paulsparrow Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Anyone out there used the Roland M400 ? Good to know if it has any niggles or advantages over LS9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Pearce Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I've used the M400 briefly at a demo given by Mr SFL, Mark Payne. About 10 seconds after being invited to mix on the desk I'd got my head round it and was happily adjusting levels, EQ and dynamics. Effects sends took a bit longer, if only because I was doing the basics first. So I'd say the user interface is quicker than an LS9, as for sound quality and effects quality I haven't had the chance to A/B them. Build quality, I think the LS9 would last longer in a high abuse situation, but properly cased I don't see that the M400 would disintegrate without some strong assistance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyP1955 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The Roland has a smaller footprint. The Roland has no-hassle PC interfacing for recording. The Roland does not require an expensive copper multicore snake. The Yamaha has more faders, so you won't have to switch layers as often. The Yamaha's channel EQ is better (the low and high can be peaking as well as shelving). (I'm not sure about low-pass and high pass on either one.) The Yamaha is a fair bit less expensive, even after you add in a snake. If your console should bite the dust before a show, you are more likely to be able to rent a Yamaha than a Roland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.elsbury Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 To be fair, the Yamaha doesn't require an expensive copper multicore snake either.Or did you mean out of the box, with no expansion cards fitted? Cos you didn't specify... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I've used both and would say that the M400 is designed for a slighly lower market sector than the LS9. It's easier to use but has less features. Not sure what more I can say without knowing what your application is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Riley Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The roland has access to the M48 "aviom on steroids" system, but lacks the capability to do flex 15 EQ so lacks EQ. I'd say from my brief use of both the M400 is more intuitive and better sounding, although as mentioned before lacks some functionality of the LS9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulsparrow Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Thanks for all your input guys, 2 features that it seems to score over LS9, DCA's and 8 extra ins& outs on the back, besdides the CAT5 inputs/outputs: comments ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The M400 has fewer inputs on the back than even the LS9-16. And you can link faders together on the LS9 which essentially gives you DCA functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Jeal Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd also suggest taking a look at the Allen & Heath I Live-T series instead of either the LS9 or the M400. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Siddons Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd also suggest taking a look at the Allen & Heath I Live-T series instead of either the LS9 or the M400. Charlie 2nd'd compared all three and bought the ilive T80 more dsp where you need it very flexible and sounds good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.