vs1680 compressed or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter basscee
  • Start date Start date
B

basscee

New member
im contemplating buying a vs1680 but iwas told it is compressed now im mostly an analog guy i like the natural sound i like the music and sound to breath but i was told the 1680 could not give me that becos its compressed. i was also told the later versions r uncompressed.(1680ex? or 1880?) i would like to know the advantages or disadvantagesof compression .i might be doin post production in a bigger studio as well .or if i should just go buy another brand instead. my budget is $1000
thanks in advance all. stay blessed
 
Yes, their is data compression on pretty much all of the VS units. Personally, I don't think that it has a negative impact on the sound, especially if you are comparing it to consumer level Analog tape devices. I use the boss br-8 which has more compression than most of the higher end VS and I've been totally happy with the sound. The primary reason for the compression is to increase the amount of music that you are able to record and store on your machine. If you want more info, you may want to check:

http://www.vsplanet.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi

This site is dedicated to VS recorders and has lots of helpful people.

Good luck,
Mark
 
vs1680 compressed?

I also hear in MAS mode it becomes uncompressed, is that true and how does it affect the sound when i intend to use a larger studio for post prod.? thanx
 
Yes, I believe you are correct that MAS mode is uncompressed. I think that usually requires you to work with less time/tracks than is normally available, but it gets rid of any compression issues.

I don't see why the compression would have any impact on post production work. If the recording sounds good on the VS, that will translate to any post work that is done. If it sounds bad on the VS, well... ;)

Remember that when you take it to a studio, you probably won't be taking it in its native VS format. You will need to mix down to DAT, CD or Tape at which point how it was recorded should not have any impact on what the post production facility can do. Hope this helps.
 
I have a VS1880...

The compression is data compression, not audio compression. On analog, you have audio compression because of tape saturation. The compression used on the VS is not loss-less. This means that there is a difference between the noncompressed data and the compressed.

Don't know it the mtp-mode (think it's mtp instead of mas...) has compression. However, this is the best quality, and it still leaves me with more than enough diskspace. Occasionally. (After I did a backup that is. :D )

For porting this to a studio... Well. The VS definately is not the right tool to do that... If you want to transfer your tracks digitally, you have to do it 2 tracks at a time. Analog you can go up to 8 tracks, but it will still require 2 runs...

See what you really want to do. The VS is a nice tool for making demo's and such, but I don't think taking the tracks you recorded to a pro studio will give you alot of satisfaction. If you wanna go that way, consider other options. Maybe a used ADAT? That will ofcourse leave you without the digital mixer with automation and build in effects... There are also some nice 'cheap' 24-track (Mackie HDR2496, Alesis HD24) recorders these days.

These kinda standalone recorders (Adat's, HDR, HD24...) are perfect to take to a studio, or make live recordings etc...
 
My opinion......I'd get the Yamaha aw4416 or 2816. I used to own the VS 1680 and thought it was great, but when I got the yamaha I was totally wowed by the difference in sound quality
 
Just looked into the yamaha 4416... This is definately better. Record up to 16 tracks simultanious, 4 band fully parametric eq and dynamics (?) on each channel. And then there's the I/O cards. COOL!! You can even put apogees in it. Get a digital output card and you're on your way to the studio. ALOT better than the rolands, if you look at possibilities. Don't know about sound quality...

And... motorized faders. aaaah... :eek:
 
Hey Roel...The sound quality of the AW4416 really is a heap better than that of the 1680...since owning the 4416 my recordings have sounded an absolute shitload better. The pres are all of good quality, and the converters are great. Dynamics on EVERY channel as opposed to tying up a compressor on the FX card. EQ on the outputs is also a handy thing
Link:D
 
If you are going to spend the money for a 4416, I would look into the 2480 first. It has uncompressed modes. You also have 24 tracks compressed at your disposal if you want it.

