forum that have been doing so for longer but that's generally not the type to encourage you to run out and get a boombox groovebox type toys. Hey, the grooveboxes are fine. But I can't think of anyone writing stuff like trance semi-professionally that use just grooveboxes.

So getting the setup that actually does exactly that what you need may take a while. Whether you want to start by getting toys that make music making fun and easy (grooveboxes and all in one sort of workstations) or you want to start building something a wee bit more serious is up to you.

I have one thing to confess though. Some of the grooveboxes made by Roland have awfully nice and inspiring user interfaces. That alone sometimes can make a huge difference. Software is mostly mouse clicking and scrolling through menus. Can be configured otherwise but it takes wits to do.

So may be, and only may be... there is a fair chance that your first synth might be an all in one sort of groovebox type workstation. Again, don't expect to write albums with it. But it will still be fun. Who knows, may teach you a thing or two about sampling and messing around with loops and sequences.

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-14-2007).]

Indeed... I definately feel like I need to learn a lot more before droppin $1,500-$2,000! I appreciate all the options you guys are listing... it at least give me a direction in which to point my research.

I just checked out the specs of the Fantom Xa and it looks identical the Juno-G except for the following:

- Sampler instead of 4-track audio recorder
- Grey instead of black
- Xa weighs about 10 lbs more than Juno-G

Have I missed anything?

I was just in Guitar Center earlier today messing around with the Juno-G... I could kick myself cuz I saw the Xa mounted just next to it, but I didn't bother trying it out. Looks like another 1-hr round trip drive is store in my near future.

Speaking of Guitar Center, looks like they may be having a sale very soon in which the Juno-G will be only $799. I wonder if the Xa will also drop to that price?

Also, I think you touched on a really good point that I almost keep forgetting in all of this. I am by no means a professional player, composer or anything close to it. Nor do I have realistic asperations of being so... especially in the near future. Sure, I hope to create some cool stuff, and maybe someday I'll feel good enough about it to share it with others, but I know I will have a LONG way to go before I ever approach that point. Plus, I already use a computer 10+ hours a day for work, so I think that's why I keep trying to justify going the KB/Groovebox route.


[This message has been edited by GabryRox (edited 02-14-2007).]

I had the opportunity to try out a fantom Xa that I had to sell for a guitar store that had no clue what to do with it. Heres the quick rundown:
Bass: Muddy
Sequencer: Stupid
Build Quality: Mattel
Sample edit: Useless
Sounds: has some excellent pads.

If trance is all you will ever do, a software synth is more than enough. Other than that, you'll end up with a room full of gear. So start with a software program and learn it.

If you want more gear, get more. You won't know what you need until you are sure of what you want. That is in fact the best piece of advice I have to give.

Keep in mind he's sort of new to the gear we're suggesting as well. I 100% agree that software is the way to go, but the software route can get expensive too.

If he's wanting to get his feet wet, and get something that's not too expensive that will fit his needs. Hardware wise the MC-808 would do the job for him.

GarbryRox,

When I said the Xa and Juno-G have a "rhythm pattern sequencer" that means both those units will allow you to construct multiple rhythm patterns. You can then go into the 16 track linear sequencer and "chain" those patterns in any order you wanted using a dedicated "pattern track" that's within the linear sequencer.

For $1000 you could get an MC-808 and a midi controller. That would without question keep you busy for a while. Then down the road once you've become more familiar with the gear, you could move over to a software set up. Like I said I also agree that the software setup is really the best way to go, but that route can get costly. If you go with software you're gonna need more RAM. Once you start getting deep into the sequencing and using multiple softsynths along with things like effects you're gonna start eating up RAM pretty fast. I sould suggest "at least" 512MB RAM. Just my opinion though.



[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 02-14-2007).]

Thanks again for the info and tips guys!

I had a chance to listen to some of the soft synth demo songs and play around with the demo versions of Absynth, Ableton Live and a coupld of others. Well, the sounds are definately very impressive and there seem to be many more options for tweaking than on a stand-alone unit like the Juno-G or Fantom-Xa. The trouble is, there are so many features on these soft synths, they're pretty freakin intimidating, and of course, all of the best ones seem to cost around $500.

For me... already spending 10 hours a day on the computer... I just don't think I can stomach the major extra time investment to learn this software and then the contstant time required in making that my main music source.

From what I can see, you're right that using the software is ultimately the way to enable creation of professional standard sounds. The thing is, while I want good sound quality, I do not have dilusions of producing a studio-quality CD any time soon.

