วีดีโอ

I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever use any kind of general “grease” or “lube” or “lubricant”, dialectic or not, on any rotary or linear audio potentiometer. Ever. Understand this: the Caig product I think you are referring to is not a “grease.” DeoxIT F5 FaderLube is a “lubricant”, yes, but, according to the information on the can itself, only provides for “slight lubrication.” Mostly what it is and does is a cleaner to flush debris off of and out of the internal structures of the potentiometer, and it leaves behind elements to provide for the slight lubrication. Caig does make a FaderGrease product. I’ve never used it. It is not cleaner. It is intended for spot application at specific mechanical points for better mechanical operation, but it is not for cleaning and treatment of the conductive elements of the potentiometer, which is usually what needs addressed; cleaning. So I use the F5 because it is a cleaner. You’re welcome to use whatever you want, but the above is what I use for cleaning potentiometers and some reasons why. Hope that helps.

@ So I actually own and use F5 and it's an excellent product, I use it on pots and faders. I'm referring to a different product, which is their "Fader Grease, DFG-213" product. You can either buy it in a syringe or a small tub. Again, quite expensive. From the sounds of it you don't have experience with it, that's ok. I was just curious what properties it might have so as not to interfere with signal transmission. Thanks, tho.

Gotcha…so here’s my take on that…I don’t know what’s special about FaderGrease…when I’m servicing a fader, which involves complete disassembly and cleaning, if there are mechanicals to lubricate, I use Lubriplate 105 generally, unless it’s a P&G fader and then I use the correct silicon fluid for that procedure. The Lubriplate doesn’t go anywhere near conductive facets of the assembly…it’s on the carriage or rails…not the element or wipers…so I don’t really concern myself with dialectic properties and such because the grease shouldn’t be in contact with conductive pathways, and if it does I’m using too much.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop that is helpful, thank you 🙏🏻. I wish all of my analog mixing equipment came with high quality faders with rails, but in lieu of that I know folks use grease to protect from dust on the conductive surfaces and add a pleasing amount of resistance to the fader throw. I definitely enjoy the latter myself, but have always been a bit confused how it didn't interfere with the signal path.

So with that I’m going to clarify something…and I think this is why I responded the way I did in my first response…FaderGrease is NOT for application to the conductive surfaces. I have never encountered anybody who applies or uses grease to “…protect from dust on the conductive surfaces and add a pleasing amount of resistance to the fader throw.” The conductive element is contacted by the wipers, which are a relatively delicate (depending on the fader) set of conductive filaments. Anything with viscosity like grease applied to the element will either interfere with the wipers’ ability to reliably stay in contact with the element, or actually trap or retain debris adding to the problem, and probably both. It’s a horrible idea to apply grease to the element. The element and wipers should be clean and dry. Furthermore, because the wipers are small and delicate, adding grease to the mating of the element and wipers is not going to add any appreciable resistance to the fader throw. Good quality professional faders, IMO, actually have low throw resistance in my experience. So that’s part of my goal when servicing faders, whether professional assemblies or more “budget-grade” short-throw low-profile ALPS-type PCB or chassis-mount faders we find in machines like cassette “portastudios.” Because of the mechanical design of the more “budget-grade” faders described above, there is absolutely no way to apply grease-type lubricant to the relevant bearing surfaces without removing the fader and disassembling it. And bear in mind these types of faders were not designed to be disassembled and serviced. So it takes some knowledge, care and skill to do it, including (usually) desoldering the fader from its PCB. So unless that’s what you are planning on doing, there is no reason for you to purchase any grease because you should not be just blindly packing that down into the fader, which is the only thing you’d be able to do without removing and disassembling it.

