Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

AW4416, VS2480... owners


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'm an AW4416 owner and do all my mixing on it. And yes, you can do high quality mixes. The internal effects are not the greatest in the entire world, but with some tweaking you can get very good results. Also, Waves makes a card for the AW4416 which makes many of its acclaimed plugin effects available internally. I don't have that card, personally, but those who do rave about it. Other mixing functions on the AW, such as the automation and scene memory, are really quite excellent. I find it a breeze to mix on. Editing is a bit of a chore, and if you do a lot of it (which I don't), you probably would want to transfer to a DAW. My band's web site below has a couple of MP3's on it which were recorded and mixed with nothing but the AW, if you're curious. --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own two 4416's, and I mix down to analog or to my computer 99.9 % of the time... I very rarely use the AW's internal CD-RW for this task, or even the stereo mixdown track at all. If you have a Y56K card for the AW4416, I'd say you could easily do it all in the one box, including some pretty extensive DIY mastering. Basic stuff is certainly possible in the "mastering" dept. without the Y56K, but that card is very cool... Oops, I misunderstood the question... I do just about ALL my mixing using the AW's - I use my computer DAW for editing stuff, and SOMETIMES for mixing (mostly supplementary stuff) but the AW's are great mixing machines. Very good automation. EQ's & dynamics are up to the job, as are the onboard efx - but you really get a BIG boost in efx quality with the Waves Y56K card. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]has anybody used the roland 2480? i heard rumor that it is possible to disable the data compression. true? -d. gauss[/b][/quote] Disabling the compression reduces it to 16 tracks (from 24), but yes, from what I've read, it's possible to do this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I record and mix on an AW4416. I use the internal compression and delay sometimes, and I use the EQ a lot. Most of my effects are external, but the Yamaha's EQ's and delays are very good, and the compressors and reverbs are "good enough" for most applications. I mix down to an Alesis MasterLink via an AES/EBU expansion card. I'd like to try the Waves card, but it's not compatible with the AES/EBU card. [b]ATTENTION YAMAHA - FIX THIS PLEASE!!!!![/b] :mad: One very positive thing I'll say about the AW4416 is that the Automix is awesome. Easy to use. Drop dead reliable, and you can edit the data offline, something you CANNOT do on the $20,000 Sony DMX-R100 mixing board that everyone is raving about these days. Another positive aspect of the AW4416 is its sound quality. To date, there is no other all-in-one product that I would even consider using. I'm hoping for a 24- or 32- channel version to be introduced. I already have the money in the bank waiting for that day. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an AW4416 owner, very happy with the mixing capabilities. I like the compressors, the EQ's and delays. The reverbs take work, and the guitar amp modeling is not quite there, to my ears, anyway. but... for recording and mixdown, I am very pleased. As I have mentioned previously, it is transparent, and once you get the hang of getting around the machine, it is easy to work with. THe more I use, the more I like. And I like the all inclusive part vs. ROland (in addition to the lack of compression.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't get me started . . . .VS-1680 owner, and use the machine [i]a lot[/i] for all kinds of things I hadn't even [i]thought[/i] of when I bought it. Generally I mix on the machine. Sometimes I will run effects sends (aux) out to other effects or compression or other mixers, but you can mix a whole album with effects on the machine itself. Yes, data-compression can be turned on and off, but not in the middle of a song. You have to choose data compression before you start recording the song. The 1680 and 2480 essentially offer you double the tracks with data compression. 1680 = 8 tracks uncompressed, 16 compressed. 2480 = 24 tracks compressed, 12 tracks uncompressed (or is it 16?). Can you hear the difference in data-compression? It depends on what you are doing. For your average rock band style recordings, no you can not. But I have noticed that the VS880 ( 8tracks only) sometimes sounds better than the 1680, but I haven't put that down to machine or engineering just yet. If it were an issue, buyint two of the machines would solve all your problems! . . . But the AW4416 and the VS2480 are simply amazing machines. Did you catch the Mick Jagger special last week on TV? In one scene they are overdubbing Bono's vocal for a Jagger song. They are using a Yamaha AW4416 for this, so they can record Bono in a hotel room. Is that cool or what? So if Jagger's producer / engineer is using something like the AW4416 or 2480 for