Synth Site: Roland: U-110: User reviews Add review
Average rating: 2.9 out of 5
page 1 of 5:        1  2  3  4  5  >>>
Anthony Bennett a hobbyist user from usa writes:
Great for it's time. Found one rather cheap so I gave it a try. After "tinkering" around with it, I found it was just a simple basic module with no great expection. I decided to combine it with a Roland XP10 and a Korg X5DR module. To my surprise, the little "booger" stands it's own ground. Normally, if I'm doing something outside the house, I'll take my Korg Triton LE or Alesis qs6.1. But somehow, I've just about matched some of the same sounds that the LE produces. A little piano & string from the X5DR, combined with a little accoustic piano from the u-110 and you almost have the same patch as the ballard layered on the LE. Even better is the accoustic piano and the full organ on the xp10. For an older module module, not bad, not bad at all if you have patients. Heck man, even if it's not your thing, it looks good sitting on the rack. Makes the unknowing think you have something great in your arsinal.

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Wednesday-Apr-09-2008 at 08:55
Art Retti a part-time user from Switzerland writes:
Bought a U-110 ages ago and found - like some of you fellows - the sounds outstanding at the time. My biggest problem was trying to make some sense out of the manual. Anyway, I wasn't using the module much until I recently bought CUBASE and REASON that I use in tandem with REWIRE technology. And all of a sudden, in spite of my 2.4 GH and 1 Giga of ram machine, I find I have too much of a latency problem to actually prototype live arrangements using VST's. Bottom line, I think the U-110 can still be an ideal way of recording your MIDI scores "live". For your final mix you can then use all the CUBASE and excellent REASON VST's to substitute fore your legacy U-110 sounds. If anyone out there knows where I can buy additional U-110 sound modules, I'd love to hear about it.

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Thursday-May-05-2005 at 04:09
Alex F. a hobbyist user from Germany writes:
The U-110's technical data is misleading. When I first read "no filters, (almost) no effects, just ROM-playing, 32 KHz, 6 MIDI-channels at once" I thought this unit must be crap; one day I got one cheap and added it to my setup. And I soon forgot my prejustice! There are many older units that offer "44 KHz, 16 bit, 32 polyphony, ..." but sound very thin due to highly compressed sounds (TG100, GMega, ...); Not the U-110 - it offers the most realistic guitar-samples I know and is extremely expandable due to its 4 expansions; cards for the U-110 are wide-spread and cheap and offer mainly other natural instruments. The only drawback is its rather noisy sound (32 KHz!), but if you use a denoising unit (Behringer Denoiser or similar) it is no problem anymore. The U-110 is extremely easy to use if you only read the manual once. You need natural sounds like flutes, guitars, percussion? Get a U-110, they are quite cheap on eBay.

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Sunday-Oct-05-2003 at 15:54
Uffe K. a part-time user from swedish in berlin writes:
hi! could any one tell me were to a manual (english / or swedish) to roland u-110 ???? please!!

posted Friday-Feb-21-2003 at 13:21
Martin Tauchen a part-time user from Germany writes:
The U110 is a good sampleplayer of the early days. Has a little hiss,wich is not dramatically. The ROM Cards bring food to this thing. A little difficult to programm,but not as weird as the crazy D110.The U110 is still useful for background things or Voice expansion.Has a good library.Some parameters are stepped to rough. Once familiar with its OS,it is also easy to use for Live setups.Switching is pretty easy. Unfortunately Rolands Manuals were not good at that times,to short and not telling all features. The crazy thing was,that they put in a complexe MIDI Data and Programming chart.Did any musican tried to programm his own Midisoftware ?

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Sunday-Dec-08-2002 at 15:19
page 1 of 5:        1  2  3  4  5  >>>