Am I missing something or is it hidden somewhere else in a menu? I don't see control for LFO (rate, depth, and delay). I also don't see "decay" under the Env section. Is the extent of the GW-8's patch modify section just (Filter-Cuttoff/Reso.) and (Env-Attack/Release)?

LFO's a pretty big thing to leave off (if this is what Roland did)

Squeak,

Several weeks ago there was a software editor posted in the Downloads section for the GW-8 at the Roland US site. It happened to be the editor for the Juno-Stage model and was removed several days later. Because both models share the same basic sound ROM (except for the World sounds on the GW-8), the sound editor should work just fine. Using the software editor, you would have access to all the LFO settings, etc... Kinda frustrating though that Roland would choose to "dumb down" the GW-8 like they apparently have.

Michael

BTW, here's a link to a demo GW-8 being sold by Sweetwater for under 700.00 (has a 2 year warranty)!
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/GW8d/

Michael

I'm pretty sure the GW-7 is the same way (missing the LFO parameters), but for that synth/arranger when considering its sound engine wasn't too bad.

However, IMO it just makes no sense to put a Fantom/SonicCell sound engine in a keyboard and leave off the LFO section. Also the Juno Stage software (may or may not work) considering the differences in patch information between the two units. Plus..., say you do manage to get that application (to some extent) capable of tweeking the GW's patches. What then if you want to save a custom patch with edited LFO parameters to the keyboard.., when the keyboard itself lacks these features.

You know, you guys should REALLY read the manuals before you come here in a tizzy! You'd save yourselves and us a LOT of grief!

The parameters squeak is referring to are simply the ones that can be adjusted in realtime from the Analog Modify knobs. All the other parameters can be adjusted from the Tone Modify menu pages...

The only thing that got 'left off' was the time to either try it out or read the manual!

I had a feeling it would be under a menu. It's not uncommon for Roland to do it this way.

I see in the manual now that you can go into more detail tone editing. I would have read this, but for the last few days I could not get any manuals to load from the Roland site, which is why I posted the question in the first place. Today I was able got get the manuals to open. I also see the GW-7 has more detailed tone editing as well.

Perhaps we can leave our outrage over 'missing' features until AFTER we have investigated the manual?

Let's face it, what Roland product has EVER left the LFO parameters off (even if you maybe have to crack a manual and learn some sys-ex or CC codes to do it)?

Give them a LITTLE credit

I still stand by my statement that the GW-8 interface has been "dumbed down" compared to the Sonic Cell and the Juno-Stage. Especially since the GW-8 is supposed to be a "Workstation". I thought this was stretching things a bit on Roland's part, just like it was with the GW-7. Just my 2 cents.

Michael

I have to agree with you there.... I think keyboard makers are using the term "workstation" a little loosely today. Roland doesn't even list this as one of their arranger either..., nor did they with the GW-7. Both models are under the synth section on Roland's site.

Diki.., I know you're going to say they packed a lot into it, and "hey it's only $895".., but there sure as hell are a few things the GW doesn't do that at nearly $900 it SHOULD do.

The GW has some good features, but it's far from a workstation. The limited style editing and extremely basic seq support this. You shouldn't have to hook up to a sofware seq to get the "workstation" features. Those should already be built in.

Have you taken a look at what you HAVE to have in external software to get an S900 etc. up to these levels, too? Jørgen would be a rich man if he actually charged for all the essentials you HAVE to have!

Personally (no offense if you still work in the keyboard) I haven't used an onboard sequencer in over 15 years. Even the best of them pale next to Cubase...

And Roland sticking them in the WS division just goes to show what a 'negative' to the average keyboard buyer the word 'arranger' really is. It's got nothing to do with it's capabilities, which are still on a par or exceed others in the same price bracket...

With all do respect Diki..., I think you don't realize how many people STILL USE the internal sequencers on their keyboards. Hop over to a major workstation forum and have a look how many people STILL rely on those internal sequencers.

Sure software is great and you can do a lot with it.., but not everyone wants to fire up a computer everytime they want to lay down some tracks.

Again.., you've been using the software for so long now that anytime this subject comes up you approach it like software's the only thing out there. Keep in mind Diki.., that just because YOU have been using it for so long doesn't mean a full featured sequencer in a keyboard is useless to others.

But just because some people still walk around, doesn't mean it's not faster and easier to drive!

The thing is, does a major manufacturer, once they see that software has FAR outpaced what they can do easily internally, do they give up and just leave a quick fix internal with playback related features (playlists, mark/jump, lyric display capabilities, etc.), or do they pull R&D money away from other, also very important aspects that do NOT have software equivalents, and use it to make a poor (compared to software), but more fully featured internal?

Nowadays, most arrangers use USB for communication.. ergo the manufacturers already assume most of us have a computer. Even an old Atari blows away any hardware sequencer... at some point, you just have to acknowledge that the horse and buggy is old fashioned, no matter how many cling stubbornly to the past.

Where are all the knobs synths used to have? Where is all the tuning drift (and opportunity for great sounds that would sometimes produce)? Where's my chord sequencer? Why doesn't my Nord Electro weigh 300 lbs.?

Things change. At least be grateful that a BETTER way to do things exists (not so my chord sequencer!). Let's be realistic. What would you like DROPPED, so that a better (but not as good as software) sequencer could be added? Because there is no free ride. Either the price gets raised, or something gets dropped...

Maybe LFO editing?