an album then the quality must be there. To me, there are many benefits: Portable. The AW4416, the 1680 or the 2480 are [i]Digital Mutlitrack Studios[/i] you can carry in a suitcase and go [b]anywhere[/b] and record. Let that sink in. I have recorded fantastic grand pianos (I could never afford) on location, and other people I know have recorded albums based on live performances. I have thought that if you did it right, you could show up in a music store on a busy Saturday, take a guitar and amp into a testing booth and lay down all your guitar parts without having to buy those expensive guitars and amps . . . In short, you could pack the AW4416, the VS1680 or the 2480 in your car, take a few microphones and a few instruments and make a CD-quality album up at the cabin over the weekend. Well, as long as the cabin has AC power . . Mixing. When you think about it, you really have far more than just the 16 or 24 tracks. If you get carried away, you can: Record 10 tracks of drums. Mix those down to a stereo pair. You save (move) the digital tracks so that if at the final mix down you don't like the drum mix, you can re-mix the sub-mix. Then you can add 10 tracks of guitar, mix those down to a stereo pair, add 12 tracks of vocals . .. stereo pair . . . 10 tracks of keyboards . . stereo pair. . . .thus ending up with 40 or 50 tracks (at least) if you are so inclined. And anytime you want to re-mix (or break out to other ADATs or ProTools) the 'virgin' tracks you can. Plus every track can be edited. It really is a computer-based multitrack digital machine with all the benefits. . . .but don't get me started . ..
Oh yeah? That's fine for you, you're an accepted member of the entertainment community. What about me? What about Igor? Marginalized by Hollywood yet again. I want my Mummy . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may, the short answer on the VS-2480 (my bias) is here: http://www.vsplanet.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum&f=16 http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi Cheers
Oh yeah? That's fine for you, you're an accepted member of the entertainment community. What about me? What about Igor? Marginalized by Hollywood yet again. I want my Mummy . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Doctor Frankensteinway: [b]Mixing. When you think about it, you really have far more than just the 16 or 24 tracks.[/b][/quote] Good point. I'm not as familiar with the Roland machines, but the AW4416 with I/O expansion cards gives you forty channels as mixdown. In addition to the sixteen "tape returns," you've got twenty-four more inputs for virtual (sequencer) instruments, tape returns from an external recorder, effects returns, etc. Depending on the expansion cards that you select, you can alternatively format any or all of these I/O's to be used as channel inserts. An expanded AW gives you the ability to use digital or analog inserts on each of its sixteen recorded tracks. So if you don't like the internal effects, you can easily hook up something else. Dr. Frank is right. It's amazing to hear people gripe about these machines. They give us a price/performance ratio that was impossible to even comprehend five years ago. With and AW4416 or a VS2480, you are constrained only by your talent, your ability, and your imagination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all, Doc. I agree, the portability of these machines is seductive. I love the idea that I can take it into a great sounding room to record drums, for example. I also carry it to clubs and record live bands sometimes. The possibilities that exist with these machines are endless. I didn't see the Mick Jagger show because I had a gig that night, set my VCR to record it but it didn't record! GRRRR... anybody tape it? That's great that they were using an AW4416 in there! Definitely it's a great thing to carry on the road with you. I actually CAN hear the data compression on the Roland units, and it bugs, but I'm not going to get into a format war. I also haven't heard the 2480 so it may have improved. But I'd urge anybody considering buying one of these machines to compare them sonically. Some people seem to actually PREFER the sound of the VS, which puzzles the hell out of me, but hey, I already made my decision so what do I care what anybody else buys! :D --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b] Disabling the compression reduces it to 16 tracks (from 24), but yes, from what I've read, it's possible to do this.[/b][/quote] The VS-2480 default settings are without data compression! [b]Yes, you can playback 24 tracks at 24/48 or 16 tracks at 24/96.[/b] You can record 16 analog tracks simultaneously. Roland got a bad rap for data compression with their earlier machines. Please do NOT compare the "other" VS stuff with the 2480. The 2480 has WAY better converters, WAY better pres, and loads more features. I've worked with one a bit and I'll buy one to allow me some mobility. Use the stereo tracks for mix down and you'll get good results. Connect a monitor to it for editing. It's a nice recorder.