The data compression thing is not really an issue. Some people actually prefer the sound of the compressed mode. They say it sounds "warmer". This guy here records exclusively in compressed mode:

http://www.kopperhead.com/2480.html

Check out his studio. He's no bottom feeder.

The 2480 sounds substantially better than the 1680, mainly due to internal processing. People who transferred projects from the 1680 to the 2480 have been impressed with difference in sound quality just from loading it onto the 2480.

Taylor
 
Dewwwd,it's like $1500 more than the 2816,and then you still gotta buy their CD burner,I mean let's get real here!
 
virtual.ray said:
Dewwwd,it's like $1500 more than the 2816,and then you still gotta buy their CD burner,I mean let's get real here!
Click to expand...
OK, let's get real,

If you will notice the posts prior to my post, the context of the conversation had turned to the AW4416. The street price for the 2480 now is right at $3,000. Some have even bought it for slightly under.

I'm not exactly sure what the AW 4416 is going for right now, but I would venture a guess that it is within $500 of the 2480. If it were me, I would get the 2480, even if I had to wait and save a few more duckies.

The original poster is not within range of any of these machines, the 2816 included, according to his original post. He said he has about a grand to play with. I think that makes his logical choice a 1680 or 1880. I think he can find a used machine in that range. But that's just my opinion. Others may vary.

If I were him, I would talk to people who are using these machines professionally, and get their input. You can e-mail the guy with the studio in the link I gave you, and he will probably be happy to help. He is a really nice guy. And, if you'll notice, he has two 1680's sitting there in his studio, linked up to the 2480.

You are correct about the CD burner issue. However, it is not necessary to purchace the proprietary burner. Almost any Plextor drive will work. These can be had cheaper than the Roland units, and can be picked up pretty cheap used. Ebay is a good resource for them.

Zeke
 
can you hear it

HI people, all the talk about what is better I just dont Know but I have an 1880 and have great results ,after 20 years being recorded in studios by the pro's Irealy think the rolands sound great. But i will sterss that with good recording technique even a tascam 4 track from the 80's can get you great results.As always the trick is not comp verses uncomp or roland verses yammy its what you put in and weather you like it or not.I'm in austrailia and we have had a few bands get no:1 hits with 4 track machines(flowers , Icant help myself) or even the whitlams who recorded their first record on some small and cheap machine(the name of wich escapes me for now) and were massive but with the second album had budget,budget,budget and over 160 tracks on some songs but failed to get half the sales of the first record. I say spend half of your money on a machine and the other half on a good mic to capture the magic . this may not answer the question but it may help with better recordings for the money.
 
Re: can you hear it

rocky outcrop said:
But i will sterss that with good recording technique even a tascam 4 track from the 80's can get you great results.As always the trick is not comp verses uncomp or roland verses yammy its what you put in and weather you like it or not.I'm in austrailia and we have had a few bands get no:1 hits with 4 track machines(flowers , Icant help myself) or even the whitlams who recorded their first record on some small and cheap machine(the name of wich escapes me for now) and were massive but with the second album had budget,budget,budget and over 160 tracks on some songs but failed to get half the sales of the first record.
Click to expand...
Very well stated outcrop.

Your reasoning is sound, sir. I hate it when people start trashing the Roland machines because of data compression. I'm sure you can get "professional" results from any of these machines, or even from any of the different media. Goodness, hit records have been recorded on cassette multi-trackers. (Bruce Springsteen)

I would be interested to know who is using some of the different brands professionally, and what their results are. If anyone knows who's using some of the other brands like Yammie, Korg, Akai, etc. etc. please post the information. I would like to hear about it. I'm sure they are being used, I'm just not aware of who is using them.

I know that a Grammy nominated Jazz album was recorded on a VS1680. George Lynch (Dokken) is working on his new solo album and was recording it on a 1680, now he's dumped it to the 2480. You can read about it here:

http://www.rolandus.com/USERS/RUG/RUG.HTM

With these machines, our only limitations is really ourselves, as rocky outcrop so plainly stated. Take in all the information you can, and then make a decision. I bought a VS-2480. I could have had anything I wanted as far as the all-in-one DAW's go. I thought about even waiting for the AKAI DPS24, but after talking with some people who really know their stuff, I decided the Roland machine was for me. I couldn't be happier with my choice. I love it, and the support from Roland has been A-1 IMO.

