DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

Shootout Time !!!!!
1. Sound Quality?
2. Value?
3. Performance?
4. Reliablity/ Stability?

Listen up Digi?

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

As with opinions & *********s (as my pappy always said) everyone has one and I'd say for portability, EFX+expansion options (mostly the Apogee cards), I'd go with the Yamaha.
Since I got my mac with Toolbox installed, if I ever "upgrade", I'll just shell out the dough for TDM over the 001 for obvious reasons.
However, the Roland does seem like a killer little box, but I've been lucky enough to work on the new Yamaha PM1D and have used several O2R's over the years (plus owning many Yamaha EFX boxes) and I "know" those systems.

So for me, I'd obviously shell out a little more cash for the Yamaha, just because I know I could immediately put it to work once I opened the box.

My $.02

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

Personally, I'm using a Roland VS880EX with the Digi 001. Couldn't be happier. Lots of flexibility and I can track in the control room (my only room) acoustically with the computer off. Sound quality is a moot point.
My current project was originally recorded on a Sony MD4 mkII, bounced to CD, bounced to
VS880EX, synced to emagic Logic for adding the Midi tracks and finally all bounced to ProTools. It sounds fantastic and if you think about what's happened to some of the tracks ( mini Disk compression/atrac and Roland compression MT1) it shouldn't sound this good. Point being all this gear is capable of a pro sound. Aim at the noise, get a good hot signal and go for it.

If the finances are there I'd get an 8 track VS machine (they have advantages) and the Digi 001. If not, and the computer noise is not an issue I'd get the Digi 001 first.

Just my .02 [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Bassart ]

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

I'd also say get the Digi001. I was a VS-880 user for years, and though I loved it, now that I'm using the 001 and PTLE and have no idea how I ever got along without them. Look at it this way, for less than half the price of the Roland or Yamaha, you still get 24 tracks, but you also get the huuuge editing power and ease of using PTLE. You also get a decent MIDI sequencer if that matters.

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

Sorry for Cliche, but you are comparing apples and oranges. AW4416 would be perfect for someone who loves audio, but fears/hates/can't afford/ doesn't have patience for computers. Let us not forget - PT starts with the software. To me, the VS and Yamaha stuff functions, or feels like a small analog studio. PT is computer stuff...

Two Different environments - It's all up to the user

Andy O.

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

Some other things to think about when comparing the two...

The Roland has an SVGA and mouse output...a big plus, IMHO. And LogicVS can be a really sweet control option for many VS units.

The Roland file system is proprietary...the only way to add existing files (other than recording new tracks) is to fly them in, in real time playback, preferably on lightpipe. I have a friend with a 1680 and another with an 1880. The 1880 tracks are not compatible even with the 1680, or so they tell me.

The Yamaha has a provision for a DSP card loaded with juicy Waves plugs.

I have heard opinions both that the Roland converters are just below and just above the 001 converters in quality, so apparently they are similar...good, not great. I've heard that the Yamaha converters are similar to the 02R converters, which may not be quite as good as the Rolands. The O2R's are supposed to be 20 bit converters, however, while I guess the AW converters are 24 bit, so that may be apples and oranges.

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

bounce88 said... "I was a VS-880 user for years, and though I loved it, now that I'm using the 001 and PTLE and have no idea how I ever got along without them"

I was a VS 880 user and still own and use a VS 1680 but once I bought the digi and PTLE I realized I had been playing with musicians toys and had graduated up to a professional tool. I echo the comment about not knowing how I got along without PTLE.

Thomcat said.. "The 1880 tracks are not compatible even with the 1680, or so they tell me."

Actually they are compatible with the exception of the extra two tracks in the 1880. And 880 tracks are compatible with 1680 & 1880 with the exception of the extra FX sends and the extra tracks as well. It's kinda like moving from PT Free to PTLE and then to PT TDM. Compatible yes, but awkward and unhandy.

ThomCat also said... "The Roland has an SVGA and mouse output...a big plus, IMHO. And LogicVS can be a really sweet control option for many VS units."

My biggest gripe with any of the VS units was their lack of some type of video output. I'm glad to see them adress that with the 2480 and of course you can do almost as much automation in a VS 1680 / 1880 as you can in protools, but it's all done with menu scrolling and track selecting buttons and is a horrible pain in the rear. If the 1680 had been given a mouse with point and click editing and automation programming I probably wouldn't have moved to PTLE as soon as I did.

Oh yeah and the Logic VS thing. Good Idea on Roland's part, but it uses midi sysex to transfer info from the VS to the PC. It's slow and painful. I quit using mine within two days after I loaded it and learned how to run it. Then I tried the $300 + Datasonics software which was prettier and more graphically pleasing, and tho it was a lot more functional it was equally as disapointing because of it's slow speed. in order to edit audio it must first load all the audio from the VS into your PC. and since it loads thru SYSEX it does it in real time only. One Track at a time. Which means to load a 4 minute song with 10 tracks, be prepared to wait 40 minutes just to get the waves loaded. then if you make an edit and tell it to save it, you get to wait for the editted track to reload itself... again in real time... ARGEHHHhhh So when someone showed me PTLE and the digi system it took about a half a second for me to decide.

I'm not sure what the 2480 is using for an interface on it's video screen but since it will be operating the system in real time it's got to be miles ahead of logic VS or Datasonics.

As for the converters??? I believe the VS oncverters and the Digi001 converters are comparable but certainly different. I still use our 1680 to do remote recordings with. We put a Mackie 1642 VLZPro mixer in front of it and use the 8 direct outs from the 8 VLZ pre's to feed the VS it's 8 tracks of simultaneous record.

Then we fly the VS Tracks into PT thru the optical cable .... yes two at a time... but we get some pretty good sounding results.

Now I understand that with the new 2480 and a Roland RBus converter you can get 8 tracks of lightpipe in and out of a VS. I wish they had thought of that with the 1680 or 1880 too, but no RBUS connector on them.

I'm not really familiar with the Yammie box but it seems like a very nice machine that is comparable to if not a little more flexible than the VS 2480, but my guess is sonically the results will be similar. So between those two it would be a question of desirable features.

Digi001 and PTLE though are a completely different animal and I wouldn't even put them in the same class. As I said... Professional tools against pricey toys.
[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Re: DIGI 001 VS ROLAND 2480 VS YAMAHA AW4416
 

Stan...after your explanation of your experiences with VS I should probably re-evaluate my characterization of the VS option as "sweet". That innocent adjective now seems entirely innapropriate in light of your horror story. Thanks for giving us the real scoop on VS. Nice post.

I'm probably equally uninformed about the compatibility of 1680/1880's, but my two musician friends could not open existing 1680 sessions ported to an 1880 in order to do overdubs on the 1880, and then reopen the sessions ported back to the 1680. While this may be possible, they could not make it happen. I probably should have explained this a little better.

Even so, the only way I can import my SDII finished tracks into a 1680 session is to fly them in two at a time and then expend a lot of energy lining everything back up. I haven't done this to date, but plan to, and I worry that there may also be timing problems on longer tracks using this approach. I feel that file compatibility is the achilles heel of the Roland units, and I also feel that full backward compatibility with at least with all VS systems should be a no-brainer. That it's not is ludicrous.