Roland M 480 Reviews?

[Chris Chapman]

Hi all. Just finished a forum search that came up pretty empty regarding thoughts on the Roland M 480 Console? It is in contention with a couple of other boards for me to replace my ancient Analog Board. I saw one posting where someone commented that it "wasn't pro."

I'm looking for a Digital Board that has a pretty clean UI. I would normally go with an LS9 as my first option, but am not too thrilled with the interface.

Thoughts?

 

[DaveySimps]

Just curious what you specifically dislike about the LS9? Their interfaces are very similar. When we were shopping a couple of years back, I looked at both, and much preferred the LS9 over the Roland. The LS9 had better suited features for us. Also, the sound of the LS9 better than the Roland. That was once comment all of us made during our shoot out of the boards we had.

~Dave

 

[Chris Chapman]

My only real issue with the LS9 UI is the depth of page flipping you have to do sometimes. I haven't gotten my hands on an M 480 to compare it too. In some ways it's apples an oranges. With an M7 there isn't quite as much page flipping in the UI. But right now the M7 option is raising my Audio Upgrade budget by about $3700. I also have a footprint issue to deal with too. (sigh)

 

[DaveySimps]

Depending on exactly how you will use it, there is a lot you can do to eliminate the "paging" through things by using the user defined keys and through using Studio Manager. That is the one of the drawbacks from getting so much processing in such a small footprint. For what it is worth, I had some people that were dead set against learning the board, but are now HUGE fans of it now that they are use to it. I have found that when training college and high school students that they pick it up rather quickly.

~Dave

 

[Stookeybrd]

I hate it(for theater).

Everything is plastic. Now, I do know that the LS9 and similarly priced options are plastic as well, but the build quality could trick you. With the Roland you know that it is cheap made faders, encoders and buttons. Everything wiggles and stretches when you use them, very Fisher Price. I mix theater line-by-line and don't always throw faders perfectly down the path, but usually have resistance from the fader to keep my hand straight. With the Roland, my finger would occasionally catch the neighboring fader because I could wiggle it so much.

The DSP is way under spec'd for 48 channels. After about 20 inputs with effects returns, compressors, and gates on most channels we noticed a change in the sound. After 40 channels it was obvious and the console was VERY digital sounding. It took on qualities of cheap digital gear we all hate; harsh and tinny with some clocking issues.

The onboard effects are okay. The compressors do fine with a little tickle now and then but once you push them hard they begin to crackle and really degrade the signal. The delays sounded great on a money channel, but if tried to use them to time align a system, again the audio quality would drop.

The user defined keys are on the 'dashboard' rather than on the surface. Not a huge issue for bands and the like, but when there are cues in the middle of a theatrical song, not being able to just slide over and hit the button by feel is annoying. On top of that, the buttons demand so much force to push that it takes an extra second to make sure your finger is squarely placed. A little thing, I wish the Scene 'next' and and 'back' buttons were below the 'store' and 'recall' on the surface.

If you have channel 1 selected and you page to the 25-48 layer, channel 25 is now selected. That took some getting used too, I'd prefer it keep channel 1 selected to tweak or unselect it when I page off the layer. If Matrix 1 is selected and you select Matrix 3, they are now both selected. You must unselect Matrix 1 and then select Matrix 3 which is very annoying.

And last but not least, the worst function I have ever seen on any console(Midas, you're guilty of this too): the stereo mute button. It's two or three inches above the master fader so it won't be accidentally brushed, but there is no reason to have that on the console surface to begin with. i've nick-named it the "Get Fired Button."

The only saving grace in the entire console are the digital snake options. For that price point, I don't believe any other manufacture offers digital snakes. However, like everything else, you get what you pay for. Almost forgot, the 4-band parametric EQ is also nice at this price point. I believe the LS9 only has 2-band.

 

[Dionysus]

I've used the M 480 for Live Sound only (Goderich Celtic College Teacher Concerts and Celtic Roots Festival), and agree that "you get what you pay for". For its price its' a reasonable desk, mainly given the digital snake options of the V system.

I remember there being a thread with various revues, experiences and such on the M480 along with some comparisons to other consoles. It did not seem to pop up on a search, the keywords seem to of not cooperated. I think it was about this time last year. I think I'll continue looking for it, to link to you.

Anyways you do have a few pages to go through for some things, but it's not nearly to the point as many other consoles. The controls aren't fantastic, but they aren't bad, and its fairly easy.
You have to watch your gain I noticed, and aim lower than you would usually (with analog) as some frequencies will "clip" before your overall of the channel will.
The Built in effects are OK, but really not that great. Last time I used an M480 I was happy I had an M-ONE handy.

One handy element of the M480 is the computer interface. I like to have a laptop nearby to do some of the stuff on, like labeling channels (WITH A KEYBOARD WOW!) or while mixing, to have my Output EQs up on the laptop with channels up on the main console.

A touchscreen would be HANDY for this console, but it does not have it (couldn't at the pricepoint).

All in all, it's still a ROLAND. Enough said I think, its OK, but certainly not great in any way.

I wouldn't also really recommend this console for music-theatre. It'd do the job, but then again not more than pretty much any console.