So you’re on the right track…no pun intended…there are 8 PGM groups (mono mix busses), and those are the only discrete mix busses. But understand it was and is common for the multitrack device track count to not be the same as the count of mix busses on the console…often the console outputs are on a patchbay and the recorder inputs are on a patchbay and you patch over from the mix busses to the recorder inputs during the tracking and overdubbing process. An 8-buss console is perfectly functional for a 16-track recorder, *especially* when the console input channels have direct outputs. And Tascam added the convenience of splitting the 8 PGM outs into two jacks per buss…like an internal ‘Y’ cable. So PGM OUT 1 connects to tape machine inputs 1 & 9…PGM OUT 2 to inputs 2 & 10. Now your 8 mix busses are connected to all 16 tape machine inputs, and you can control routing of all inputs to any or all tape tracks using the PAN controls and PGM group assign switches along with the recorder track arming switches. Want to submix console inputs 1, 4 & 5 and record the sum to track 12? Assign them all to PGM 4, make sure track 4 is NOT armed, and arm track 12 and record away. There is nothing abnormal or chintzy about doing it this way. The question you need to ask yourself is what is your workflow…in your studio do you routinely record more than 8 tracks at a time? If so get the PGM outs and input channels’ direct outs onto a patchbay. You can easily use a combination of direct outs and PGM groups to record an infinite number of combinations of discrete sources and submixed sources to any and all tape tracks at any time. What’s important is the console have at least as many discrete outputs as the maximum number of tracks you record simultaneously. One could have 3 48-track DASH machines synchronized for 144 tracks, but if they never record more than 4 tracks at a time their console would only need 4 mix busses…or 4 direct outputs…or some combination of those things. Yes…they would need at least 144 input channels to monitor the multitrack playback…that’s a different issue. The M-520 has a total of 20 discrete outputs using the direct outputs, and those can be assigned to and/or submixed to 8 mono mix busses. With the 20 main input channels and the 16x2 monitor mixer, the direct outs and mix busses, this is PLENTY of utility for a 16-track recorder…lots of flexibility. Hope that helps and let me know if you have any additional questions. I used to be hung up on the idea of wanting a console with a number of mix busses to match the tape tracks. But others helped me to let go of that and understand my console could easily get the job done…and in my case it’s a 32 input module console (12 mono input modules and 20 stereo input modules) with, currently, direct outs on mono input modules 1-12 only, and 4 mono mix busses and two stereo mix busses. Someday I plan on adding direct outs to some of the stereo modules as well, and converting modules 29-32 from stereo input modules to 4 more mono mix buss modules, but I still feel it gets the job done as-is. I can easily feed all tracks of a 16-track recorder simultaneously if needed. A patchbay makes patching more convenient during the tracking and overdubbing process.

For what device (brand and model) are you wanting to measure the noise floor and why? Are you wanting to measure the noise floor itself, or the signal-to-noise ratio? Depending on the circumstances an oscilloscope is not required, but you will need a meter designed for audio use…like a voltmeter that is accurate across the audio band 20Hz~20kHz.

nice for answer, setup: mac protools steams > neumann mt48 (top card n/a) > amek bc2 > compressor vintage design cl1 mk2 (diode bridge) > mt48 > protools. want to check noise of compressor (when i bypass noise is low, enable too much noise). i send a tone 1khz and mesuring noise on protools analiser? wich level.. chain setting.. need reference level to compare gear on market? best vibes happy year ;)

I don’t think I can help you. I’m not familiar with your compressor, and I don’t have access to nor am I familiar with your computer-based tools. Measuring noise is easy. You just have to have the right tools. If you’re measuring to see if it’s in spec with the factory specification you have to measure according to the stipulations in the factory specifications, and, unless otherwise specified, measure using a high impedance meter capable of accurate measurement across the audio spectrum. If you are only measuring noise, you don’t need to inject tone. You just measure the noise output of the device. If you don’t care about the factory spec and just want to know what the noise floor is and be able to measure for improvement, then the meter is less critical because your measurement is relative…you’re not comparing to a published specification. I use a Tektronix AA 501A distortion meter for audio level measurements. In addition to measuring distortion it is also an excellent audio band level meter. I just hook it up to the output of the device I want to measure, and measure away. If your computer has diagnostic tools then just use those, but if you’re comparing to a factory spec then you need to look at how they measured, which usually includes a 20Hz to 20kHz band pass filter. I know this all probably isn’t helpful. But there are too many questions to answer and I’m too unfamiliar with your equipment, how you have it hooked up, etc. you may want to find a local tech to help you. Or just measure level with what you have relative to other devices and if the compressor has a much louder noise floor, then you need to start investigation why.

That’s awesome…fulfills my intention with creating and posting the video. Feel free to post questions if you have them as you dig in and I’ll help as able.

Awesome! Yeah *definitely* not alone. I think the AW4416 has the most robust user community of any period standalone DAW…I am part of an AW4416 FaceBook group with over 1,400 members, and growing regularly. It is a great, supportive and helpful group.

