I think Roland sux.

Who thinks optinone should find a different forum for his highly articulate posts?

My question is exactly what does Roland suck? There must be an object for this verb.

All what Roland needs is to make competitive Keyboards to compete with it's compotators.like the Korg Triton and the Yamaha Motif. the Fantom that they released is very not smart that even the Korg Karma can out perform.that's why they Suck.in my opinion. Also talking about their arranger keyboards.why did they make the VA-3/5/7/76 have a touch screen while the Phantom does not have a touch screen?.

Vic

P.s my comment doesn't go for their "sound engines" as Roland to be fair have very good acoustic sounds.

This is really an old discussion..

In my opinion, all the synth manufacturers have their ups and downs. Roland make high quality, but a bit "conservative" synths. They are weak on effects, but sound quality and synthesis is better than most. They don't look cool ore have tons of "cool" features like touch screens, but they do the job!

Korgs have a lot of effetcs-processing-power, but has normally a weaker synthesis. Someone here mentioned the Karma.. Well, I have had a clos look at a Karma, as my brother owns one.. It is a great synth, but I don't think it is in a "different league" from my XP-60. Some things are better, some things are worse.

Yamaha delivers great synths, but their technical solutions are not always the best.. They've also had software-issues etc

I also think it unfair to compare synths of totally different price-levels. The Korg Triton is (in my country) 1,5 times more expensive than an XP-80. So, why does not the Fantom have a touch-screen? Maybe because every little gadget like that makes the synth more expensive.

All that said, I think what synth is "best", depends on what the user likes, and what the user wants to do with the synth.

Stig

Who needs a touch screen?? I've tested the trinity as well as the triton, but I get a real horror when I have to use this f****** touch screen. Take knobs, sliders and poties, that's much more comfortable.

I don't understand one thing:
Nearly everybody in this Forum says that Roland has a thin and basic sound (some say that (only?) the acoustic sounds are good), while they love the tritons or trinity's sound. I don't think that Korg has better sounds. Or I have got a different type of XP80. My XP's sounds are fat and great (not EVERY sound of course). Korg's sounds are okay, but not better than Roland's. And the piano in the trinity/triton is TERRIBLE.

Sorry if any Korg user is hurt by this post.

I don't know every english "slang" word: what does "sux" mean??

[This message has been edited by Stalker (edited 11-09-2001).]

Perhaps Roland have released a new MIDI based vacuum cleaner?

------------------
The Sonic Energy Authority - a sound investment

TheSonicEnergyAuthority
Pretty funny, and ironic too. There is a vacuum cleaner called fantom.

Stalker:
I agree completely with you. I don't think a Korg sounds any better than an XP-60. Besides, Korg-synths depend heavily on effects to sound great, so when you enter performance-mode, it is often a different story. The same goes for Roland of cours, but because of the more flexible synthesis, it is easier to make great sounds without effects.

And one more thing.. The piano-patches that Korg use are...well...completely terrible. Even the pianos on their piano expansion board are hopeless... I am no piano-expert, but they are really no good.

I think Roland-synths are strong in all types of sounds. That is why I bought one.

Stig

[This message has been edited by stigf (edited 11-10-2001).]

Hi!
Stigf: "I think Roland-synths are strong in all types of sounds. That is why I bought one."
Yeah! And that's why I want to buy a second one (JD 800) . I hope to get one during the next weeks...