2480 upgrade

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael.butler
  • Start date Start date
M

michael.butler

New member
I really want to get the vs 2480 upgrade which someone mentioned could be downloaded from the roland website. Problem is, I'm not too sharp when it comes to up and downloading stuff. From the looks of things, I need a zip drive. Right now all I have connected to the roland is a cd drive which I use for burning and backing up. Is there no way to get the upgrade using a pc and cd drive? These are, I'm sure remedial q's for the more computer savvy folks, but I'd love somenoe to walk me through this process as I'm really anxious for the upgrade.

thanks,
michael
 
If you give me your email address and tell me what software you use on your computer to burn CD's, then I'll email you an image file of the upgrade CD that I have. Just let me know!

Darth
 
cool

Darth,

Cool. I REALLY appreciate this. Adaptec is what I use to burn on my pc--direct cd wizard 2.5 D. I'll send you a private message w/ my email. Thanks a bundle.

michael
 
ya know one thing I noticed about my roland 1680 is that no matter what I do I get a crap sounding guitar if I plug it in direct. But since I ve been using pro tools free All I do is stick the guitar into my Soundblaster live $30.00 sound card and I get a really nice clean guitar. Why the heck is that?
You pay about $3295. for the 2480hd to get 24 tracks that roland still cant find enough faders in the factory to manage to actually put 24 faders on.
Or you pay $1200. for 24 tracks on protoolsfor digi-001. Plus even protools free sounds better than a VS.
 
Protools gives you no real faders...and you should almost never run a guitar direct and expect it to sound good...just my observations... :D
 
BUt the problem is...The roland is considered "amature Gear" It looks like a toy...and the sounds that it will give you sound like a toy. If the Free version of Pro Tools can give you a better sounding instrument...then what the heck are you spending all that money on?
to clarify the situation above...
I recorded my 1200 rickenbacker guitar with no direct box or preamp directly to the "High" quality (Hi-Z) input...No EQ...No Compression...no nothin...
Then...I recorded the same guitar with no direct box...preamp or EQ or Compression to my Pro Tools Free.
Let me say that the guitar on MY roland sounded like a $50.00 Kmart Special...And the guitar on the PRo Tools Free sounded like a $1200.00 Rickenbacker should sound...CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS???
 
MartyMcFly.

You sound like you're bias against the 2480 or any Roland product period.

You said... "The roland is considered "amature Gear" It looks like a toy...and the sounds that it will give you sound like a toy."

I'll put anything I've done on my 2480 up against anything done in Pro Tools (Professional or otherwise). Am I bosting, maybe. But if you can't get a good sound out of you're VS It's because you're so against it already.

You said.... "Let me say that the guitar on MY roland sounded like a $50.00 Kmart Special...And the guitar on the PRo Tools Free sounded like a $1200.00 Rickenbacker should sound...CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS???

Without knowing the process in which you tested this, no one can answer that.

If you don't like the VS, get rid of it. It's not for everyone. Hell, I've heard music recorded on 4-track that sounds better than some stuff recorded in Pro tools. It's all skill and your ability to adapt to what ever kind of gear you have.

My 2480 supports my family. I'll be moving my studio out of the house soon because the business is growing. If the sound quality was poor, I would not be doing as well as I am for sure.

Again, if you don't dig it, bury it. Just stick with your Pro Tools rig.

www.mp3.comjohnny_geib
www.sgrecording.com
 
I specifically registered with this site so that I could comment on MartyMcFly's post. Quite simply, you have no idea what you are doing with the equipment you own. If you did, you would know that you should never plug a guitar direct into any recording gear if you want it to sound halfway decent. Either use a POD or stick a 57 in front of your amp. Christ, I don't even play any instruments and I know that much. By the way the "Hi Z" input isn't "high quality", it's actually high impedance to accommodate the output of electric guitars.
 
I think you guys missed the point of my argument.
The reason I didnt want to use any comp, reverb, or anything while I did this test was that I didnt want the results to be colored by anything other than the machines(computers) ability to process that infromation and retain it. (this is the most basic form of signal i can think of at the moment)
Sure I know thats not the way to record guitar...but that wasnt the point.
First off the preamps in the Roland suck!...I know...Ive had a VS-880 and 1680. for about 3 years now. The reason I seem so against Roland recorders is that I wish I had known along time ago that they are inferior to PT. I know you're all thinking well just get a good preamp for the roland. But you shouldnt have to when you are getting an all in one unit.
The reference to my PT Free $0. sounding better than my $2000. Roland...that just testifies to the fact that a crappy little $30. soundblaster can get a better basic signal than an expensive VS.
 
Marty, as you know, I'm "pro" Pro Tools all the way ... but I don't think Roland's gear is just for amateurs. I've heard some nice stuff come off of these machines, and not just the 2480 but earlier ones like the 1680 ... see the other post floating around here, "can I get professional results with my 1680" or something like that. Victor Wooten ain't no slouch ... he recorded a Grammy-winning album on such a VS using JUST the internal effects??? Go to VSPlanet and find DrumKat's link to samples of his CD, recorded on an 880ex and mastered at Discmasters. Sounds fucking marvelous.

I would say going into the Roland and activating those pres in the slightest bit (you know, not having them turned all the way to the left) is going to give you unpleasant artifacts, especially in the 880s and1680s (I think I read even the 1880 has the same pres, but that the 2480s are better ... how much I can't say, no experience with them).