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you clarify your question?

Man I wish I had time for that sort of thing, but I really don’t. On top of that there’s much more I’d need to learn about the device first before capturing that in manual if it was to be anything remotely complete.

@ ahh, yeah that would be a lot of work. Thanks for these videos. I found a dusty ATRMX64 in a thrift store $200, and I just started restoring it - these videos have already been extremely helpful. Cheers!

No thanks. I just sold #4. So now I just have 3.

@SweetbeatsTechStop my son had one he didnt know what it was..you know aboutbwhat he should be asking or where we might be able to sell it? Thanks

There’s no special place to sell one. You sell them wherever you sell other audio equipment: eBay, Reverb, Craigslist, Marketplace…and price depends on condition, whether or not it has the “LOW BATTERY” warning, and whether or not there are any accessories included like any option cards or the factory flight case.

Yeah slim pickings right now. Usually there’s an OEM manual or two in the original binder on eBay or Reverb, but nothing right now. I’m sure if you wait one will come along, but you could also get this one as a pdf download from servicemanuals.net: www.servicemanuals.net/en/tascam-m-512. I verified it is the full M-512/M-520 manual, 217 pages, full schematics, etc. I’ve purchased a number of manuals from them before, always great service and high-quality scans. $17 for pdf, $30 for paper. Way cheaper than the $60-100 for the original and the quality is good. You can zoom way in on the schematics and see all the detail clearly.

The ECHO buss is the post-fade effect buss. So connect the input of your effect processor to the ECHO SEND output jack, and connect the output or outputs of the processor to one or more ECHO RCV input jacks.

It can be, but usually the problem is not the power supply fan. In the AW4416 there are typically two fans: the power supply fan, and the fan in the CD/RW drive. If your AW4416 has a SCSI CD/RW drive, it has a cooling fan. Later generation AW4416s came with an ATAPI CD/RW drive and they are fanless, but most AW4416s came with a SCSI CD/RW drive, and 90% of the noise comes from the SCSI CD/RW drive fan. It is small and high-RPM and very noisy. Most people don’t use the CD/RW drive because it’s easier to use a desktop PC app like AWMiner for data management compared to the CD/RW drive, so they just unplug the power from the CD/RW drive, or add a switch to be able to externally power the drive on or off (including the fan). If the power supply fan is noisy, it’s in need of replacement, and there are a number of affordable essentially drop-in replacement fans available. The AW4416 can be very quiet.

Hi. I responded to your post on the home recording.com forum.

Interesting…I was not aware of that. Where is that documented? Of course that doesn’t mean the Tascam has anything to do with the actual production of those songs, but does demonstrate some trust in the Tascam by an accomplished songwriter as a budget tool for songwriting.

No. Why do you ask?

Agreed! Biggest issues are the RTC chip battery depletion (though there are relatively easy solutions, and the issues caused by the battery failure are no more than inconveniences), and fader issues (but brand new faders can be purchased for a reasonable cost). Eventually the surface-mount electrolytic caps will be an issue, but this too isn’t an insurmountable problem.

100% agree, Brian…thanks!!

Well I think the AT-RMX64 is their only multitrack recorder. But, yes…it seems its existence is far less widely known than many other similar devices from that era. But it was next-level compared to those competitive offerings, from the transport to the signal path and design/construction…uncommon circuitry for exceptional local noise filtration, robust power supply, signal path using what were, at the time, cutting-edge opamps, and I have been able to validate rumors the signal path design, namely the EQ, had involvement from ex-Neotek staff. And it does sound good.

Send me an email at sweetbeatstechstop at gmail.