The Roland may not be for everybody. They may do better with one of the other brands. But don't make you decision based upon the sound quality of the Roland unit. You will have a powerful little machine in your hands if you decide on it, and your only limitations, as rocky alluded to, will only be your own skill level. And that's the fun part. Everytime you learn something new, everytime you get a better sound, to make your recordings sound better, it's really a thrill.

Taylor
 
I agree that engineering is really the crux of recording. BUT I used to own a VS1680, and now onw a 4416, and my mixes have improved. I cant explain it, I just think the sound going into the machine is a lot clearer and better than that of the rolands (preamps are better methinks)

But as Rocky said, A good engineer will pull good sound from any system (providing they know how to use it)
 
Link said:
...I used to own a VS1680, and now onw a 4416, and my mixes have improved. I cant explain it, I just think the sound going into the machine is a lot clearer and better than that of the rolands (preamps are better methinks)
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't argue the fact that the 4416 is an inferior machine to the 1680. If I had to choose between the two I would choose the Yammie.

I did make the choice between the Yammie, the 2480, and everything else available within the same range. I could have even waited on the AKAI DPS24. I chose the 2480. I'm very happy with my choice. Others may go another route and be equally happy.

It is still my OPINION, that the logical choice, within the price range of the original poster, is the 1680 or 1880. They are good little machines and some impressive work has been done on them.

I agree that the preamps, while useable, aren't the greatest. That can always be rectified later with an outboard pre. I'm sure that anyone doing serious work on any of these machines is using outboard preamps and/or dynamics. I plan on getting some outboard preamps in the future, even though the preamps on the 2480 are greatly improved over the 1x80.

I'm curious, does anyone have any suggestions on a better route the original poster might take? How would you spend your $1,000 for an all-in-one DAW? I would go straight to eBay and look for a deal on a 1x80. I'm interested to hear of other approaches though.

Zeke
 
.....splitting hairs.....

Sometimes I like to play the devil's advocate.

About 100 years ago, there was no such thing as audio recording. The art and science of recording has obviously come quite a distance since the wax cylinder. Just in the past decade, amazing changes have taken shape as digital technologies weave their way into the audio spectrum. What makes a good recording is not simply high fidelity, however.

The root of a good recording, is having something that's worth listening to more than once. Then you need to capture whatever it is that makes those sounds special. That might be anything from a $10 tape deck to $1,000,000's of dollars of high tech microphones, processors, mixers, etc... What you can do in a home studio these days with *any* digital recorder is pretty impressive, if you use the equipment to it's full potential.

Now back to what another poster was asking (I think the original question has been well answered by now) is anyone using Korg, Akai, Roland, etc for "professional" projjects? And if so, will you share some experiences?

-Shaz
 
If everyone reads the original post youll see he said his budget was about a thousand dollars.Somehow this thread has evolved into a discussion of what is best iregardless of budget.I dont believe $1000 will get you a 2480 or a 4416 so I dont see the relevance to his question.Roland does use a compression scheme but at the higher quality recording modes it sounds pretty darn good.I dont believe MAS mode is compressed however.I have a VSR 880 and it has a R-Buss connector that you can use to transfer 8 tracks at a time to a computer with a R-Buss sound card.I am not sure if the 1680 has the R-Buss though.Otherwise you have to transfer 2 tracks at a time through S/PDIF although if you sync the too its not that much of a hassle.If you get a CD burner for the Roland you dont have to go through a computer at all unless you want to edit on the computer.I have a friend who used the 1680 for a couple of years and he loved it,although he has now upgraded to the 2480(nice if you got the bucks).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top