I am upgrading because I need more than my 880vx can give. I weighed the costs of going to an 1880 with all the expansion cards I could shove into it vs. going to an expandable Pro Tools LE setup. Because I'm getting a Factory setup for a great deal used, it's no contest in my situation ... and I like editing on a computer screen, and I'm recording parts of many of my sessions at a pro's PT TDM studio and the compatibility issue really wins me over ... but these aren't sound quality issues.

I think I suck at recording, being fairly new to attempting anything of quality (recorded on cassette 4-tracks for years ...). But earlier this year I recorded my band's demo, with severe limitations due to 4 inputs on the VS -- used the VS's reverb and compression, Pro Tools's EQ (which is much better imho) -- and people love this stupid demo. They want to buy it. One friend in media is trying to get a local commercial radio station to play it. I think I could've done so much better, but my point is, the average Joe doesn't seem to care that I really didn't want to use one large-diaphragm condenser for the whole drum kit AND the bass rig, that the timbale/conga player is overplaying, that I didn't like the tone I was getting out of the guitarist's amp ... they just don't care.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't when it comes to your own thing, of course, but I think the limitations aren't mostly with the gear ... they lie in "pilot error" and in how creative one is with resources they have.
 
Actually Geekgurl at the beginning of your post you mentioned that you see alot of those "can i get a good recording off a Roland" topics around here. I think there is a reason you see this alot.
I have a few friends around here that own some of these machines also and none of them are too happy with the whole package either. It must just be a local trend. I dont know.
 
Yeah, I agree, there's lots of those threads ...

I think people can get great sounds out of the VSs. Anyone who knows what he or she is doing can "work around" the weaknesses of the machine. And I think anyone who's got know-how can also get great results from the computer-based systems ...

But beginners, well -- pick your doom. The VS machines are easy -- all plug-and-play-like -- but as a novice I know I used a compressed mode, and I know I cranked those crappy preamps on occasion. This didn't get me the best results. I learned what NOT to do my making the mistakes first, mistakes that are irrelevant with many computer-based systems. I ended up finally getting decent results, but, well, even so I'm thinking the stuff I'm doing in PT is even better. Jury's still out, but I think that's what I'm hearing ...

I think computer-based systems, though harder to learn, do inherently provide for better sound quality, SB cards notwithstanding. But people have to get past the learning curve. This can lead to creative paralysis, or worse, throwing a perfectly good computer out a 5th story window when it crashes for the 32d time. (arbitrary numbers, pick YOUR favorite if you like.)

So that's why I think we see a lot of "can by VS sound good?" threads. It's easy to get started on them; but you have to make the right choices with signal chain and initial session setup to get actually GOOD results. I no longer use MT1, which means, when I use my VS880, I only get 6 tracks before I have to bounce.

It's just no longer worth it to me; I use the computer for most things now. But, others do great stuff with the VS series. They either have better/later models, are better at engineering than me, or both.
 
I use the 48/MAS mode and spdif the six tracks to my computer as they are. Seems to sound pretty good. One of the reasons I first got a VS880EX was because it was used to produce some good sounding movie music. Garbage in-garbage out.
 
High !

At first one thing: I do NOT wanna insult sb. there ARE reasons not to use the VSs...

IMO, one problem with the roland gear is (besides its REAL limitations) that you have to be a rather theoretical acting human to be able to work with the machines. There's such a lot of things where numbers have to be entered after stepping through endless menus... But I somehow like this way of working... I AM rather theoretical - when it came to standard dancing, I first had to understand the steps to be able to start ;).

So some people who don't understand what their doing play a little around with the VS, compare this to a PC-based thing where you can edit dynamics curves a.s.o.
the first time I really used compression, it was on a PC and I used such a soft knee, that I didn't even need to understand bout attack/release and it sounded quite nice. At that time I almost sold my VS, as I though it sounded shit. I still don't LIKE the sound of the VS comps, but at least I can get on with them if I have to. (Though I prefer my outboard triple C). A REAL limitation IMO is the fact that the smaller machines have only 8 scenes and no channel dynamics. This is just one thing that favours the yamaha machines for me now... Perhaps I might buy one ;)

I'm not perfectly sure whether this NO-MT1-hype makes always sense... I did some recordings in MT1 (simply NEED the tracks - don't wanna bounce me to death) and in our punk rock band, it sounded nice. But I tried to avoid re-recording more than one instrument. So I would not really notice any sound degradation... May be different with different styles.

BTW: go to the yamaha forum, look around and you will have the same questions. People doubt there the same way as on VSplanet whether it will, even wiht outboard gear be POSSIBLE to get recordings that sound like 'bought cds' (or they call it 'pro sound' what I don't like cause not a pros are REALLY better than the amateurs). A lot of people seem to live in a world of dreams, buy this machine and think they will be famous recording engineers. This won't work so they doubt whether it's POSSIBLE to do good sounding records on these machines. Some people even seems to WANT to be unable to do great records with these machines as then they can argue that it is NECESSARY to buy a newer bigger machine to be able to do better stuff... (Oops that is something I might be thinking subconsciously, too :D)

So IMO the things that count are rather: how DIFFICULT is it to get good sounding recordings from that machine...


BTW: I work with computers the whole day, don't wanna work with them in the nights, too :D

Ciao

Axel
 
Last edited:
High!

Yeah that's my problem, I'm not very authentic ;)

That's why I'm more in the fun punk/melodic punk than into the 'real' political punk direction :D

As I saw in a forum that there is a musical direction that is 'christian punk' I might be the inventor of a 'decent punk' or 'square punk' hype. Yeah, hopefully :D

Ciao

Axel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top