 

[TimmyP1955]

My only real issue with the LS9 UI is the depth of page flipping you have to do sometimes. I haven't gotten my hands on an M 480 to compare it too. In some ways it's apples an oranges. With an M7 there isn't quite as much page flipping in the UI.

I'd like to hear your specific complaints here, as I don't find this to be the case.

 

[TimmyP1955]

Almost forgot, the 4-band parametric EQ is also nice at this price point. I believe the LS9 only has 2-band.

On the channels, the LS9 has 4 band plus a variable HPF. The Low band can be peaking or shelving. The High band can be peaking, shelving, or LPF. On the outputs it's the same except you don't get the dedicated HPF - but the Low band can be one.

 

[Chris Chapman]

I'd like to hear your specific complaints here, as I don't find this to be the case.

My issue is I'm stepping up from Analog boards to digital and am in the process of learning the UI. It's a noob thing with me & digital boards. By this time next year I'll laugh about it.

 

[stephanie]

My issue is I'm stepping up from Analog boards to digital and am in the process of learning the UI. It's a noob thing with me & digital boards. By this time next year I'll laugh about it.

Our theater just bought an LS9. Our Soundcraft died and we had rented the 16 channel version to limp through the last few dance recitals. There is a slight learning curve- very slight. So far I've been able to muddle my way through with very few issues. It's gotten rid of the need for our compressors. I've gone digital and will never go back to analog!

 

[Stookeybrd]

On the channels, the LS9 has 4 band plus a variable HPF. The Low band can be peaking or shelving. The High band can be peaking, shelving, or LPF. On the outputs it's the same except you don't get the dedicated HPF - but the Low band can be one.

Ah, excuse me for the clumsy language. The M480 has four bands of full parametric equalization, in addition to a HPF. The LS9 only has two bands of fully parametric equalizations and two shelves, and a dedicated HPF. In this respect only, the M480 is superior.

 

[SHARYNF]

Ah, excuse me for the clumsy language. The M480 has four bands of full parametric equalization, in addition to a HPF. The LS9 only has two bands of fully parametric equalizations and two shelves, and a dedicated HPF. In this respect only, the M480 is superior.

THIS IS NOT CORRECT, SOME MISUNDERSTANDING HOW THE PARAMETRIC EQ WORKS

This versatile 4-band fully parametric EQ section affords extraordinary control and quality for all inputs and buses, and includes a variable HPF filter. You can directly control the Q, frequency, and gain of each band from the encoders, or move the cursor to an EQ parameter and hit the [ENTER] key to access the wide-range attenuator, and see a larger graphic representation of the EQ curve.

Sharyn

 

[museav]

My issue is I'm stepping up from Analog boards to digital and am in the process of learning the UI. It's a noob thing with me & digital boards. By this time next year I'll laugh about it.

Moving to a digital board is not inherently 'stepping up'. It may be eliminating outboard gear, adding scene store and recall or adding some other functionality that simplifies or enhances operation, but I would look at it more as a change than a step up especially as at least for 'entry level' digital consoles there are often compromises and well as benefits involved.

 

[FMEng]

Moving to a digital board is not inherently 'stepping up'. It may be eliminating outboard gear, adding scene store and recall or adding some other functionality that simplifies or enhances operation, but I would look at it more as a change than a step up especially as at least for 'entry level' digital consoles there are often compromises and well as benefits involved.

Well said. Analog consoles are hardly a step down. In fact, they have some positive attributes that digital will never have. As for sound quality, both technologies can be competitive, and there are bad examples from both types. I would venture to say that at the low end of the cost scale, analog will always sound superior.

 

[Chris Chapman]

Moving to a digital board is not inherently 'stepping up'. It may be eliminating outboard gear, adding scene store and recall or adding some other functionality that simplifies or enhances operation, but I would look at it more as a change than a step up especially as at least for 'entry level' digital consoles there are often compromises and well as benefits involved.

I meant stepping up in how the operator interacts with the board. Most Digital Boards have a control surface that deals with channels in such a different way that in moving from digital from analog is a learning curve step up. On an analog board all of the info on that channel (Gain, EQ, Aux Sends, Pre/post fade level, etc.) are all right there. In many digital boards it's digging through the UI to get to all of the info per channel.

My facility is stuck with a few "design choices" that I'm not going to overcome with this upgrade. Going to a digital board will give me added flexibility with some of the particulars of how our facility works.

 

[DuckJordan]

Are you the only one who will be using this board? Cause the issues you are bringing up are likely to be the same with a different person. I myself have never worked a digital sound console and I am betting I (even though I am very computer orientated) would have a ton of issues switching the two views over. I am a firm believer in physical sliders and buttons and it seems more and more are trying to eliminate some of the things I prefer such as potentiometer nobs instead of virtual controls.

 

[TimmyP1955]

Ah, excuse me for the clumsy language. The M480 has four bands of full parametric equalization, in addition to a HPF. The LS9 only has two bands of fully parametric equalizations and two shelves, and a dedicated HPF. In this respect only, the M480 is superior.

