Roland VS

[rjt]

I am seriously considering a Roland VS 1880, with two effects boards and CD Writer. Anyone have thoughts.... is this a good system, do you like it? Any strengths or weaknesses?

I have a mostly synth based studio with occasional accoustic piano thrown in. I have one keyboard and a couple of rack mounts. No effects processors and run Cakewalk on IBM.

[J.Ever2]

I have the VS-1680 and I love it! If you would like more info on this product go to www.vsplanet.com (http://www.vsplanet.com) If you buy one of these bad boys pick up the video manual,it will make your life much easier.

[wayland]

I also have a VS-1680 and love it. From what I've read, the main advantages of owning a VS-1880 instead of the 1680 would be a faster simpler way to burn cds, the A/D convertors are 24bit as opposed to 20bit, and the extra 2 tracks. As for the 24bit A/D, I know it is better technically, but in the "real world" I'm not sure that's such a big deal. You might consider shopping around for great deal on a new or even used VS-1680 instead. I'm sure there will be a lot of guys unloading perfectly good VS-1680s so they can rush out and buy the latest and greatest gadget with the newest bells and whistles.

[rwig]

Haven't purchased anything yet. Wondering if there is anything you can't do with your 1680 that I could do with a computer, cool edit pro, and a good mixer?

Must say I like the idea of a stand alone.

Ron

[Alan]

Although I'm only using the VS840 it's the sound that I can,t do without.I use it with my daw setup and transfer the tracks digitily.The effects are better than my plugins(waves,tc,ect.)and I can use the faders to control the mixer in cakewalk,plus I can bring it on the road.or use it to record live.My only complaint is that it has only spdif and not lightpipe for multitrack transfers,otherwise the best sounding and most solid gear I've bought so far.

[rjt]

In regards to the question of stand alone vs a computer.... lots of people like to say "get a computer, it is cheaper and better." For some people that is true. I do lots of work on my computer. Unfortunately, it isn't very portable... in my case, I like to sketch my song in midi on the computer, drop a couple of tracks onto my ADAT, drag that into the other room where I have my piano, record the piano tracks, then drag that back into the studio and put it in the computer....whew... Anway, a DAW would make that process a lot easier.

As a little aside, I have found computer very, very tricky when adding or changing programs (stop working, don't work correctly) It seems as I could retire before some of the tech support actually comes through with useful suggestions (not true of Lexicon, Midiquest or Rubber Chicken those guys are on the ball). I get pretty tired of messing with technology and not the music.

But... to each his/her own!!

[WavesLA]

I don't say this to start a flame war in any way, shape or form. I've used both platforms, and in fact worked for a developer of music software for both platforms, so I'm not just a brown-shirted Mac Nazi spouting off at the mouth. I know from firsthand experience of whence I speak. I own both a G3 Mac and a PIII PC, so spare me any hatemail, mmmkay?

The post directly above mine is quite correct about horror stories when adding/updating programs, but he forgot to mention one little phrase to complete the sentence: on a Windows machine.

On the Mac it's quite simple. I've never suffered any down time due to installing an upgrade of hardware or software. And I've been using a Mac to create music since 1985 (PC's were NOT an option for music back then... it was Amiga or Mac). The only reason that I can find for someone to use a Windows machine for musical reasons is the wonderful software from Sonic Foundry (specifically Acid and Vegas). But these will run in emulation on the Mac. I've had Acid running in SoftWindows on a G3-upgraded 9600 and it runs without a hitch.

The advantages to using a computer are that you have a much larger screen to display in the information upon. You can get down to sample level and redraw curves and remove pops and clicks, and edit with a precision impossible with a stand-alone DAW. Also, the CPU of the average computer is going to be a lot more powerful than that of a DAW. But then, the CPU of a computer has to do more than just record music. And with new revisions that same piece of software could jump from 8 to 16 to 32 to ? possible recordable tracks. Stand-alone DAW's are stuck with whatever they come with. Sure the OS may be upgradable, but if you want more channels you have to buy another one to synch to the old one, so make sure that you get one which gives you room to grow.

The advantage to using a stand-alone DAW is portability.

Roland has done a great thing by getting Emagic to create Logic VS for them. This allows the best of both worlds, and it ships with the newer VS recorders. Now, I've never been a big fan of the Logic user interface. It just isn't as elegant as some of the other programs out there, but it's definitely one of the most powerful programs out there on either platform (speaking only of host-based [native] systems, not including Pro Tools PCI systems). I'm sure once you get used to where everything is and how some of its idiosyncracies are played out you'll feel right at home.