There are a couple challenges to interfacing the M-520 and MX-2424: the unbalanced/balanced mismatch, and the nominal level mismatch (-10dBv for the M-500 series, and +4dBu for the MX-2424). For the first issue I looked in the operation manual, thinking there would be instruction for how to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced sources and loads, but I was wrong…nothing. That doesn’t mean it can’t interface unbalanced equipment…I also didn’t see any instructions prohibiting interfacing unbalanced equipment. So I looked at the schematics and confirmed you won’t damage anything by connecting it to unbalanced equipment…then I found this forum thread that talks a little bit about the challenges and solutions needed to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced -10dBv standard equipment: homerecording.com/bbs/threads/a-few-tascam-mx2424-questions.338199/ So hopefully that is helpful. I agree it would be best to tie the “cold” signal conductors for each channel to the shield at the console end of the snake. I think the outputs of the M-520, like the direct outputs and PGM group 1-8 unbalanced outputs likely have enough drive to work with the +4dBu inputs of the MX-2424, but you would have to experiment…you might have issues with transients clipping…you want to try and match the level standard of the MX-2424 or you won’t be taking advantage of as much of the digital resolution capability at the inputs of the MX-2424. And I also think you may have to incorporate some kind of pad on the inputs of the M-520 if you’re using the TAPE or LINE inputs on the M-520 as described in the forum thread above. It would be much more simple to use the XLR MIC inputs and switch in the PAD circuit, though this is not ideal because that sends the signal through the mic amp which is a noisier path for a line level signal, and then use the 8-channel balanced +4dBu BALANCE AMP section on the M-520 to send signals to the MX-2424, although obviously these means no more than 8 channels at a time can be routed to the MX-2424. You can also use converter boxes like the Tascam LA-40 or LA-80/81 series to convert unbalanced -10dBv to balanced +4dBu and vice-versa. Big picture: the Tascam M-520 is not really an ideal console to interface the MX-2424 because of the level and balanced/unbalanced mismatch, but also because of the channel count…the M-520 was designed to support 16-track operations, not 24-track. I might use something like the M-520 in a pinch, but long term I’d be looking for a different solution.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you Sweetbeats for your time with me. I'm thinking about using just 16 channels of the MX2424 to record 8 simultaneously and then another 8 in another outlet coming out of the M520 balanced. My question was to do the returns, but as you said, I will have to try it and see the results, I will continue my research and do the tests. My MX24 also has ADAT converters 24 in and 24 out. I also have a Tascam DP32 recorder that records on SD cards, perhaps it would be easier to start with that and continue researching what to do with the MX24. Thanks again for your attention with me, any other thoughts on this are welcome, hugs!!!

The other workaround for the track limitations is using the virtual tracks. You can load 14 virtual tracks, mix those to two tracks, switch the 14 tracks to a new layer and have 14 open tracks while still having the native tracks to the stereo mix you just made. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to when you mentioned bouncing, but the virtual tracks present a lot of flexibility/options/opportunities. One can do other things with virtual tracks like copy a track, apply compression, sum the processed track with the native track to another open virtual track, and use the mono sum in the main project…parallel compression that only uses one track in the project but you still have the original track and processed track sitting on virtual tracks if you need to make changes. Is this more cumbersome than having a dedicated multitrack machine and a larger format console with enough channels to do the parallel compression? Or being able to setup templates in a computer-based DAW or use parallel compression tools in the computer-based DAW? Maybe…but a large console can be cumbersome too…and you already noted some of the things that are frustrating or distracting for some relative to the computer-based DAW…managing the performance of a device not purpose-built for audio production…OS, driver and software updates and other instabilities…ongoing licensing and upgrade expenses, etc. I really like using hardware that is purpose-built for the job. It just works every time I turn it on, and it’s the same familiar tool set and interface every time. I also find the overly-broad bells and whistles found in most any computer-based DAWs distracting and detract from focusing on good performances, good setup and mic placement, and really becoming familiar with the tools. And the GUI is distracting as well from using my ears more than my eyes. I know that’s not an issue for most, but I learned multitracking processes before the digital age, so for me there’s just to much to keep track of visually. Something like the AW4416 and AW2816 have a lot of powerful mixing, routing and processing features…plenty to bring great results. As far as the effects engines on the AW4416, they are not based on the SPX90…that’s a 16-bit device. The AW4416 (and I believe the AW2816) effects set and algorithms aren’t a direct match, but most closely match the SPX900/990. The AW2400 effects are based off the SPX2000.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thanks for the response and the clarification on the FX. I remember now about virtual tracks. Yes, that is what I mean't by bouncing. It was 20 years (wow) ago when I made a cd of my songs. I remember being pretty happy with the results. I just wish I had gotten somebody else master it. I did it all in house in the 2816. I also remember that I never commited the keyboards to hard disk until the final mix. I had an old Atari ST synced to the Yamaha through the midi. The keys performances were just recorded with midi up to that point, so I could futz with the keys sounds and experiment with different patche to get them to sit in the mix as best as possible. I had six or seven mics on the drums and recorded them all to a click to enable the midi sync with the Atari. A couple of guitar tracks, bass, vocals. I did have a couple of nice pre amps that I used for some of the mics. I fired it up around 6 years ago and it still worked. I used it for portable tracking of some bass parts that I exported as waves on a cd. Is there an easier way to import/export audio into the 2816 rather than using the cd method? I remember loading in separate audio files on CDs and it was very time consuming. Obviously, there is no usb/FireWire compatibility. What kind of digital inputs does it use? Unfortunately the machine does not live with me. The next time I visit my Mum's house I'm going to dig it out.

