Roland M-480 digital console

Silas Pradetto

Graduate Student
This past weekend I did a show for Ryan Star, and I needed a console for it. So I called up the rep for Allen & Heath and Roland and asked what he had kicking around. Turns out, they just got in the brand-new Roland M-480, and his boss wanted me to try it out.

The setup was my S4000 stagerack, configured 32 analog inputs, 4 analog outputs, and 4 AES digital outputs, plus a S0816 offering 8 analog inputs and 16 analog outputs, plus the 8 analog I/O on the console itself. So plenty of inputs and outputs everywhere.

In use, I had about 30 channels of inputs for the band on stage, plus CD and computer playback at FOH, and talkback. Outputs had main L and R to a DR 4800 over AES digital, plus main C over AES to a DR4820, plus an analog send for VRX front fills, along with 6 monitor mixes. The console handled all this just fine, no issues, crashes, REAC (protocol Roland uses to transfer digital audio on an IP network) errors, or anything worthy of mention.

The console is pretty much exactly the same as the old, discontinued M-400, which I owned for a while, with a couple key differences that I noticed: way more graphic and parametric EQs for the outputs, more FX processors, comp/gate on every channel (was only on 24 on the M-400 due to DSP power limitation), the comp and gate have a sidechain filter, there are 6 dedicated stereo returns for FX so I don't have to eat channels for that anymore, the user layer is actually 3 layers now instead of 1, and there are knobs for the Q of the high and low EQ filters. Seems every input and output now have delay also.

One thing they seemed to drop is the 'threshold' knob of the gate and comp on the surface, now I have to mess with the screen to change it, which is a bit of a drag, especially if critical channels are way out of line.

There are still no subgroups unless you want to route an aux back to mix, so I guess it's possible to compress a group if you really want to. With 16 auxes there should be plenty.

The remote software is essentially the same as before, and with that said, it's fantastic. The computer can only connect via USB, but the software is super fast, mirrors the console screen, and is super easy to control with a tablet when remoting the computer connected to the console. Of course, I couldn't get my WiFi to stay stable enough to do a soundcheck from on stage, but oh well.

So, the M-480 does literally everything the M-400 didn't, and while neither are on any riders, they make great boards for churches, small providers, and pretty much anyone else that needs a really good feature set in an economical board.
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

A company I work with in CT just bought one off demo, I've asked for it on an upcoming show. I'll post my impressions after I've had a chance to beat it up, I've always thought their snake was great so hopefully strapping a console onto it is still pretty good.
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

I'm curious about placement compared to the ILive. The surface seems to list at $12K and the stage box lists at $5K - this is more expensive than I was expecting.
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

They aren't that cheap I agree but having used an M400 the REAC snake and the M48 IEM system quite a lot recently in some quite awkward or time demanding situations I think its a great point and squirt system, yes the ILive is probably better featured ultimately but it's bigger (the R72 doesn't count you can't mix a band on that thing in a combat situation) I think the T series isn't as well built as the Roland gear and it still is almost the same price if not dearer. For me the big advantages are, anyone who sits down in front of one of the M series desks picks it up really easily, I can move it by myself, it boots up really quickly and the M48 system is still one of the best of its type. I summed it up for someone before if you are moving it with a limited crew or have a "combat" audio gig happening then the M series is one of the best small digital desks The ILive is probably better suited to bigger companies or in a permanent install as the component parts are larger and heavier it also has more flexibility in configuring the console but setting this up takes time which you may not have in a portabe situation, if you want an integrated IEM then the M48 is brilliant at what it does, much better than the Ipad or Aviom set up that you can do on the ILive. Feel free to ask anything else as I've built up a lot of time on these things now though I don't own one. G
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

We have 2 m480 and m300 in hire stock.. It is a great improvement on the M400.. The new chipset and features are fantastic.With regards threshold knobs, as soon as you touch the gate/compressor display the eq encoders all become your complete gate/compressor controls.. No need to touch the screen or toggle wheel.I've not used the ilive in anger, but have mixed many shows with 40+ channels on the m480 and it sounds great.
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

The M480 is a better desk, but it also costs more. Apples to apples, the M480 as a complete system isn't that much cheaper than the iLive. We installed a number of Roland mixers in the past, but are now almost exclusively installing iLive's. The primary benefit of the Roland - low cost. Now that that is nearly gone, what is left? It's not bad, it just isn't in the same league as an iLive, and is over priced for what it is. If I'm mixing, I'll take iLive over Roland any day.