If you're going to go the computer-based way get a Mac and get to work. If you're going to go the DAW way get a VS-1880HD. They're cheap, they sound good and they're portable. If it were me I'd still go with a Mac for the Logic-VS software, but I've used it on a PC and it's about as painless as something on a PC can get (meaning few hardware problems, etc.).

[Alan]

Although you are probably right about the mac being a more stable system for Audio,I guess Iv,e been one of the lucky ones where Iv'e had next to no problems with my pc.Ive literally had more than dozens of demo and other software in and out of my machine with no conflicts whatsoever.It comes down to mobo,chipset,hd and bios configuration.As far as chioosing a Mac at this stage?I personally wouldn,t because of software choices,uncertiany with the future O.S. changes.Having the flexibility of usin my VS along with whatever software I like is something of a luxury,although this forum is proof of the pifalls of different pc configurations with problems.Also the future of OMS under Gibson wouldn't make me feel exactly comfortable if I owned a Mac.So,the choice isn't so simple.

[The sonusman]

WavesLA. I remember a editing session not long ago where the engineer was using a Mac. The studio had just upgraded their ProTools software. What a mess that was.

No down time? Try two hours of messing with the "improved" interface.

Not only did the sync to ADAT stuff not configure the way Digidesign said it should, but when we tried to add more tracks off of the ADAT tapes to ProTools, the tracks already on the drive and the new tracks coming in where not sample accurate at all!

To make matter worse, the tracks going back where not sample accurate. You would not have believed the amount of time that was spent messing with everything to get it all working right.

Now, the engineer was quite an experienced engineer. Even did a couple years at Paisley Park after school. Did a stint for Sony as a mastering engineer too. I used him before to edit some ADAT tracks on the same system before the upgrade. All worked well.

Right out of his mouth, "I hate it when Digidesign upgrades. It never works right, and they need to issues a bunch of patch's before it does".

Out of the 10 hours we spent on this editing session, at least 3 of it was "down time" trying to get the interface to work properly.

Not trying to start a war here, but I have talked to many Mac users that experience just as many problems with their systems as PC users do, especially after an upgrade, or incorporating a new device of application into their system.

rjt. If you are already running Cakewalk with success, I really don't see the need for a VS anything. Try using that same money to upgrade your soundcard maybe, and buy some plugin's. Maybe even try a different recording/editing software altogether. Your needs seem simple, and I believe for the same money as a VS 1880 you could really get more bang for the buck out of upgrading your computer recording/editing/mixing/mastering capabilities.

Ed

[WavesLA]

I've never suffered any downtime with Digi upgrades at all. Perhaps I've been lucky, but I can say the same thing about every other PT user I know. When I went from PT III to PT 24 it was seamless. PT|Mix, same thing. Every software revision of PT has been for me as well. I can only speak of my experience with both platforms and I can honestly tell you I've had no problems on the Mac whatsoever. I also use Digital Performer to access my PT hardware, and every software revision of this software has worked with no problems, as well.

Here's something worth noticing: look at the vast numbers of PC-related "How do I make this work?" posts in the forum. Compare it to the number of Mac-related questions of the same type. There's a great difference in the numbers. <sarcasm> I can't imagine why this would be. </sarcasm>

Like I said, I've got both platforms running in my studio, and they're both quite stable. Windows has come a long way in the world of music. But it still has far to go before it's on a par with the Mac as far as ease of use, ease of upgrade, etc., etc. I cringe when I think of adding new hardware to my PC. The chance that I'll have to get in and mess with IRQ settings, etc., is just too great.

If you're able to get work done with whatever platform you're using, more power to you. Don't change a thing. If you're just getting into the world of music and computers you'll be far happier if you go the Mac way. As someone who uses both platforms on a daily basis I feel I'm well qualified to make this statement. Add to this fifteen years of experience, including the long stint in the music software industry itself, and I'm overly qualified, if I do say so myself. Hey, what do you know? I did say so myself. http://www.audioforums.com/forums/wink.gif

As for the OMS thing... I've never, ever been a fan of OMS. I find MOTU's FreeMIDI to be far more powerful and user-friendly. With PT I haven't had any choice, but then I hardly ever use PT for MIDI purposes. Version 5.0 is a great leap forward in the MIDI arena, but it's still not up to the level of even Cakewalk Express.

Learning the "ins and outs" of a new software revision does not count as "down time" in my book. That's simply the nature of the beast. New versions have new features, some of which require a bit of research to fully comprehend. If your engineer friend wasn't confident in using the newer version he should have used the older version. You can use newer DAE software with older PT versions. There's no problem with that whatsoever. I've got three different versions of Pro Tools on my machine, and they all still work quite well. In fact, it's recommended that you have the latest version of DAE, no matter what version of Pro Tools you're using.