I don’t know if you’re on social medial at all, specifically fb, but there is a robust AW group there simply called AW4416 Group; supports the AW4416, AW2816, AW16G, AW1600 and AW2400 as well. There are over 1,400 members…great helpful and resourceful community. One of the members developed a PC software interface called AWMiner. It comes in different versions with different feature sets and is available for Mac and PC…you pull the drive out of your AW, connect it to your PC using a 2.5” IDE to USB adapter, launch AWMiner, load the AW drive into the application and you can backup, restore, transfer data, import/export wav files with lightning speed compared to using the optical drive. benebadman.bandcamp.com/merch/awminer-gold-software-licence The developer Ben Badman is incredibly helpful and keeps the software up-to-date based on community feedback. No AW2816/4416 owner should be without it. It’s a little more cumbersome on a AW2816 to access the drive compared to the AW4416, but it’s still a huge time saver over the optical drive.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop wow, thanks for this info. 👍

First of all, using something like a Roland VS-1824CD does not make you DAW-less…the VS-1824CD is a DAW, it’s just not personal computer-based; it is a standalone DAW, but a DAW nonetheless. But obviously I agree there are many general distinctions between computer-based and standalone DAWs…for most they can’t fathom not having access to features that computer-based DAWs have the standalone units do not, and more others the standalone units have facets I discussed in the video the computer-based offerings can’t do the same way just because of the nature of the computer-based beast. I don’t know of any TH-cam channels per se for standalone DAWs…I’m part of an online social media-based group that supports the Yamaha AW devices and that’s been really beneficial. For the Roland VS devices I’ve gotten some good help from the forums at VS-Planet (vsplanet.com) for my VSR-880 HDRs so that might be a good resource for you. For the VS8F-2 there are lots on sale on eBay. That’s where I got mine. The Dallas 12887 family of RTC ICs are readily available from a number of reputable online electronic component vendors like Mouser or Digikey…not hard to find and guaranteed genuine and of recent manufacture. I get all mine from Mouser for when I’m repairing AW4416s and AW2816s for clients wanting their failing RTC replaced.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you for your thoughtful response. I picked up the VS-1824 because I was familiar with Roland products. To be honest, learning more about Yamaha the last few days, the AW1600 may have been a better choice for my needs. Might be in my future,

I had an AW1600 for a little while…nice compact machine and feature set, but the lack of motorized faders was a deal-breaker for me, and it also felt less intuitive than the AW2816 or AW4416, and there’s no expansion slot and very limited outputs. The feature set is significantly limited overall compared to even the AW2816. It it does have some advantages: USB connectivity and smaller size to name a couple.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop Again, thoughtful and informative response. I will research the AW2816. AW4416 looks very nice but may be more than I need and have space for.

Yes check out the AW2816. Let me know if you have any questions. I know the AW2816 and AW4416 extremely well. FWIW if you find you’re in the market for an AW2816 I have one in the shop right now going through a full detailing, RTC chip replacement and full fader service. It is in excellent condition, fully tested, and comes with original packaging and manuals. I’ll be putting it up on Reverb in a couple weeks or so.

You have one ISA One? Why can’t you have the ISA One output connected to a LINE input on channel 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 on the console? Just leave the 38 outputs connected to the eight TAPE inputs on channels 1-8.

Why not?