The only Roland product I still like is the M48. If they were to use Dante as the core rather than a proprietary format (REAC), we'd be all over it. Until they make a competitively priced Dante to REAC converter, a few clients are willing to pay extra for the M48's over Aviom, but not many. Almost no church clients are going for the mixer though, it's iLive (or Avid or Midas for the high $ applications).
 
Re: Roland M-480 digital console

Caleb what you have written is exactly what I fear will happen with the RSS system and once again Roland have shot themselves in the foot. I personally think that the Roland is easier to use and for the average user much more approachable initially than the iLive ( I use both a lot) however I agree when you buy into the whole RSS system it gets expensive very quickly and the console is still the weakest part though less so now.

It will be interesting to see if the price hike stays, as any traction they may have been gaining because the price was low has now gone, though in the UK up to 32 channels it's still cheaper by a fair bit. I still stand by my opinion that the Roland is a better portable system and is physically and electronically tougher though probably not enough to sway some users. I still think the smallest iLive console is a waste of time for anything other than AV work and the smaller Roland console (M300) is much more versatile. Give me either a M480 or iLive and it'll work ok I don't really care unless I'm moving it. G
 
Re: A&H R72

(the R72 doesn't count you can't mix a band on that thing in a combat situation)

You CAN mix A band on one in a combat situation IF you're touring with them and have time to pre configure the surface

I've seen Steve do it right in front of me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOugMeH6LEI

But I certainly wouldn't want one in a REAL "combat" situation where I had to mix several bands starting from scratch
 
Re: A&H R72

Exactly, in fact with the iLive a good tablet laptop is probably even easier to use especially with the Ipad thing going on.
Ive just been to a festival where through force of circumstance I used an M400 to feed 8 ways of monitors for 23 acts ranging from a "national" act to an eight piece experimental group in 3 days. The M480s dedicated pad and 48v buttons would have helped more than any other change and I seriously don't think I could have done it any better on an iLive or the M7 that could have been an alternative, though that probably would have changed if any of the acts had a monitor engineer with them ( and a budget might have helped too) G
 
Re: A&H R72

For small applications, such as the SOS systems we sell (churches, so not quite apples to apples for a rental/production house), a small iDR rack and iPad work very well. Laptop and Cat5 for configuration and backup, iPad for the bulk of the mixing. Most applications are not overly Wifi hostile, and have not had issues with Wifi dropping out too much. R72 isn't even needed.

My wish is for for 176 surface to come with dual ACE ports rather than Ethersound, for the other end of the size spectrum (up to 2 iDR-64's).

Other wish - slimmed down iPad app for personal mixing, to replace Aviom/M48/etc, when used with wireless IEM's. It's not the cost, although lower would be nice; it's the high chance of a muso tweaking an EQ or messing up routing or something.
 
Re: A&H R72

...
My wish is for for 176 surface to come with dual ACE ports rather than Ethersound, for the other end of the size spectrum (up to 2 iDR-64's).

...

The real iLive 176 surface is fully modular; I believe it can handle two ACE cards?

Though, anyone using the real iLive would also get the real iDR10 modular racks, and with that system, Ethersound probably makes more sense since it enables computer recording as well as interfacing with any other gear that supports Ethersound.

'ACE' was designed to be the budget option, after the original iLive began with Ethersound.

Only issue with Ethersound is it requires two network cables to the surface IIRC, one for the audio, one for control.
 
Re: A&H R72

The real iLive 176 surface is fully modular; I believe it can handle two ACE cards?

Though, anyone using the real iLive would also get the real iDR10 modular racks, and with that system, Ethersound probably makes more sense since it enables computer recording as well as interfacing with any other gear that supports Ethersound.

'ACE' was designed to be the budget option, after the original iLive began with Ethersound.

Only issue with Ethersound is it requires two network cables to the surface IIRC, one for the audio, one for control.

Why pay for iDR-10 and Ethersound if it isn't needed, and if the rest of the system is Dante? I know there is a definite cost increase for the modular rack and ES, but what is the real benefit? For install, a T176 would be great.

This doesn't mean the modular format iLives are bad in any way, just that the added cost for ? added benefit pushes it into a whole 'nother price point where it competes against well entrenched players.
 
Re: A&H R72

The M-480 is only about $1050 (dealer cost anyway) or so more than the M-400 was (but the m-400 is now discontinued of course) the MAP on the m-480 with a pair of Reac stage boxes (32 in/16 out) is 15,785.00 as of august 2011. Of course you can find it for many thousands less than that, if you know who to talk to... :) I personally love the integration of the m48's and 40 channel multitrack recording over 1 cat-5 cable to a pc. The console sounds great and is really easy to use. I've used it many times, never had a glitch.

Declan Slater

Everlasting Sound, Champlin Mn.