What I'm saying is the actual task of installing, configuring and running new hard/software is far easier on a Mac than on a PC. Again, PC's have come a long way in this area, but they still hover pretty well near "plug and pray" rather than "plug and play". That's just a difference in the OS. And some people don't like Macs because it's so easy to do things on. Some people are "tinkerers" and like to have problems to fix. More power to 'em. I like having my stuff up and running so that I can actually get work done.

Like I said, use whatever is most comfortable to you. But bear in mind that 99.9% of music pros are using Macs. There's got to be a reason for it, right?

Two cents poorer,

[rjt]

Regarding having Cakewalk working. I have it working midi just fine...I have never been able to get it to record audio well. If it did, I would be using that and still struggling for a way to record the piano and bring it into the computer.

Regarding platforms.... while I prefer IBMs, both of my current music teachers use MAC. One of them has released 13 CDs and scored several movies. Recently he upgraded his software and had almost two weeks of downtime... and he was only using it for MIDI. Like me, he was willing and did pay for additional professional assistance in solving his problems. I shudder to think of what would happen if he were trying to record audio.

Perhaps the reason there are more posts regarding IBM is because more people own and use them... who knows? To each his/her own. One thing I do know is that machines that are specifically designed for a task, usually do it better that "all in one" machines.

[Alan]

I hate to continue this thread but as far as using The PC,Cakewalk and the VS together I guess I'm spoiled.I meand the converters on my Roland are some of the best I've heard,the onboard effects are way better than any of my plugins(waves,TC,VST,ect.)plus I can assign the the faders in cakewalk to be controlled by the faders on my VS for real time fader movement for mixdown,not to mention bringing it with me on the road for either ideas or live recording.I'll stop using my VS together with my PC when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

[WavesLA]

Like I said:

If you're able to get work done with whatever platform you're using, more power to you. Don't change a thing.

[wayland]

Hey WavesLA, when you run Acid through Soft Windows do you notice any loss of performance? Does it run noticeably slower? I'm considering purchasing a new computer, and one of the reasons I had decided to stick with a PC instead of going with Mac was to use Acid. Also I already have Cakewalk.

[WavesLA]

Hey Wayland,

There is a small lag (which is the nature of the OS-emulation beast), but nothing terrible, and of course this lag will be determined by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to processor speed, bus speed, etc. If you're running a G3 or G4 you shouldn't have any problems at all. I began using it with an old 604e PPC processor and it worked fine with that. My G3 makes it flat out haul a$$.

The way I get around any lag-related problems is that I dump whatever tracks I create in Acid to DAT (digitally [S/PDIF], as a two track master) and then back into my Pro Tools interface (also digitally, so no loss of quality), so the lag's not really an issue, as at this point they are simply audio tracks in Pro Tools. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, but this is the most handy way for my particular arrangement of hard/software goodies.

The fine folks up at Sonic Foundry (I mean that, I know several of them personally from my days at another software company and they are truly good people) don't really want you to know that it runs well (or even at all) in emulation, but it does. I was asked back when Acid was first released to "keep it under my hat". But I think it's been out long enough, and enough Mac users are doing it, that it's not really a huge secret any more.

I would think they'd be pleased to have more customers, even if they are from the "other side". http://www.audioforums.com/forums/smile.gif

[sixstringthing]

I'd like to further explore the idea of what Allan mentioned, i.e. using a VS system in conjunction with a computer and software. I am not yet knowledgeable enough about the differences and advantages of using a PC over a MAC or vise versa, but I like the idea in theory of using a VS as a semi portable unit for recording on site and then taking it home and hookin' her up to the 'puter for further mastering and doctoring up. Is this a viable idea? Also, is it possible to combine these units in a meaningful enough way to produce a product that rivals the quality of what mass produced CD's have (which may not be all that in the first place I know) and also be capable of being put on the radio (and yes I know that songs made for the radio are optimized for a certian format which includes being heard on car speakers, which aren't all that also!). Anyway, any additional thoughts on this idea would be very much appreciated. Maybe there is an alternative method of portable, on-spot recording that doesn't compromise on quality?

thanks y'all

[rjt]

I believe that is a distinct possibility. I have most of the equipment needed to edit on the computer and will probably get a new sound card soon. My plan will be to record some accoustic stuff with a portable unit then dump some of it back into the computer for editing. If you have any interest in this, I am also checking out the Yamaha AW4416 which is due out in about a month. You can get an ADAT or Tascam adaptor which allows you to dump eight channels at a time into or out of the computer.