@@SweetbeatsTechStop computer DAW… mostly, and space… and trying to figure a way to integrate it in the chain that won’t cause to just be an accessory. so it’s sitting in its case in the back of a closet… even tried to sell it at one point

I think you’re thinking of this the wrong way…if the computer-based DAW is working for you, just use that. If you tried to sell the AW2400 in the past and it didn’t work out, try lowering the price. I mean, it’s just depreciating there in the closet. Let go of trying to figure out how to integrate it. It was designed as and intended to be a self-contained standalone unit. Either ditch the computer-based DAW and use the AW or let it go. That’s my opinion. You do have options.

That’s a good question. I’m not positive if the RTC memory is powered by the system power vs the battery when the system is powered up…my hunch is it doesn’t make much difference, and you’d be hard-pressed to verify a correlation anyway since there’s no way to know how many hours an AW4416 has been powered. What I do know is there is variability in how long they last (seems like the issue started cropping up more commonly several years ago, and at the same time there are machines still not displaying the LOW BATTERY warning…15-20+ years?), and NOS RTC chips that have just been sitting on the shelf for 15-20 are typically bad out of the gate. So we know they deplete just sitting. Which is not a surprise.

@SweetbeatsTechStop my machine has has only just got the 'low battery ' warning. Any idea how long it takes for it to stop functioning? I'm just trying to finish something off before sending it for repair. 😬

As far as we (the AW4416 community) can tell based on many first-hand experiences, the unit won’t cease to function at any point. There are community members running AWs with the battery fully depleted. The battery maintains the internal clock for time stamping. A depleted battery means you will have to reset the system clock on boot every time, as well as experience the flashing “LOW BATTERY” on-screen alert, but all other functions seem to operate.

@SweetbeatsTechStop wow, thank you once again for this info. If time stamping is the sole purpose of this clock, I think I can live without it. I will carry on as is for now. I know (and love) this machine inside out, so I can put up with the flashing battery warning. I won't keep firing questions at you and I shall join the FB group. But one last one: has anyone found a way to turn off the flashing battery warning? 😁

Completely different animals, the AW4416 and Digi 001…

No worries…I was going to reply with some detail and just hadn’t gotten to it yet. Yeah the twist with the M-50/M-500 series is the path from input to STEREO A/STEREO B outputs is relatively unconventional because there is no direct path from input to those outputs. The input signal has to be assigned to one or more of the 8 PGM groups, then those groups must be selected as a source in the monitor mixer above the PGM group faders, and then the STEREO A/B busses have to monitor the monitor mixer (by selecting “MON” as the source in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack). Everything goes through the monitor mixer. It sounds like you’ve got it, but feel free to post any follow up questions.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop thanks for that

Greetings, Al! Nice to hear from you! And wow I didn’t realize you had such extensive experience with multiple standalone DAW setups…curious about your comparative experience between the DPS24 and AW4416…hope you are well!

I currently have 4 AW4416s for various reasons, spares among them.

The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask. Yes the 688 is capable of recording 8 tracks simultaneously. So can the 238.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop thank you for your answer & consideration 🙏🏽

Hi. I’m sorry to say, but I don’t have a 688 (or 644 or any Tascam console with a DUAL buss for that matter) on-hand to do a demonstration. But maybe this will help: think of the DUAL buss as a stereo AUX buss okay? In a sense that’s what it is, but it is a very flexible AUX buss…actually like a separate 10x2 mixing section that operates in conjunction with the main mixer, and can even operate completely independent of the main mixer. The DUAL LEVEL control of each of the 10 input channels can be independently sourced to one of four sources: the respective channel’s MIC input or the respective channel’s LINE input (regardless of what is selected as that channel’s main source), the corresponding TAPE track (DUAL channel 1 is track 1, channel 2 is track 2, etc…this applies to channels 1-8 only of course since there are only 8 tape tracks), or the respective channel’s post-fade signal (so whatever the respective channel is sourcing but the post channel fader signal). You select the source of each DUAL channel using the SCENE DISPLAY panel. Each channel’s DUAL LEVEL control feeds its corresponding PAN control, and then the DUAL section signals of all 10 input channels are summed at the DUAL MASTER knob. The DUAL MASTER knob feeds the DUAL L & R output jacks, as well as the monitor select switchrack…you can hear the DUAL buss sum in the headphones and also monitor at the MONITOR OUT L & R jacks when you press and latch the DUAL button in the switchrack. You can also route or “LINK” the DUAL buss sum to GRP 1-2, or GRP 3-4, or GRP 5-6, or GRP 7-8 using the SCENE DISPLAY panel. They call it the DUAL buss because it is dual-purpose…I’d actually argue it is multi-purpose. It is often used as a stereo monitor buss during tracking and overdubbing…gives you, the engineer, the ability to setup an independent stereo monitor mix of inputs, and tape tracks without messing with your levels and other settings on the input channels. It also provides the ability to setup a separate 10x2 mix of a variety of sources and route (“LINK”) that mix to any pair of mix busses (GRP 1-2, etc.). That DUAL mix, when routed to any of the mix busses, is summed with anything else routed to the same mix busses using the SCENE DISPLAY panel, so this is how you can setup a simultaneous 20x2 mix using the main mixer channels in conjunction with the DUAL channels…this is how you can, when mixing down your tape tracks, have up to 12 additional sources at mixdown. You can also use the DUAL buss as an additional stereo (or dual-mono) post-fade effect buss…or pre-fade monitor buss depending on the sourcing of each DUAL channel. So you see, the DUAL buss is multi-purpose: monitor buss, 10x2 routable summing mixer, effect buss, matrix mixer…and all very flexible because each of the 10 DUAL channels’ sources can be independently selected. Hope that helps.