So, I suppose I will end up going with a stand-alone keyboard and a groovebox for the time being. This is what is appealing to me and that's got to be one of my main concerns at this point. Either way I do it, I'm going to drop $1,500+ so I figure I want to give myself the best chance of having fun and staying interested. At this point, I just don't think that's possible if I have to spend the majority of my time mousing around the computer screen and not actually playing and tweaking on the keyboard. It's just my preference at this point.

So, my primary concern is getting good quality equipment first, then if my interest continues to grow, I can always invest in soft synths later on... right?

My dillema now is... the Juno-G or the Fantom-Xa. The only diff I see is that the G offers 4 channels of audio in and the Xa offers skip-back sampling. I think you guys said that the sampling feature would be preferable for dance music, but can't the audio in on the Juno essentially be used to accomplish sampling? Again, I'm not nearly an expert yet, but I thought that I heard or read that somewhere.

Anyway, thanks again for your continued help!

In the end getting the gear that best suits your needs is what you shoudl do There is a difference between the Xa's sampling and the audio recorder on the Juno-G.

Have a look at the manuals www.rolandus.com The Juno-G's audio recorder is more set up in the linear fashion. You can of course load in different samples or sample directly, but you won't have as many options as a dedicated sampler. I mentioned that the Xa will slice and chop samples, and the Juno-G will not. TRUST ME ON THIS! You're gonna find out real fast how amazing chop/slice is on a sampler The chop feature will let you take a full drum loop, or even fully orchestrated loop, and the sampler will "at the push of a button" automatically chop that sample up into individual samples. You can take a fully orchestrated sample and completey remix it. Watching the 2nd video of the MC-808 at www.rolandus.com you'll see towards the end he chops an old school loop. It's pretty cool

If you're going to go the keyboard route I would still strongly suggest the Fantom Xa. I think the Xa will work better for your needs.

Squeak

thanks sqeak_D... man, I checked out that vid on the 808 where the guys chops up that sample and assigns the individual sounds to the pads... freaking awesome! Really makes me want to go out and get the 808 as opposed to the 307, but it is a lot more money. Do you happen to know where I can get a patch/rhythm/pattern list for the 808? I couldn't find it on Roland's site... it doesnt even appear to be in the manual. The sounds and rhythms on the 307 appears to be exactly what I want so I'd want to make sure that the 808 has a similar set. The only reason why I'm a bit concerned is that all of the demos I've heard on the 808 were showing off hip-hop stuff, and I'm mainly interested in the trance/eurodance/techno genres.

Also, does the Xa have the ability to chop up samples in the same manner as the 808? If so, I could get by with the 307 if went with the Xa. And, assuming I don't end up with either the Xa or the 808, can I assume that there is software out there that can accomplish the same thing?

Thanks again for your feedback!

[This message has been edited by GabryRox (edited 02-16-2007).]

There's a patch/performance list for the MC-808 on the Roland site. Under the product manuals section on the Roland site you'll find that the MC-808 has (3) documents. The first is the manual, the second is the patch/performance list, and the third is the midi data list. Click on the patch/performance list.

If you like the patch list on the 307 the 808 should make you drool all over yourself. Plus the 808 has 128 note poly, and "indepth" patch editing. Like the Fantom Xa, the MC-808's sound engine can have up to 4 voices per patch, and you can tweek the crap out of them!

The 808 will work for trance, techno, ect. The 808 is designed for "electronica".., meaning--tehcno, dance, trance, DnB, Euro, Rap, Hip Hop, R&B, and so on.

The Fantom Xa will chop samples like you saw in the video for the MC-808. That's why I suggested the Xa over the Juno-G. The Juno-G's audio recorder won't chop samples like that.

Yes all this can be done via software too, but software can also get very expensive. Once you start with a basic software set-up you're gonna want more, more, more more. You'll eventually want more softsynth, effects plug-ins, VST's and the whole shabang! That gets costly. You'll also have to keep up to date on your computers hardware. If you start driving a lot of audio on you computer the magic word is RAM RAM RAM and MORE RAM

I hope it works out for ya.

Squeak

LOL !!!

As if hardware is less addictive. I used to own an army of hardware synths and buying it all cost me a hell of a lot more than I've spent on software so far.

What is important is the user interface. I guess not everyone has the desire to spend all of their time staring at a computer monitor. I get that way too sometimes. Just power up my Waldorf and Access synths and just kind of mess with sounds without powering up my Mac. Not when I'm working of course.

So that and the fact that we're not talking about potentialy recording an album nor anything serious of a sort makes an all in one hardware box a good option. Although a terribly limited one in lots of ways at least it doesn't make things overly complicated. That could be an advantage too no doubt.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-17-2007).]