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Glitch, but that's not completely accurate. The VS2480 DOES use data compression, and I'm with Lee - I can hear it, and I don't care for it. Yes, you can bypass it, but it DOES reduce the track count - in 44.1/48 KHz OR 96 KHz recordings. You can check it out at: http://www.rolandus.com/PRODUCTS/INFO/PDF/VS2480Info.pdf Here's the scoop - right off the Roland website (the PDF sheet on the VS2480): Simultaneous Recording / Playback Tracks: Recording Mode:.........................Sample Rate: ....................................48/44.1/32 KHz | 88.2/96 KHz M24 M16 CDR....................16 Rec/16 Play | 8 Rec/8 Play MTP, MT1-2, LV 1-2.............16 Rec/24 Play | 8 Rec/12 Play In short, the VS2480 maxes out at 16 tracks of uncompressed 24 bit 44.1/48 KHz recording (the same as the AW4416), or I don't know how that will show on the forum... probably it will be a mess... so I'll summarize: It maxes out at 16 tracks uncompressed playback at up to 48 KHz, and 8 tracks at up to 96 KHz. The AW4416 with the CD-RW drive can be had for as low as $2,500 (without option cards) these days, while a VS2480 costs considerably more - especially once you add in the extra for the CD-RW and the meter bridge, which are both optional (and rather expensive). So if 16 tracks is enough (and remember, you always have virtual tracks, which can be used to increase track count as spelled out above), the AW4416 is a less expensive way to get there. And remember, you can always bring in extra tracks via an outboard hard disk recorder, your computer or ADAT / DA machines via option cards without having to resort to submixing. Either machine is capable of good recordings, and either is a nice tool to have - I'm not trying to start a format war here either! :) The Roland has better editing, and IMO, the AW is a better bargain and has better fidelity (not just the data compression, but also the A/D converters). Which one to get? Only the purchaser can make the call as to which features are most important, and decide accordingly. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: pokeefe777@msn.com ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in denial here! The Roland rep that was showing me the works on the VS-2480 couldn't be a f@cking liar, RIGHT?!?! Phil, I'm 90% (was 99%) sure that I was using 24 tracks @ 24/48 WITHOUT data compression. Bear in mind the spec sheet is likely outdated - I was using the current V3 software OS. Nevertheless, I will go to great lengths to prove myself wrong on this one. I can also hear compression and inadequate converters on other VS units (that's why I didn't buy one before), I didn't on this one. Of course, I was also issued the Roland DS50 Monitors - maybe they knew what they were doing. I'm pretty upset here, obviously. Also, only $2500 for the Yamaha? Phil, I'm interested, but I haven't seen them for less than $3000. Please drop me a note where. I'm going to find out what the hell is going on with the 2480 and I'll post my results. I HATE ROLAND! Well, maybe I better not jump the gun. Any way Phil, you may well be correct, after all it IS from the horse's mouth. I'll let you know Monday or Tuesday. Matt
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt: 8th Street is still showing $2,850, but I'd bet they'll go lower, since Musician's Friend :eek: is showing them at $2,499 on their website! FWIW, per John schauer at Yamaha, all the AW machines in the USA are now coming with the CD-RW and the HDD (and factory installed at that) - you can't get them without a CD-RW drive anymore (unless it's an older unit someone still has in stock). By comparison, the VS2480 is going for $3,595 at MF, and $3,095 at 8th Street. Right after they came out, the going rate for the AW4416 was about $3,200 (they list for $3,799). Then a few months later, you could find them advertised on the web for as low as about $2,850. And just a short while ago, Yamaha dropped the MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) on them to $2,500. Seems that the new AW2816 (which sells for around $2,000) was nabbing too much of their own market... and I imagine they're trying to make the AW even more attractive when compared to the VS2480 ($4,495 list, and they seem to be going for about $3,100, plus another $400 - $550 for the CD-RW, and another $600 - $700 for the meter bridge - about $4,100 - $4,350 all together... At those prices, you can almost get TWO AW4416's, sync and digitally cascade them and have a 88 channel, 32 track, non-data compressed, 24 bit / 48 KHz workstation for not a whole lot more than the Roland costs (about $650 more). Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! New MAP of $2.5k?!? The price difference doesn't apply to me on this one (I can't say the reasons ;) ), so I'm just going off performance alone. [b]IF[/b] the Roland turns out to be uncompressed at 24/48 with 24 track playback (which I now question), I'll go with it. Otherwise, I'll probably go Yamaha (which I have not yet tried for myself).