Well, for starters, what machine are we talking about?

@@SweetbeatsTechStop 688. I got the four channels to record. But, the faders don't seem to affect it. Just the the aux pots Make them audible? I'm just trying to track four channels of live drums I'm missing something. I'm activating the four channels so the record function is blinking, but I don't think it knows to send it to the tape. I think I'm routing it somewhere else. I hope that makes sense. If not, disregard. Thanks either way.

Did you watch the video? Do you have the manual and did you study the tutorial in the manual for recording to tape? This isn’t meant to be a dig. It’s just very time consuming for somebody to walk another through those resources when one can first do that themselves and then after that ask clarifying questions. Also, can you clarify a bunch of stuff…what “faders”? What “aux pots”? How do you presently have your source and assign screens set? If the “aux pots” make the inputs audible, where are they audible? It’s super-hard to help when the information you are providing is so vague.

Thanks! About the empty space, lots and lots of mixing consoles have unpopulated control surface area. I know what you mean, but bear in mind there is circuitry underneath that vacant space, so it’s not completely void.

Thank you!

Yes, as far as we know at this point there is no loss in functionality. You have the annoying “LOW BATTERY” nag, which for some is truly an annoyance since it obscures the tab names on screen, and eventually you have to reset the clock every time you power the AW. Files are time-stamped and once the battery is depleted, and this can fluctuate for some time, the time will not be retained when you power down and you’ll have to reset it every time you power up. So far these are the only consistently verifies issues with a depleted RTC chip battery

@@SweetbeatsTechStop thanks

Yeah that’s the thing with the 388. It can be unusually difficult to isolate and test systems because of the interrelation of the circuitry…there is no publicly published guidance I’ve found that cautions one what can and can’t be removed while the unit is powered. I first discovered this was even a consideration when I cooked a bias amp PCB assembly simply by having the unit powered with some other plugin card removed. I think it was the reel servo PCB…whatever is just to the right of the pair of bias amp PCBs. I had it removed in order to access the bias amp PCB for testing, having no extender boards on-hand. I shut it off as soon as I smelled “that smell”, but it was too late. Since then I built up custom extender cables as needed. But the service manual just assumes you know these things. You can email me at sweetbeatstechstop@gmail.com, though I don’t expect I can be of much help. If it is not erasing or recording, both of which require bias signal, I’d start by troubleshooting and likely repairing the bias amp PCBs, which may require difficult to find components. I know this is not very encouraging and I’m sorry. This is one of the reasons I’m less enthusiastic about the 388 these days.

@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate it

I do not. I have no tech docs for the M-3700. Plenty for the M-3500. But the M-3700 stuff is readily available for a fair price from a number of resources. You might even call Tascam Parts. But if it was me I’d reach out to the folks at servicemanuals.net first…it’s like $20 for a high-quality complete operations/maintenance manual downloadable in pdf format. I’ve obtained a number of Tascam manuals this way and if they have the M-3700 this would be a good way to go; nothing but good things to say about them.

Do you have the manuals? There are also lots of resources online. You can even watch the tutorial VHS tape on TH-cam. If you’re on FaceBook there is a really fantastic AW4416 user group as well.