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).]