[Alan]

That would be a major advantage over the VS(lightpipe)and from the reviews so far the Yamaha looks very promising.

[fay pay lay]

What about using the ADAT setup as apposed to computer or DAW? The traditional ADAT setup be it 8, 16, 24, 32 tracks is pretty rock solid. Sure it's not linear but so what. All of that great music that you grew up to sounded fabulous. Guess what, it was all done on the ADAT format. Experts welcome to comment. Tell me what you think, ADAT, DAW, or computer? The choices the choices. HMMMMMMM

[euphonic]

I've greatly enjoyed all remarks; very educational, but could you get back to the virtues (or vices) of the roland vs stand alone DAW? The software pc/mac road is just
too complex for some of us.

[Jed]

I'm seriously considering getting a DAW here pretty soon and have eyeballed the Roland VS 1880. My question is about the sampling rate. I dont' know that much about how important sampling rate and bit depth are, but from what I understand at 44.1khz it's considered 'lossy', is that right? The VS1880 maxes out at 48 khz, which isn't much better. I'm just wondernig if it's even worthwhile to worry about bit depth and sampling rate for professional recording projects that may be distributed and or played on teh radio, any advice? Also what are the merits of the new Akai harddisk system which I understand is capable of 96 khz sampling rate? Thanks

[euphonic]

sampling rates may be the higher the better, but it like frequencies above 25k, who can hear them? and who could really tell between 44 48 96???? anyway check out the 4416 review someone blessed us with under the mackie hdr24/96 heading! I guess the mackie is slow in materalizing also! there's a lot of info in that review and a little more in the 4416 heading.

[Tunesmith48]

"sampling rates may be the higher the better, but it like frequencies above 25k, who can hear them?"

It's not so much hearing these ultra-high frequencies themselves but what having them there does to the entire waveform. There is some evidence that holding onto these high harmonics retains a more realistic waveshape and in effect sounds "more analog" or less "digital".

"and who could really tell between 44 48 96????"

Well I can for one, and I bet so could you. To my ears the difference between 44.1 and 48k is quite small but compare a 16 bit / 44.1k recording (the current CD standard) to a 24 bit / 96k recording (DVD audio) and the improvement is quite noticeable, mostly in the definition of individual instruments and voices. You'll never want to go back :-)

Other things being equal in this case more and higher is always better. But I'd always put my $$$ on older equipment and a more experienced operator than the other way around. Nothing beats a good pair of ears. TTFN.

[wink]

Hi Jed,

To follow-up on euphonic's message. The AW4416 is shipping now, but in short supply.

If your final destination is an audio CD, then I'd recommend you do all tracking, processing, and mixing at 24-bit/44.1k. Then dither the final stereo tracks down to 16-bit/44.1k. The higher sample rates require an enormous amount of disk space. It's generally accepted that 88.2k is better than 48k or 96k when sample rate conversion to 44.1k is required. I doubt you'll hear a difference between 44.1k and 48k, at least on the workstations mentioned. I also feel that 96k is more marketing than substance on this level of machine.

If you plan on making DVD's then ignore the above and I'll defer to others that engage in that activity.

As apersonal note: I bought one of the first VS-880's. It works great, but doesn't sound that great. I currently work with a Gadget Labs Wave 8/24 and Cool Edit 24-bit/44.1k. It sounds much better than the Roland unit. I've not heard the VS-1880, but for the money difference, you get a lot more machine with the AW4416. Of course your milage may vary.

Good luck!

Just waiting for my 4416 to arrive...

wink

[Xenon812]

I just got a VS-1680 slightly used (5 hours of time on it) with 2 effects cards for $1350.
The major reason I wanted one aside from the portability issues, is simply that I do have an IBM pc, and running Windows, it is not stable. I wanted a unit that was completely devoted to one thing...recording audio.
I do not have to tweak BIOS, I do not have to
worry about vcache or virtual memory settings, in short I don't have to waste my time with activity not related to recording.
With the VS-1680, I simply turn it on, plug something itno it and I am ready to record.

No muss, no fuss.

If I want to do something extreme to one of the tracks, or use some of the many plugins I have on my PC, I can always fly tracks to the PC, process them, and fly them back in to the Roland.

In my book, the Roland is the best thing I could have (since I CANNOT afford to own a real studio with a Neve or SSL console and $500,000 worth of outboard gear and microphones).

Just my 2 cents worth....

[mikesouthworth]

rgt,

If you haven't already bought a 1680, I am selling mine with 1 FX card and Burner.. low hours.. works great!

