Sonic State Studio / Recorders / ROLAND VS840ex

Average rating: 5.5/10 out of 10

page 1 of 1:   1    
'the no name dj' a Professional user from USA writes:
I think I bought this unit in 98 or 99. I paid 800 bucks for it new(my old roommate worked at Mars Music so I got a hook up and saved about $200. Anyway, I've used the machine quite a bit since purchase. At first my experience(or lack thereof) hindered me from getting good recordings. However, time, good mics & mic pres, and careful eqing can yield some good results. I use the effects as little as possible because they are NOT pro quality and they just make you have to work harder. The comp and eq presets were pretty good and even better when you edit. Once you learn the machine the thing is far from a headache to operate. The shortcomings are in the sound--if you don't mind demo quality sound then find one of these babies used. I saw one in a pawn shop for about 400 bucks--for this machine that's a bargain. My faders 7/8 and Master just shorted (this is after 3-4 years of constant use)which i totally did not see coming. The only reason I'm spending the $125 to fix it is because I was knee deep in a project and the Roland file format is proprietary. So I'm stuck with a dozen zip discs that mean nothing to any other computer or machine....I'm not that mad because I came to the conclusion that this machine was a toy a while back. Like I say, hard work yields decent(usable) results but I do not recommend the 840ex. After I salvage some stuff when i get it back from repairs I am going to sell it for whatever I can get and move forward. I heard the 2480 was a good buy....but Roland just dropped the 2400cd which means the shell for the 2480 is about to used to make a 3280 or 4880. Just my guess. I doubt I'll buy any more roland units to record with. Until I can afford a Mackie HDR24/96 I'm going to cop the yamaha aw16g. I've heard it first hand and it sounds incredible. Dynamics on every channel? Roland need take note. Big ups for every roland synth I've ever used--I'm just not sure about Roland recorders anymore.

Rating: 6 out of 10 posted Sunday, 16-Feb-03 at 3:37
Joe Ginzo a hobbyist user from US writes:
Ok, this "review" is gonna be all over the place: it's late/early, and I've got a lot to say about it. If you're coming from an analog (tape) 4-track recorder, you will be blown away by the sound quality. If you've used any kind of software recorder, or another stand-alone digital recorder, don't stop here: the sound is compressed, tracks 5/6 and 7/8 are linked, 250mb zip disks are relatively expensive. It's great as a "starter" recorder, but if you're gonna spend $500-$600 on a recorder, save a couple of hundred more, and get the Tascam 788 (retails for $899, but I can get you one cheaper than that): it's uncompressed, there's a built-in hard drive, and a built-in SCSI out, for burning/backing up data. It's crazy: not even a year ago, I would've given this a 9 or a 10, but the digital recording scene has exploded so fast, that it's very average to below average "bang for buck". I DO, however, like the effects in the 840EX, and there are SO many of them, and the ability to save like 100 user patches is very handy. You're limited to one effect at at time, unless you "print" it with the track, rendering the effect on the "printed" track uneditable after that, but freeing up the effects processor for another track. The two main points, in any digital recorder, is sound quality and storage, and, for a digital recorder, it comes up a bit short. If the absolute limit to your budget is $500, then this IS the recorder for you, but if you can spare a couple of extra hundred, get the Tascam 788.

Rating: 5 out of 10 posted Friday, 17-Nov-00 at 4:48
page 1 of 1:   1