Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Riley Casey said:
Wastes space compared to what, a PM5D? A PM4000 with three outboard racks?
Click to expand...

bwuhahahaha.

I could see how someone would see the rise and run of the control surface as a waste, and possibly the space designed to mount the iPad and monitor mixer. But, I like the rise, myself. I am a tall person, and I don't like bending and hunching over. I get bent over enough for other reasons in this business.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Looks good, but it's too big. I'm not a fan of physically large desks with lots of stuff on the surface. Small footprint, lots of channels and all the features from the larger consoles in a lightweight frame :)

Yamaha came close with the QL1, but why did they put 32 preamps in it?
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Talking with the factory rep last week, (Thanks Jeremy!), He talked interestingly about the past plans for a much more expensive and modular console system, priced in around the 75K range. Those plans were scrapped when the economy took a dive. It's a big desk, but it's primary market is geared toward large monitor desk uses and FOH positions. I am curious to find out if this thing can "mirror" itself to another console for a redundant backup. I'll ask Jeremy if he, or someone else can chime in to answer questions or comment on things.

Helge Dr. Bentsen said:
Looks good, but it's too big. I'm not a fan of physically large desks with lots of stuff on the surface. Small footprint, lots of channels and all the features from the larger consoles in a lightweight frame :)

Yamaha came close with the QL1, but why did they put 32 preamps in it?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Technically, the M5000 is aimed at broadcast and theater as much as anything. They acknowledged that FOH is likely the hardest market to break into.

I wish I had seen the old, modular surface before it was scrapped. They said the M5000 is completely new, no ties to that previous project other than their one modular stage box.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Declan Slater said:
It's interesting to see that can do 96K and 48K also. That should really make for some interesting connection options, linking into other manufacturers equipment.

I heard that one system package they are considering, will have (2) S-2416 snake heads and the console for less than a CL5 (without it's extra $15K digital snake)...
Click to expand...
Remember the console does not contain a single Samplerate converter. So its not possible to run the console at 96Khz and talk to a Dante network at 48Khz etc. Even the AES3 inputs does not have SRC...:roll:
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Jens Bacher said:
Remember the console does not contain a single Samplerate converter. So its not possible to run the console at 96Khz and talk to a Dante network at 48Khz etc. Even the AES3 inputs does not have SRC...:roll:
Click to expand...

Please educate me- I assume down conversion is trivial? My S-1608's at 96KHz work fine with my M-480 which tops at 48KHz.

I assume up conversion is not trivial and one could hear the difference between good and not-so-good up converters?

Do other boards in the M-5000 class do up conversion well?

Thanks, this is all new to me.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Our snake lineup has always been designed at 96kHz so when you run your M-480 console at 48kHz (or 44.1), because it is the master clock the S-1608 was re-clocked down to 48 (or 44.1). If you connect a S-1608 directly to a S-0816 for example, they will run at 96 (default). Any slave or split on the REAC network auto-clocks to whatever rate the master device is set to.
So with the M-5000 console being able to run at 96, our whole lineup of peripherals will automatically clock to that. So the devices are not being "up converted", they are in fact running at their native sample rate.

If you are needing to sample rate convert AES/EBU, then the S-4000 digital card sets have SRCs on them (both input and output).
John Broadhead
Roland Pro A/V
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

John Broadhead said:
...when you run your M-480 console at 48kHz (or 44.1), because it is the master clock the S-1608 was re-clocked down to 48 (or 44.1).
John Broadhead
Roland Pro A/V
Click to expand...

I'm learning. So with my S-1608 connected to the 48KHz M-480 there is no SRC done. The S-1608 automagically samples at 48KHz.

Also after reading up a little on sample rate conversion it seems both down converting or up converting is not trivial.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

No SRCs at all seems like a massive oversight?

So I can't run my AES CD player? (because its obviously 44.1kHz). I have to clock any external digital devices, since their inputs can't 'float' thanks to an SRC?

Odd...
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

I'm curious about the internal processing. The M-5000 spec says 72 bit (I assume fixed point). Some newer consoles from other manufacturers make a point of saying the internal DSP is 32 bit or 40 bit floating. The original M-400 mixer spec said 56 bit fixed (Roland literature no longer shows this spec for later consoles like the M-480 or M-200i). How does one interpret this in terms of sound quality and if a particular approach is better?
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Art Hays said:
I'm curious about the internal processing. The M-5000 spec says 72 bit (I assume fixed point). Some newer consoles from other manufacturers make a point of saying the internal DSP is 32 bit or 40 bit floating. The original M-400 mixer spec said 56 bit fixed (Roland literature no longer shows this spec for later consoles like the M-480 or M-200i). How does one interpret this in terms of sound quality and if a particular approach is better?
Click to expand...
I would interpret that as a large number mostly useful for marketing purposes. Having the internal summing bus be large enough so that you won't have clipping issues even when working with a large number of channels is important, however it's not going to be an esoteric quality differentiator; either you have enough headroom to do the math, or you don't.

All that said, I'm sure the board sounds fine.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Yes that is correct. There is no SRC in our snake lineup. The AD/DA switch their sampling rate to whatever the master clock is demanding.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Tamas Tako said:
Any info about analogue in to analogue out latency?
Click to expand...

It is still too early to formally report yet but what we can say at least is that it will be faster than our current consoles/systems given that now the whole system can run at 96kHz.
(Unofficial testing shows that running at 96kHz can be almost twice as fast.)

FYI... for the M-480 console running at 48kHz we publish the following:
Latency: 2.8 ms (typ.)
*Total System Latency of audio signal from an S-1608 snake input to S-1608 output (round trip) via M-480's REAC ports (A or B). Sample Rate at 48.0 kHz with no ext insert effects.

So we'll see...but will be very good.
John Broadhead
Roland Pro A/V
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

I'm apologize for getting off topic but is there an independent party that quantitatively tests digital boards? Seems like we are reduced to talking about preamps, DSP word length and latency. There's so much more going on that affects sound quality.
 
Re: Roland O.R.C.H.A Console (M-5000) discussion

Art Hays said:
I'm apologize for getting off topic but is there an independent party that quantitatively tests digital boards? Seems like we are reduced to talking about preamps, DSP word length and latency. There's so much more going on that affects sound quality.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what you're expecting? A THD analysis? All current digital boards sound fine - even the cheap ones - it's just not that hard anymore to make a good sounding board with quality preamps, A/D D/A, and processing. Most of the differences in sound quality are effects and other "desirable distortion".

We've gone down this road before, and there just isn't any "there" there. 96K better than 48K? Not necessary- Avid desks are 48K and sound great. The X32 derivatives sound just fine, so do the various A&H options, and I'm sure the Rolands. 5-10 years ago there was more difference, and some would say that certain Yamaha desks had a "sound" to them, but even Yamaha's current line sounds great. Even on the Yamaha side, I have mixed hundreds is shows on 01v96 and M7 and have never felt that the board was the limiting factor in sound quality.
 
Top Bottom