You are incorrect. Please re-read my description of the LS9 EQ. (I left off the fact that when in peaking mode, the low and high also have Q controls like the mids.)

 

[Chris Chapman]

Are you the only one who will be using this board? Cause the issues you are bringing up are likely to be the same with a different person. I myself have never worked a digital sound console and I am betting I (even though I am very computer orientated) would have a ton of issues switching the two views over. I am a firm believer in physical sliders and buttons and it seems more and more are trying to eliminate some of the things I prefer such as potentiometer nobs instead of virtual controls.

We're an educational space and I need to get 21st Century Gear into students hands. But I know what you mean.

 

[museav]

We're an educational space and I need to get 21st Century Gear into students hands. But I know what you mean.

Actually, this is an aspect that seems to have two sides and is something about which I have had some college instructors express some misgivings.

It is great to be able to offer the opportunity for students to learn 'state of the art' technology, however that is not necessarily what they will encounter if they move on, either in college or professionally. The feedback I've received is that too often students know how, or think they know how, to operate digital consoles but do not have a solid understanding of the basics such that they cannot work effectively with anything else. Right now many mixing opportunities are still going to involve analog mixers, so while it is advantageous to be familiar with both analog and digital mixers, I think it is often much easier to take someone who has only worked with analog and move them to digital then it is to go in the other direction.

A recent example of this was someone looking to purchase a digital console because it came with a library of channel processing presets which they felt could then allow their operators to apply processing without having to actually learn or understand anything about it. That may be an immediate advantage to them but it also means that the operators will not be learning the underlying basics and thus will not be able to work with any mixer that does not have that same capability.

A very specific example is that I learned to make Reverberation Time measurements using a noise source and a strip chart recorder, which gave a graphic depiction of the decay of the noise source from which one manually calculated the RT60. Because of this, to me reverberation has always related to a decay curve and not just a single number, a critical aspect to understanding room acoustics yet one that escapes many for whom RT has always been a single value that some of the newer measurement tools provides even without their understanding how that number is derived or what it represents.

So while the new technology is great and simplifies things, it can also eliminate some of the education and understanding that may have been associated with older technology. The challenge seems to be to take advantage of what new technology offers without letting it replace learning the underlying fundamentals.

 

[declan]

I own the M-480, and have used the yamaha consoles many times.

They're both quite nice. Never heard any audio issues with either anytime, they both work fine when the dsp is run hard (all channels busy) or not. I must say that if anyone was to release a console that had issues AT ALL when it was run hard, they would be in trouble. I've never had an issue with the M-400 console I had owned for the last 2 years, or my new M-480 console, or any of the ones I've sold to my clients - ever!

The biggest differences between the Roland M-480, and the Yamaha LS-9 are:

* Without using any sort of effects insert: the LS-9 has the ability to do 2 comps per channel (or 2 gates, or de-esser, or whatever) and the M-480 can only do 1 comp and 1 gate per channel. The M-480 does not seem to have a de-esser yet.

* The street cost of the M-480 with it's built in digital snake, is about $3000 - $3500 less than the LS-9 with it's digital snake option. (for an apples to apples comparison). Of course the LS-9 is much less the the M-480 because of it's built in analog front end.

* The M-480 has the M-48 personal mixers perfectly integrated into it, it even has the ability to use one as an "engineers monitor" to be able to remotely help someone in the band get settings dialed in by the engineer. You can save and recall all the settings of each m-48 independantly, and recall them to any other unit, or recall to a different location if the way things were plugged in are different. Each M-48 can be assigned any of 40 possible channels to any of it's 16 stereo channels independently of any other unit, so you don't have to force everyone to use the same channels in the same order. I think it's totally safe to say that the M-48's blow the aviom stuff out of the water, both sonically, functionally, and in terms of $ (when used with in-ear wireless systems)

Both systems can handle high channel counts, LS9-32 (64 channels max) and the M-480 (60 channels max) out of a possible 80 addressable.

No touch screens on both, the menus are not as deep, and there are more buttons/knobs on the M-480 than the LS-9.

I know the M-480 can record 2-track to a usb stick, so does the LS-9 I believe.

The M-480 can also record 40 channels to hard disk (24bit, 48K) - works great! I've used that many times, and it sounds wonderful. It's about $800-ish for the kit with the software. I think the LS-9 can do something like that too somehow, right? Looks like the LS-9 can only do about 16-18 channels multitrack using one of the card slots... Maybe they have something else I don't know about?

I know the M-480 can do 16 aux busses and LCR mains (19 busses total) plus 8 matrix busses (fully configurable) I think the LS-9 has about the same thing, but you have to get something else to get more outputs than the 16 that are built in.

The M-480 has DCA's (like most other consoles). The LS-9 has something kinda like it, using groups of faders that are linked together.. not quite the same thing... but it works.

Yeah there's always talk of Analog consoles vs Digital, Yeah - there are some old analog consoles that sound great. Fact is that we're talking about the differences/similarities between the two consoles here, ok? Most of the folks interested in this are looking for the total recall thing due to changing setups/multiple bands/multiple engineers/whatever...

I just wanted to give another OPINION on this, that's all.