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, I own the 2480, it's a really nice machine, right at the moment Roland is attempting to fix some serious issues with the OS, alot of owners are having problems with the drive, becoming corrupted, they should have it fixed by the next OS release due out anyway time now. The big bonus will come with V2.0 of the OS due out in feb. 2002, wav editing on the VGA screen, plus other goodies, all in all the machine is pretty good and roland reputation for supporting that vs units in the OS department give me the confidence they will get it straighten out. The machine is only capabable of 16 playback in the 24 bit uncompressed mode, I personally have yet to use that mode i use the MTP mode which gives me 24bit 24 track playback using Roland's compression routines RDAC, i don't have a problem with the sound, it sound pretty good to me, basically I record on the 2480 and send my mix out in stereo to either wavelab or sound forge and master in the PC. What mays the 2480 really nice is the fact that you can send your tracks out to the PC via either an Rbus PCI card or you can use the digital outs to your sound card digital in and tweak your individual tracks in your PC, this is a really nice feature, I know you can do the same with the AW4416. Has yamaha addressed their problems with their OS for the 4416? Blair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I guess, the bottom line here for me is to NEVER trust a rep. Anyhow, there you have it. The 2480 only does 16 tracks at 24bit. BUT, with the better converters (OR SO I'M TOLD), I didn't notice the compression like I did with previous VS series stuff. As usual, Phil, you are correct. I hate sales reps.
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, don't be put off by the 16 track thing, this machine really is good, your right the converters and preamps are very much improved over the 1680 and 1880, the compression isn't bad at all, there is suppose to be plans to add 3rd party efx cards. And i hate to say it is better than the 4416 (-8, no disrespect to yamaha owners, the vga support is great and os v2.0 will support drag and drop wav editing on the external vga monitor (-8 anyways, take care blair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used one for a remote recording and I was impressed with it, so I'm not put off by the 2480. I AM, however, put off by the missinformation and fog surrounding the machines, which I was subjected to by people in the "know" (cough, cough, I should have done ALOT more research on my own. Thanks for the adjustment Phil :) ). Anyway, yes, it does sound far better than previous VS units - I thought the sound to be uncompressed. I probably would have been REALLY impressed had it actually been uncompressed. Oh well, I'm glad you're happy with yours. I'm just kind of bummed, I thought it was [i]exactly[/i] what I was looking for. [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: theglitch ]
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]Originally posted by Blair:[/i] [b]Hello, I own the 2480, it's a really nice machine, right at the moment Roland is attempting to fix some serious issues with the OS, alot of owners are having problems with the drive, becoming corrupted, they should have it fixed by the next OS release due out anyway time now. [/b] I hadn't heard about that. Yikes! I'm sure Roland is going to get this fixed. [b]The big bonus will come with V2.0 of the OS due out in feb. 2002, wav editing on the VGA screen, plus other goodies, all in all the machine is pretty good and roland reputation for supporting that vs units in the OS department give me the confidence they will get it straighten out.