Quantcast
Hi definition Digital = Roland - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Hi definition Digital = Roland
Old 10th February 2009
  #1
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Hi definition Digital = Roland

I have just gone full circle. From Nuendo4 and Samplitude/Apogee AD-DA 16x DAW to My old Roland vs2480. The audio fidelity on those 2480s far surpass computer daw's in every aspect. Eg depth,space,3D imaging,openess and fatness. Those Rolands are Digital's best kept audio secret. Please don't laugh! But it's true. I was shocked. The 2480 was waaaaay surperior by a long shot. Any one else experience other digital recording devices that just blow away computers?
Old 10th February 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Audio Hombre's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
april 1st is still almost 2 months away.

you bored,much?
.seriously. if you're going to try and be cute, at least be funny.this stuff is freekin pale
Old 10th February 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
always thought its a cool portable box, the soundquality never convinced me to be honest
Old 10th February 2009
  #4
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
It's no joke. It really is better.
Old 10th February 2009 | Show parent
  #5
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Just tracked a live studo performance- drums bass elec guit on both daw's and we were disapponted with the computer.
Old 10th February 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
I hope that it doesn't sound I'm blown my horn, I have recorded dozens of albums for them country folks. One song is currently played on CMT by Billy Bridge new album. My old original band 78 From Home got sighned to MGM and we had a song called Yesterday on Aussie comercial radio. I'm an audio nut and I have been making a living with bands and recording for 20 years. It paid my morgage off and I'm proud of it. My ears are very in tune and I've had a life time of practice.
Old 10th February 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
ALLS good
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigo ➑️
It's no joke. It really is better.
Prove it. Unless you can't. ns
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
rigo, you're absolutely right. i record primarily on analog tape, but i'm often forced to use pro-tools, which i think is boring and substandard in its sound quality. it's too digital; it suffocates the signal. the roland vs-2480 (and 2400) are a wonderful middle ground between analog tape and DAW. i own a few of each, but never get to use them as much as i'd like. the sound quality is stellar (especially at 96, where my units stay) - deep, open, real - and it just doesn't go through the same digital gang rape of pro-tools.

roland's 24xx series was well ahead of the curve. self-contained digital recording units are still catching up, although they've since been designated to the novice market anyway. nevermind the onboard effects and processors, etc. those were just amenities for beginners and casual musicians. we're talking about the sound itself; the 24xx sound technology was at its apex when abandoned. roland had honed it to perfection and it is eerily apparent, given their age, when you use one of those machines. it's something of a hybrid between analog and digital recording that happens to have insanely advanced sound.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
I have a better box than the Roland for you:
Tascam Porta03 ! Digedewho?
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Ok the 2480 just captures the source a lot better. To put it simply the band width of a software/computer is just not as broad. So u end up with no definition in the at the hi and low end. My computer is no slouch either. Built by a guy- Steve Smith who builds them for music. It's basicaly a Quad Core with RME 9652 card. I have AD/ DA16x for conversion. Sorry but computers really do sound thin narrow honky and lifeless when compared to a toy 2480. If u know of anyone who owns one or if u can get hold of a 2480 and try it yourself. Remember to use the same signal chain of pre's and converters. The difference is hugh
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusandJoey ➑️
I have a better box than the Roland for you:
Tascam Porta03 ! Digedewho?
you jest, but look into it; the sound quality really is fantastic. the folks at roland have done some brilliant things over the years. pro tools is more convenient and analog tape sounds better, so those are my big two, but the roland 24-track sound quality fits right in between them. sadly, i don't get to use it as much as i'd like.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Mr Gloves,
Thanks for your input & supporting my statements.

You've been able to give your opinion based on a qualified judgement- your own experience!!

Just out of curiosity, yes everything I've tracked on 2480 does sound very 'tape-ish' & musicians who hear my recordings are convinced they're done on tape. I'm wondering how much difference is there b/w 2inch tape & the 2480? Is tape still better again?
Old 11th February 2009
  #14
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
It's the engineer & musicians and not the gear that make recordings sound good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigo ➑️
I have just gone full circle. From Nuendo4 and Samplitude/Apogee AD-DA 16x DAW to My old Roland vs2480. The audio fidelity on those 2480s far surpass computer daw's in every aspect. Eg depth,space,3D imaging,openess and fatness. Those Rolands are Digital's best kept audio secret. Please don't laugh! But it's true. I was shocked. The 2480 was waaaaay surperior by a long shot. Any one else experience other digital recording devices that just blow away computers?
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I have some friends with the older Rolands and the newer ones. I think even the 18 bit versions didnt sound to bad. The effects werent any good and the pre amps were lousy but all in all they werent bad. BUT, they dont compare to a high end daw. I have seen people get good results from them. I have even mixed an entire album that was dumped from a Roland hard disk into my DAW (digital transfer of course) . It sounded better when it was on the Roland. What does that tell me? Either my 192s are lying to me (not likely) or the Roland headphone and stereo outs are hyped. This makes me think of the Chinese "hyped" condensor mics. They might sound good or maybe even better than a u87, for example, off the bat, but then turn the EQ on your pre and listen to the Chinese mics sound horrible and the u87s shine...

Interesting post though.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigo ➑️
Ok the 2480 just captures the source a lot better. To put it simply the band width of a software/computer is just not as broad. So u end up with no definition in the at the hi and low end. My computer is no slouch either. Built by a guy- Steve Smith who builds them for music. It's basicaly a Quad Core with RME 9652 card. I have AD/ DA16x for conversion. Sorry but computers really do sound thin narrow honky and lifeless when compared to a toy 2480. If u know of anyone who owns one or if u can get hold of a 2480 and try it yourself. Remember to use the same signal chain of pre's and converters. The difference is hugh
So you use the AD/DAx with the 2480? I'm trying to figure out if it's the converters of the unit you prefer, or the internal processing.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
A LaMere's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Different DAW's sound different..