I'm asking $2000US

email me if intersted

m_southworth@hotmail.com

[rjt]

Opted for the AW4416. Like how it interfaces via adat lightpipe with Frontier Design cards.... 16 tracks back and forth if needed, in real time. Effects built in, and the biggest point, it "feels" like a real mixer when in the studio. Thanks to everyone for the input.

[mjp]

Please spare the Mac / PC crap. Everyone knows it is the operator of the system (ie you) rather than the system at this point in history. Read the instructions and take your time. There are thousands of stories on every f'ing forum with this same debate.

[mjp]

On a lighter note, with so many synths I would be surprised to see you wanting an audio only solution. The Roland is great, as is the Yamaha. I have used the Roland 880, 880EX and 1880 extensively, especially for remote tracking like you are talking about. However, I greatly prefer to ultimately transfer tracks to the computer for serious processing. You just can't get the level of flexibility and editing with stand alones that you can with computers. But if you don't need that sort of thing you will love the stand alone for ease and lack of occasional headaches. Every consider a laptop with an RME sound card? You could get the best of both worlds there. Current laptops are serious enough to do real mid size projects with mobility.

[euphonic]

WOW! I'm glad I revisited this topic! Sincere thanks to all of you for your input. It's a digijungle out there! It sounds like for simple high quality straight-in recording by expert players DAW is the nuts (especially out of the studio), but for more complex editing and fixes software reigns - just an observation.

[rjt]

That's pretty much how I would see it. Technology continues to improve and in the future either DAWs will offer easier upgrading and editing, or computers will be tiny and wireless so you can drag them anywhere.... until then, unhook 9 wires... take the AW into the piano room-record.... back into the studio and rehook the 9 wires... works for me!!!

[euphonic]

so is the 4416 everything you thought it would be? complex to operate? easy? clicks and pops? what are you using to edit; onboard or computer program? sorry in advance for the 20 ??????

[rjt]

It works very well for me and sounds great. Everything is pretty easy to figure out. I dump a couple of tracks... crude drums/bass into the AW from the computer, unplug it, record the piano and then dump the piano into the computer for editing. It serves as a "real" (real solid feeling) mixer when not being used as a recorder and records great! Others may have a different experience. It works for me!

[euphonic]

have you tried it(AW) yet for editing or is it just so much easier to PC edit? did you say you're using a pc and cakewalk to edit? Oh, and thanks!

[euphonic]

thanks!

[rjt]

I briefly tried editing on the AW, but it seemed to take forever... it is probably clumsy, but also reflectly my lack of familiarity with editing on it. After I dump it back to PC, I use (I know way too many) Cool Edit or Sound Forge to edit, Sonar to do midi parts and soft-synths and Vegas for multi-track mixing. It is a blast!

[euphonic]

thanks again; made written note of programs; think I'm headed toward the aw2816 to save a little dough and have more compact package; hope it's as good as the 4416. - best regards

[rjt]

Good luck. This combination has worked well for me because I need some form of portable recorder for the piano etc. Hope you have a great time and as much luck as I have had. Let us know how it turns out... Have fun!!

[Boray]

Hello!

I have not read all those replies :-) But I just want to say that I bought an used VS1680 with 2 effects cards and a CD-burner one year ago. The first thing I did was to update it with the latest system software (that is available for free on Roland's website). And I have updated it with a ultra silent 15GB fujitsu drive. I have used this machine heavily for one year now. Almost every day. And it has not ONCE crached or hanged. It's so increadibly stable! Who with a computer based system can say the same?

Kind Regards,
Anders Persson http://mp3.com/boray

[stratton]

Re:editing on the AW, it certainly could be better. You have to switch between two modes, playback and edit, to edit and hear the results. And, there is nothing like beings able to select a region with a mouse, drag and drop, etc.

That said, I have been completely satisfied with the edits I have done on the AW. No pos, clicks. Seamless edits. Unbelievable. But it does take some time selecting track or part, from track#, to track#, start loc, end loc, yikes!

But it loads a 1G song file without breathing hard and sounds great. I bought another AW4416, for a total of 32 tracks. Gotta have a fader for everything. I'll still rely on PC/SONAR for some audio stuff occasionally.

Good luck!

Stratton

[adrian2181]

I thick is great

I have the VSR-880 and it sound good

If i sell my VSR-880 then i will by the VS1880 or the VS2480

Originally posted by rjt:
I am seriously considering a Roland VS 1880, with two effects boards and CD Writer. Anyone have thoughts.... is this a good system, do you like it? Any strengths or weaknesses?

I have a mostly synth based studio with occasional accoustic piano thrown in. I have one keyboard and a couple of rack mounts. No effects processors and run Cakewalk on IBM.