[/b] I'm sure they will. Roland has always had pretty good support, and as I noted before, the VS recorder has much better onboard .WAV editing than the AW does. But, IMO, even with the VGA screen WAV editing feature (very nice BTW), neither the VS or the AW comes anywhere close to a dedicated computer for editing... even if you could do all the cutting equally, what about plug ins? [b] The machine is only capabable of 16 playback in the 24 bit uncompressed mode, I personally have yet to use that mode i use the MTP mode which gives me 24bit 24 track playback using Roland's compression routines RDAC, i don't have a problem with the sound, it sound pretty good to me,[/b] AS always, YMMV! :) Personally, in this age of huge and inexpensive HDD's, I can't understand why Roland still clings to an insistence on data compression. It made sense back in the days of small, slow drives.. but now days, I fail to see the point. And the fidelity issue is a personal choice. [b] basically I record on the 2480 and send my mix out in stereo to either wavelab or sound forge and master in the PC. [/b] Same here. I never use the AW's built in stereo mixdown tracks. [b] What mays the 2480 really nice is the fact that you can send your tracks out to the PC via either an Rbus PCI card or you can use the digital outs to your sound card digital in and tweak your individual tracks in your PC, this is a really nice feature, I know you can do the same with the AW4416.[/b] Ahhh, RBus. I didn't mention this in my earlier comparisons. How many cards does the VS2480 support at once? Isn't it two? And isn't each card only capable of handling a maximum of 8 tracks at once? Doesn't that prevent you from transferring all 24 tracks in a single pass to your computer? And there's not a lot of different Rbus cards out there. Yamaha definitely has the advantage in the interfacing department. Apogee A/D and D/A cards, the Waves Y56K card, as well as all the Yamaha cards are all available for the AW - although Yamaha dropped the ball insofar as the AW's power supply supporting more than one of the aftermarket cards at once. :( [b]Has yamaha addressed their problems with their OS for the 4416?[/b] Yes, a long time ago. Like Roland, they've had several different versions of the OS (not counting beta versions, there's been seven or eight). The AW's been stable and very functional since OS 1.3, and 2.0 is a killer. Either machine is an incredibly powerful tool, and is capable of great recordings. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your right about the rbus, if it's that important to do it all in one pass. m-audio also makes an rbus card "delta rbus" it includes digital inputs, coxial. glad to hear that yamaha has their os straightened out, that is what steered me away from the 4416. it would be nice to see roland introduce 3rd party effects, a wave board would be nice. the 2480 has room for 4 boards (very nice) the effects are processed at 56bit. Projects that were created on the 1680 or 1880 once ported to the 2480 take on a whole new level of clarity and presence because of the 56bit processing. anyway i am anxoiusly awaiting v2.0. i agree about the need to compress, it not necessary, i think roland stick to this rdac just so they can say there doing something unique. i never had a problem with it, so it was a make or break issue, and since you have the option of using uncompress, even though its only 16 track i opted for it anyways, (-8 blair (excuse any spelling or grammar mistake, i hardly proof read my post) regards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Blair, welcome! Please don't take my comments as a personal critisism or of the Roland in general - it's a nice machine... I just prefer the Yamaha. But there are some features on the Roland that I wish the Yammie had, but such is life, right? All in all, I've been very happy, and it's really amazing the amount of power in either one of these machines. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really drooled at the Roland when I saw the ad, and thought it was really just what I needed. Unfortunately at the time it was just about to come out or just came out, and I just knew what state the system software would be in. Just about every fucking company does this to us, comes out with a product not ready for some serious work. And since I didn't feel like waiting around not knowing when v. 2.0 (which is really 1.0) I went and bought the yamaha, and am more than satisfied with it. Anyway, just a warning to first time buyers. Beware.
Raul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for the welcome guys, much appreciated. Don't worry about making critisms of the roland 2480, i would be the first to acknowledge it's faults. both machine are great machines, but anyways looking forward to the exchange of ideas and tips. thanks again Blair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...