A shocking newsflash. hahahahaha

Of all of those workstations I thought that the Akai sounded the best...
The yamaha sounded ok too. Only thing with the word "Akai" on it that I can ever remember liking the sound of...

They are fun to use as they offer a different workflow than a standard DAW.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
headwerkn's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
hehe... I love my VS2400 and although I'm not prepared to say it wipes a rack of Apogees off the floor, with a few more posts like this maybe Roland might restart the VS program and deliver some new products... (preferably without RBUS this time...)
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Roland and computer were tracked with the same Apogee converters and same pre's. Api Avalon BAs. So yes it was an identical source to both DAWs
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So let me get this straight....The digital 1's and 0's sound better in the Roland than the digital 1's and 0's in your computer?
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Never Mind. I just saw another one of your threads -

Quote:
secret tip! how to improve your ITB mixes!
Quote:
it might sound crazy but....... the other nite i was doing a mix down with 2 friends, and i noticed that the snare was choking in the mix- but when solo-ing the snare it sounded great. totally different sound to when it was blended with the mix?? lost definition etc.

all the tracks were recorded on Nuendo 3- mixing ITB, with class A pre-amps, avalons, millenia, etc, apogee X converters, with big ben, and monitoring thru Dynaudio BM15A's.

so for an experiment i thought id take some load off the computer by removing all the track 'colours' - so basically we were now looking at grey waveform. and thats when the magic happened! the snare and vocal reappeared, imaging was deeper & wider, clarity in the top end opened up & all the instrument separation was clearer. we checked it again the following day and the result was definitely the same!

anyone else noticed or tried this?
__________________
RIGO
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #22
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Mastering101's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I find this post strange because Cakewalk just came out with the SONAR V-Studio 700 ? Roland based recording system....Looks cool.. I wouldn't mind hearing it for ****s and giggles..


http://www.sonarvstudio.com/
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Mastering101's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire Prod ➑️
Never Mind. I just saw another one of your threads -




LOLheh I bet if I smoke some dope my mix will sound better
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
OK so what your saying is you bypass the VS2480 pre's and convertors using apogee AD16x and record direct to the 2480 harddrive(clocking the 2480 with the ad16x too?). And then do the same with a computer and that's where you hear a difference?

What are you mixing on? ITB still? How are you listening to the mixes?
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
To put it simply the band width of a software/computer is just not as broad.
That's a huge generalization to make...all the 2480 is is a computer running its own proprietary software.

But it sounds like you're having fun.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Figured that dude would say something like that.

Thanks for the find Empire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire Prod ➑️
Never Mind. I just saw another one of your threads -

Quote:
secret tip! how to improve your ITB mixes!
Quote:
it might sound crazy but....... the other nite i was doing a mix down with 2 friends, and i noticed that the snare was choking in the mix- but when solo-ing the snare it sounded great. totally different sound to when it was blended with the mix?? lost definition etc.

all the tracks were recorded on Nuendo 3- mixing ITB, with class A pre-amps, avalons, millenia, etc, apogee X converters, with big ben, and monitoring thru Dynaudio BM15A's.

so for an experiment i thought id take some load off the computer by removing all the track 'colours' - so basically we were now looking at grey waveform. and thats when the magic happened! the snare and vocal reappeared, imaging was deeper & wider, clarity in the top end opened up & all the instrument separation was clearer. we checked it again the following day and the result was definitely the same!

anyone else noticed or tried this?
__________________
RIGO


Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #28
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Ok point taken. Yes we were stoned that night we played with track colors. And so maybe taking some of the load off the computer might of made just a little difference. Back when I started that post we all had single core computers. Hope I'm forgiven.Dam it. But like this recent post it is 100% true. Like I said 2480 and computer are nothing alike. This is not a 5% difference. The 2480 I will explain- because it captureds audio better! This means that everything just sits better in the mix. Which means less screwing around with plug inn eq/comps which if not carefull thin your sound out even more. That's the problem with computers there not much freedom and there too conjested. Those2480s have air that feels like it reaching 150k and the bottoms are so much more real. The overall tone is also different. The computer sounded honky thin and muffled. Picture honey dribbling of those transients with the sun shining! And this time we were not stoned.
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigo ➑️
Yes we were stoned that night
what a sin why shouldnt there be a sound difference ? every units different. lets hear it, would like to listen to it
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #30
Gear Maniac
 
Crankitup's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigo ➑️
Ok point taken. Yes we were stoned that night we played with track colors. And so maybe taking some of the load off the computer might of made just a little difference. Back when I started that post we all had single core computers. Hope I'm forgiven.Dam it. But like this recent post it is 100% true. Like I said 2480 and computer are nothing alike. This is not a 5% difference. The 2480 I will explain- because it captureds audio better! This means that everything just sits better in the mix. Which means less screwing around with plug inn eq/comps which if not carefull thin your sound out even more. That's the problem with computers there not much freedom and there too conjested. Those2480s have air that feels like it reaching 150k and the bottoms are so much more real. The overall tone is also different. The computer sounded honky thin and muffled. Picture honey dribbling of those transients with the sun shining! And this time we were not stoned.

LOL!!! All I have to say is wow... I'll have what ever he's having
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 2 views: 1806
Avatar for cjogo
cjogo 30th October 2020
replies: 295 views: 74142
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 10260 views: 528984
Avatar for Zed999
Zed999 46 minutes ago
replies: 1296 views: 181584
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump