I had one like that. They sound very clean and open. Great console. I changed it for a Soundcraft series-600 because it has more "warmth" and punch, which I prefer. The Tascam has less noise, but the Soundcraft works better for my kind of music. I like the '70's prog-rock sound, and also record on 2" tape. No digital in this house.
very funny ha ha ha No digital in this house.....yes i can't see the use of 'clean' analogue equipment unless it takes the edge off without colouring it? i wouldn't mind a couple of high end eq's though to precison eq my 70's and 60's vibes once in awhile
Absolute underrated!!! To many have that "high end" fail in his thinking! You need not a ssl or neve, studer or some other higesd end mixer! So many from the best records was made on some pro mixer linke that professionel and superb mixer! ...you kann never find more so good micer today, only extremely high priced one! This tascam m series mixer absolut pro mixer! Love thay!!! You can made as good records on thay as on high end mixer! I love also neve, ssl and other but thay are expensiv! And i i would have one ssl mixer i would use my tascsm to! Thay are very good pro mixer! Need not more! The m600 ist the higest of thay m series with that classic style and vu meter! And also a superb mixer to like the m520 here! ...love the truh bypass on it! Thats a superb thing! Love to record as naturaly as posible!!!
i have a tacsam m-512, and id like to use an external mic pre-amp into all of my tape return channels. the mic pre-amp, a focusrite isa one, only outputs a line level signal. my recorder is a tascam 38. i noticed that there’s only 4 line level inputs on the tape return channels, and the other 4 line inputs belong to the 2 track channels. can i patch my cables to “move over” into those channels to use as my other 4 channels for my tascam 38 recorder? or is there a way to patch a line level signal into the first 4 channels on the mixer, so i can use my mic pre-amp? i suppose all that matters is that the line level is getting onto its respective track on the recorder itself, because all i want the channel strip for is to eq and mix the eventual playback from the tape.
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.
I need to source a full set of new, or second-hand metal channel-strip panels for my M520 because some of the originals have rust and corrosion on them.
could you do a video on how to get one of the channel pcbs out of this board or just tell me what i am missing? i can get the 4 channel piece out but i dont want to break the pcb trying to get it out. min needs some major work done. thanks.
1. Remove all the knob and fader caps. 2. Remove the screws that fix the beige dress panel to the module chassis…two at the top IIRC. 3. Remove all the faders, 2 screws each. 4. You should then be able to remove the dress panel and underneath you’ll see additional screws that hold each channel PCB to the module chassis, as well as all the nutted pots. 5. Remove all nuts and screws for the channel PCB you want to remove from the assembly. 6. You will also have to disconnect some connectors that chain between each channel PCB. Hope that helps! Disclaimers…this is all from memory so there might be something I missed. I haven’t owned an M-500 console in years…I have some spare modules but they are in a box buried in storage at the moment.
yea that helps. i guess there are some screws i missed deep between the channels. i got this thing for free and its pretty beat up.. a lot of missing faders and knobs. some channels work fairly well and some don't hardly at all. its definitely a project. bought a power supply from eBay and turned it on today. probably going to clean and and re cap it channel by channel. and see what happens.
I might but it depends on what you’re looking for. I have an amazing M-500 prototype console that shares some components with the production M-500 consoles, so I like to keep the spares around for that. What are you looking for exactly?
oh nice. i have been watching your videos of that prototype while figuring out this mixer because there really aren't a lot of videos on how they operate. mine didn't come with the manual. most of the channels work except for 1-4. but i have a lot of missing knobs and buttons and quite a few pots that have been broken clean off of the pcbs. huge dents in the metal covers too. someone really did a number on this thing. i just tested all the channels and direct outs that seem to work. i found someone who sells spare knobs but i cant seem to find fresh cover plates and i can imagine most of the pan pots are toast. i wouldn't want to take your stock if its for the prototype mixer. but if you can point me in the direction to get fresh components and where to get new capacitors that would be awesome.
Okay. Yeah I couldn’t remember for sure but I just looked at the M-50/M-500 Series and MX-80 schematics and the mic amp is essentially identical between them.
Hi have the chanse to get my hands on a Tascam M1600 but the M-520 is the one i really want. What is your thougt about the two. Witch one do you think is better
So the M-1600 and M-500 series are pretty different. Both have a lot of flexible routing features, but for me personally I’d choose the M-520. A lot of that is just an emotional decision though...the M-500 series was designed/built with an all metal chassis/case, and are overall a more robust build...older, more costly design/build. And aesthetically I think the M-500 series looks much nicer. An M-1600 console, at this age, might need less work, will have a smaller footprint and overall be easier to move around, so those are some other things to think about. Also the EQ on the M-1600 might be more usable since it has hi/lo shelving filters. I think the M-1600 might be a bit more neutral in its sound so there’s something else to think about. I don’t know if that helps or not but those are some thoughts off the top of my head.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Yeah, the M520 is a little beast. I think the M520 has external PSU and M1600 internal PSU. Have you noticed any difference in regards of that effecting the sound
It just depends on the model. The M-512 uses internal supply, M-520 external. Likewise the smaller versions of the M-1600 series use internal, the larger versions external. The question isn’t whether it’s an internal or external supply; that’s just a matter of physical size and what’s practical to mount in the console chassis, and also what is practical to shield. The question is really more about the type of supply, switching or linear, and the size of the power rails and main transformer (on a linear supply) as well as the power supply design...the filtration and such. There is debate about whether linear or switching is better. I was always a linear guy, then I got my Studer which uses switching supplies and sounds amazing. So I think it’s really more about how well the supplies were designed to meet the demands of the console, and how well they filter noise. Good news is Teac typically did a good job with the power supply design on their full-featured mixing consoles including the M-500 and M-1600 series, internal or external.
Hey question here maybe a dumb question but right now I have a tascam M520 - > aux out 1 -> behringer ha 8000 direct in. The signal is very very quiet. When I go into the main in of the behringer, (or direct in) from the stereo master B, I get the proper volume. It was my understanding you can use the 4 auxiliary outs pre fader to get four individual aux sends while tracking and the behringer headphone amp powers this signal? Or is monitoring for the talent only supposed to come from the stereo master B channel Any help is appreciated.
No “dumb questions” except the one you don’t ask. Your intention with the AUX buss is spot-on…a perfect application for it. Question: where do you have the AUX 1 master fader set? The AUX level knobs on each channel strip are summed to a master fader for each in the master section. So you first rotate each AUX knob to taste on any channel strip, but then you have to raise the master fader for whatever AUX buss you are using in order to get appropriate output level at the respective AUX OUT jack. So let me know how you have that set or if that helps. FWIW the STEREO A buss is designed to feed the control room monitor speakers or speaker amp, and the STEREO B buss is designed to feed the “studio” speakers…the playback speakers for the talent in the recording room. We don’t always have both of those things and of course you can use those busses for anything you want, but that was the intended purpose for those outputs because of how the talkback features are setup.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop thank you for the reply! Yes the corresponding aux 1 fader in the master section was turned up all the way along with the aux 1 trim/gain pot. So I ended up patching the aux out signal to the balance transformer on the board and then out to my respective direct in on the headphone amp, that gave me the proper level. Which to me is confusing because I don’t know why it has to be +4. So patching straight from the aux out 1 rca to direct in stereo trs was probably why it wasn’t wanting to work. Rca to stereo trs I had to use a rca male to dual rca female y splitter and took a stereo rca to 3.5mm and then a 3.5mm to 1/4 adapter. However when I used that crazy cable adapter I concocted from the stereo master B I got the right level interestingly. Only when using that cable cfrom the aux out directly to the behringer’s respective direct in for any headphone channel the signal was quiet! (There’s 2 main ins on the headphone amp or you can use one of 8 direct ins for each headphone amp for a personal monitoring mix. However when plugging into the direct in, it mutes the main channel. Really annoying caveat. Interesting work around I found I guess by using the balance transformer.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop probably better to use a balanced signal for monitoring since my talent are in the living room and my control room is in the garage? Lol. I feel like most people are fine monitoring from the stereo master B anyhow. That way I can get instant playback too. I just wanted to make the aux work for proof of concept. Would it be wise to have all my aux’s on a patch bay with 4 normalled to the headphone amp? And the other 4 normalled to the spare/2 track A for efx returns?
@@samslavin8957 so when you used the STEREO B outs you were able to go straight from the L & R RCA outputs to the stereo RCA to 3.5mm TRS adapter and then to the 1/4” TRS, right? And that worked? I’ve had experiences like yours when splitting a mono output using some crazy Clark Griswold-esque collection of adapters and it doesn’t work. If it worked from the STEREO B out jacks and you were basically going from stereo out to a stereo in it is likely something related to your cabling. BTW the BALANCE AMP section is transformerless. You called it the “balance transformer” but there’s no transformer.
@@samslavin8957 there’s no benefit to using the balance amp output of the M-500 console to your HA8000 DIRECT IN jacks because they are unbalanced stereo. The unbalanced input on the Behringer unbalances the balanced output of the Tascam balance amp. If you’re wanting to use an AUX buss to feed a DIRECT IN jack on the Behringer I would use an RCA to 1/4” TS cable, or an RCA to RCA cable connected to an RCA to 1/4” TS adapter at the DIRECT IN jack, and then latch the MONO switch on the Behringer on whatever HA8000 channel you are feeding with the Tascam AUX buss. Your elaborate adapter chain is all mono anyway. If your talent needs stereo then you’ll need to feed the DIRECT IN via two AUX busses or some other stereo out, and I would purchase or fabricate a proper dual RCA to TRS cable set (one RCA to tip, the other to the ring). You could buy a standard “insert cable” and get a pair of 1/4” TS-F to RCA-M adapters and be done with it. You can connect that to a STEREO out, a pair of AUX outs, or even use a couple PGM groups as a quasi stereo aux buss and plug in to the respective PGM group outputs. Lots of options. I wouldn’t put the AUX buss outs on a patchbay unless you really need to do that much plugging and unplugging and reconfiguring. If you’re running this rig and recording multiple bands each day then maybe that makes sense, but IMO you’ll want to fab up a custom snake from the patchbay to the HA8000 so you don’t keep tearing your hair out with signal issues.
This was the console Rod Temperton had in his home studio in LA that he wrote all those hits on...Michael Jackson, George Benson, Brothers Johnson etc..
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.
Just was reading your thread about this. I have the chance to pick one up for 300, guy has the power supply and claims it's fully functional but who knows. Are these easy to work on? I know the channels come out in 4 but could I fix something if I needed to? Thanks
Well what are you picturing when you ask if something can be fixed if you needed to? Like, anything can be fixed, it just depends in your skill level and desire. It’s not as easy to work in as a console with individual channel modules that can be removed. It’s not as hard to work on as a console that’s not at all modular. The M-500 series, like, if you have a problem with an individual channel you have to pull the 4-channel module and then pull the individual card out of the module. So it’s a moderate PITA. But just moderate. The hardest part is unplugging all the connectors to the 4-channel module to get it out.
Hi. It is the same era as the 246, but the signal path is completely different. That being said it might sound similar to the 246 just in terms of the mixing section? The thing is I personally don’t think about any of this era or echelon of gear having a sonic “signature” per se. you get more into that when you’re talking about transformer coupled gear, or less garden-variety circuits. The M-500 series was a nice low-mid budget design that sounds nice, and I’ve heard some people say they like the way the summing busses break up when pushed, but I think it’s relevant to keep in mind the M-500 series isn’t a boutique console…it was a low-mid budget console in its day. Build quality and design has cheapened over time in this bracket, so there’s that. And in general I would definitely say the M-500 series sounds “warmer” and less generic than modern-day low-mid budget consoles. If quantified that might reveal the cause is higher distortion and noise and lower performing opamps compared to modern day offerings…I don’t know…a lot of people DON’T rave about the mic amp, but just from the standpoint of the circuit itself, while not “fancy”, it is a more expensive design than a lot of other low-mid budget console preamps. And I think it sounds fine. Hopefully that gives you at least some points to consider. I think I’d use an M-500 preamp (also the same mic amp that’s found in the MX-80 rack-mount unit, and the M-50 console that preceded the M-500 series, and my prototype 12x8 inline modular console that was the prototype for the M-50) before any contemporary Mackie, Behringer, or low-mid budget Soundcraft or Allen & Heath console for instance. And I have direct experience with all of those among many others. Yeah, those other consoles’ mic amps *may* have more gain, and may be quieter, which is what the marketing people push and now we consumers think makes a good mic amp, but I think the M-500 mic amp just sounds more warm and musical. Again, not boutique holy-grail world’s best-kept secret mic amp, it sounds “nice”, and my personal opinion is I lean toward it over modern console mic amps in the same budget bracket.
@@SweetbeatsTechStopThanks for that description - it definitely gives me a good idea of its sonic qualities. I have had a Soundcraft 12 ch mixer w/o a power supply for some time I told myself I would retrofit with a new power supply but now thinking that might not be worth it. A unit like this one, however, might be great paired with some quality preamps and outboard gear. Love these overviews 👍🏻
Seb Warren Music ..I think if you used this with a pair of out board eqs..and some compressors you will like the difference..I have a hybrid set up and like my mixes better that way
I just bought this mixer Im finding it a little confusing ,The pans dont seem to control left and right,they control the mix bus ? how do you make a recording that has drums in stereo but tweeking guitars more left or right ???
I think there is no dedicated mix bus but 8 buses that you can use as a stereo output. You route the channels thru the matrix and voila! usable pan per channel
i have one and have just placed in my studio.....candidly it's operation to get started is beyond me...initial attempt to get signal flow through have not produced results, but i can see the signal overload light illuminate when playing a guitar in track 1 and track 2 (Trs cable)..of the respondents here can anyone let me know a better system for getting started than the manual....some hints, or some other video resources...
Describe in detail how you have all the controls (switches, knobs, faders) of the channels to which you have the guitars plugged in. The M-500 series is a little trickier than other mixing consoles to understand at first, because not only do you have to assign inputs to PGM groups, but you have to then use the MONITOR mixer (the set of 16 LEVEL and PAN knobs above the 8 PGM group faders) to monitor the signal you have assigned to one or more PGM groups, and then you have to select the output of the MONITOR mixer as the thing you are listening to in the headphones or your monitor speakers.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop hey got the message n' really appreciate your contacting me. i'll follow a couple of leads from what you've suggested and see if i can get it to fire up....i've got the instruction booklet here and i'll reread to see if it correlates (in terms of understanding) to what you've written. appreciate n' thanks.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop hi, thought i'd write back ....the specific need for my use of the M520 is to receive inputs from mic and line and then use direct outs to input into my UAD sound card....the desk is ahead of me at the moment except for the fact that the direct outs will go straight into the Inputs of my soundcard (i'm using apollo twin (2 in) with behringer ada8200 (8 xlr's in)...i'm trialing the desk today and have seen that i'm getting signal via the clipping signal in the gain stage. i'm also getting phantom power on most channels....it seems one channel has no PP. at issue for me at this time, given the scope of the desk is that i have no VU metering, even though the signal is present. i haven't worked out how to get that to work. whilst i've got the manual, and will be of course reading and trying over the easter break, i'd just like to ask if you have a tip that would put me in the right direction? ultimately the plan is to bring back the stereo master bus from the daw to bring it back via my output stage on the soundcard into the M520 and power my monitors in the studio completely via the M520. hope this is all understandable and not a cause of any problems for you.
I bought the M512 4 months ago and I'm delighted with it! But the problem is that I run out of channels with thr FX return (stereo delay and mono spring reverb - so 3 channels). Does anybody know if it has FX return other than the channel itself?
So, Pablo, there are a couple things you can do. I'm going to assume you don't need to EQ your effects returns. If you DO need to EQ your effects returns, you are stuck using input channel strips as effects returns. But if not, and you are not using all your TAPE IN inputs, you can connect outputs from you effects gear to any available TAPE IN jacks and then over in the monitor mixer set the respective monitor mixer channel sources to TAPE, turn up the LEVEL control and PAN to taste, make sure you have MON selected in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack in order to monitor the output of the monitor mixer, and you should be able to hear your effects outputs in the headphones and at the STEREO A and B output jacks...and at the MONITOR OUT jacks. In the event you are using all your TAPE IN jacks, you can also use SUB IN jacks. Look at the back of the console at the jack panel behind the master section. You'll see a couple clusters of SUB IN jacks. These jacks inject the sources connected to them directly to each respective buss just before the summing amp of each respective buss. So you could connect effects outputs to the MON SUB IN jacks and then when you have MOBN selected in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack, you would hear your effects outputs...or you could use the SPARE SUB IN and have independent control of monitoring that set of effects outputs since the SPARE jacks have their own switch in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack. You will also see each AUX buss and each PGM group also have their own SUB IN jacks, so you can connect effects outputs to any of those busses as well. Then in the case of the PGM SUB IN jacks the effects unit outputs would be controlled by the respective PGM group fader(s) and you would then monitor them by sourcing the appropriate monitor mixer channel to BUSS, turning up the LEVEL control and PANning to taste, and then lastly press the MON switch in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack to monitor those PGM groups as you normally would, only those groups now also carry the signal from the effects outputs connected to the respective SUB IN jacks. The only downside to this second method (using the SUB IN jacks) is that there is no separate input level control for those SUB IN jacks, so if your effects units do not have output level controls or their nominal operating level is significantly less than -10dBv, you may not have enough signal at the SUB IN jacks to make this work. You can resolve this by getting an outboard line mixer such as the Tascam M-1, Fostex had something similar too, OR there are lots of current products on the market by ART, Samson, Behringer to name a few that do the same thing...usually 8 or 16 line inputs and a stereo summing mixer with 2 outputs, you could connect several effects units to the inputs of a line mixer, and then connect the outputs to any pair of inputs on the M-512 that best suit your setup...the SPARE SUB IN jacks might be ideal. This idea is all outlined in your M-512 manual starting on page 37.
No these are old videos captured prior to selling my one and only M-520 back in 2009. Links to the videos were so buried in my monster M-520 thread on the homerecording.com analog forum I wanted to get them more accessible here on TH-cam and post some fresh links.
The 85-16 came earlier than the M-500 series. The M-520 wasn’t designed for the 85-16 per se, but it WAS designed to mate with a 16-track tape machine, and the M-512 with an 8-track machine. The M-500 series is more contemporaneous to the 85-16’s successor, the MS16.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thanks for the reply!! It would be a compatible pairing though right? I just picked up a m520 and am about to pull the trigger on a 85-16b
Oh no ... shifting cheek-to-cheek 2 suppress the G.A.S. M5 8 channel’s plenty ... suuuuure it is😝. Excellent mini-tutorials these & the Teac M5 ... which inspired me 2 hunt down one 4 myself Down Under.
👍 Love it . . . YOU ~ ROCK ! !
I had one like that. They sound very clean and open. Great console. I changed it for a Soundcraft series-600 because it has more "warmth" and punch, which I prefer.
The Tascam has less noise, but the Soundcraft works better for my kind of music.
I like the '70's prog-rock sound, and also record on 2" tape. No digital in this house.
very funny ha ha ha No digital in this house.....yes i can't see the use of 'clean' analogue equipment unless it takes the edge off without colouring it? i wouldn't mind a couple of high end eq's though to precison eq my 70's and 60's vibes once in awhile
Absolute underrated!!! To many have that "high end" fail in his thinking! You need not a ssl or neve, studer or some other higesd end mixer! So many from the best records was made on some pro mixer linke that professionel and superb mixer! ...you kann never find more so good micer today, only extremely high priced one! This tascam m series mixer absolut pro mixer! Love thay!!! You can made as good records on thay as on high end mixer! I love also neve, ssl and other but thay are expensiv! And i i would have one ssl mixer i would use my tascsm to! Thay are very good pro mixer! Need not more! The m600 ist the higest of thay m series with that classic style and vu meter! And also a superb mixer to like the m520 here! ...love the truh bypass on it! Thats a superb thing! Love to record as naturaly as posible!!!
i have a tacsam m-512, and id like to use an external mic pre-amp into all of my tape return channels. the mic pre-amp, a focusrite isa one, only outputs a line level signal. my recorder is a tascam 38.
i noticed that there’s only 4 line level inputs on the tape return channels, and the other 4 line inputs belong to the 2 track channels. can i patch my cables to “move over” into those channels to use as my other 4 channels for my tascam 38 recorder? or is there a way to patch a line level signal into the first 4 channels on the mixer, so i can use my mic pre-amp?
i suppose all that matters is that the line level is getting onto its respective track on the recorder itself, because all i want the channel strip for is to eq and mix the eventual playback from the tape.
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.
I need to source a full set of new, or second-hand metal channel-strip panels for my M520 because some of the originals have rust and corrosion on them.
I have some spare parts, but not a full set of dress panels…I think I have two input module dress panels. I’d have to check which ones.
could you do a video on how to get one of the channel pcbs out of this board or just tell me what i am missing? i can get the 4 channel piece out but i dont want to break the pcb trying to get it out. min needs some major work done. thanks.
1. Remove all the knob and fader caps.
2. Remove the screws that fix the beige dress panel to the module chassis…two at the top IIRC.
3. Remove all the faders, 2 screws each.
4. You should then be able to remove the dress panel and underneath you’ll see additional screws that hold each channel PCB to the module chassis, as well as all the nutted pots.
5. Remove all nuts and screws for the channel PCB you want to remove from the assembly.
6. You will also have to disconnect some connectors that chain between each channel PCB.
Hope that helps! Disclaimers…this is all from memory so there might be something I missed. I haven’t owned an M-500 console in years…I have some spare modules but they are in a box buried in storage at the moment.
yea that helps. i guess there are some screws i missed deep between the channels. i got this thing for free and its pretty beat up.. a lot of missing faders and knobs. some channels work fairly well and some don't hardly at all. its definitely a project. bought a power supply from eBay and turned it on today. probably going to clean and and re cap it channel by channel. and see what happens.
would you consider selling any of those extra parts you have?
I might but it depends on what you’re looking for. I have an amazing M-500 prototype console that shares some components with the production M-500 consoles, so I like to keep the spares around for that. What are you looking for exactly?
oh nice. i have been watching your videos of that prototype while figuring out this mixer because there really aren't a lot of videos on how they operate. mine didn't come with the manual. most of the channels work except for 1-4. but i have a lot of missing knobs and buttons and quite a few pots that have been broken clean off of the pcbs. huge dents in the metal covers too. someone really did a number on this thing. i just tested all the channels and direct outs that seem to work. i found someone who sells spare knobs but i cant seem to find fresh cover plates and i can imagine most of the pan pots are toast. i wouldn't want to take your stock if its for the prototype mixer. but if you can point me in the direction to get fresh components and where to get new capacitors that would be awesome.
Is the MX-80 relate to this mixer? I have an M50 but it's so big I would prefer just to use the preamps of the MX80
Hi, quick question first…what is an MX-50? I’ve never heard of that. Do you mean the M-50?
@@SweetbeatsTechStop yes m-50
Okay. Yeah I couldn’t remember for sure but I just looked at the M-50/M-500 Series and MX-80 schematics and the mic amp is essentially identical between them.
That's good to hear . well i think i'm going to buy one and then sell my m50
Hi have the chanse to get my hands on a Tascam M1600 but the M-520 is the one i really want. What is your thougt about the two. Witch one do you think is better
So the M-1600 and M-500 series are pretty different. Both have a lot of flexible routing features, but for me personally I’d choose the M-520. A lot of that is just an emotional decision though...the M-500 series was designed/built with an all metal chassis/case, and are overall a more robust build...older, more costly design/build. And aesthetically I think the M-500 series looks much nicer. An M-1600 console, at this age, might need less work, will have a smaller footprint and overall be easier to move around, so those are some other things to think about. Also the EQ on the M-1600 might be more usable since it has hi/lo shelving filters. I think the M-1600 might be a bit more neutral in its sound so there’s something else to think about. I don’t know if that helps or not but those are some thoughts off the top of my head.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Yeah, the M520 is a little beast. I think the M520 has external PSU and M1600 internal PSU. Have you noticed any difference in regards of that effecting the sound
It just depends on the model. The M-512 uses internal supply, M-520 external. Likewise the smaller versions of the M-1600 series use internal, the larger versions external. The question isn’t whether it’s an internal or external supply; that’s just a matter of physical size and what’s practical to mount in the console chassis, and also what is practical to shield. The question is really more about the type of supply, switching or linear, and the size of the power rails and main transformer (on a linear supply) as well as the power supply design...the filtration and such. There is debate about whether linear or switching is better. I was always a linear guy, then I got my Studer which uses switching supplies and sounds amazing. So I think it’s really more about how well the supplies were designed to meet the demands of the console, and how well they filter noise. Good news is Teac typically did a good job with the power supply design on their full-featured mixing consoles including the M-500 and M-1600 series, internal or external.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Ok, thanks for the info
Hey question here
maybe a dumb question but right now I have a tascam M520 - > aux out 1 -> behringer ha 8000 direct in.
The signal is very very quiet. When I go into the main in of the behringer, (or direct in) from the stereo master B, I get the proper volume.
It was my understanding you can use the 4 auxiliary outs pre fader to get four individual aux sends while tracking and the behringer headphone amp powers this signal? Or is monitoring for the talent only supposed to come from the stereo master B channel
Any help is appreciated.
No “dumb questions” except the one you don’t ask. Your intention with the AUX buss is spot-on…a perfect application for it. Question: where do you have the AUX 1 master fader set? The AUX level knobs on each channel strip are summed to a master fader for each in the master section. So you first rotate each AUX knob to taste on any channel strip, but then you have to raise the master fader for whatever AUX buss you are using in order to get appropriate output level at the respective AUX OUT jack. So let me know how you have that set or if that helps. FWIW the STEREO A buss is designed to feed the control room monitor speakers or speaker amp, and the STEREO B buss is designed to feed the “studio” speakers…the playback speakers for the talent in the recording room. We don’t always have both of those things and of course you can use those busses for anything you want, but that was the intended purpose for those outputs because of how the talkback features are setup.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop thank you for the reply! Yes the corresponding aux 1 fader in the master section was turned up all the way along with the aux 1 trim/gain pot. So I ended up patching the aux out signal to the balance transformer on the board and then out to my respective direct in on the headphone amp, that gave me the proper level. Which to me is confusing because I don’t know why it has to be +4. So patching straight from the aux out 1 rca to direct in stereo trs was probably why it wasn’t wanting to work. Rca to stereo trs I had to use a rca male to dual rca female y splitter and took a stereo rca to 3.5mm and then a 3.5mm to 1/4 adapter. However when I used that crazy cable adapter I concocted from the stereo master B I got the right level interestingly. Only when using that cable cfrom the aux out directly to the behringer’s respective direct in for any headphone channel the signal was quiet! (There’s 2 main ins on the headphone amp or you can use one of 8 direct ins for each headphone amp for a personal monitoring mix. However when plugging into the direct in, it mutes the main channel. Really annoying caveat. Interesting work around I found I guess by using the balance transformer.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop probably better to use a balanced signal for monitoring since my talent are in the living room and my control room is in the garage? Lol. I feel like most people are fine monitoring from the stereo master B anyhow. That way I can get instant playback too. I just wanted to make the aux work for proof of concept. Would it be wise to have all my aux’s on a patch bay with 4 normalled to the headphone amp? And the other 4 normalled to the spare/2 track A for efx returns?
@@samslavin8957 so when you used the STEREO B outs you were able to go straight from the L & R RCA outputs to the stereo RCA to 3.5mm TRS adapter and then to the 1/4” TRS, right? And that worked? I’ve had experiences like yours when splitting a mono output using some crazy Clark Griswold-esque collection of adapters and it doesn’t work. If it worked from the STEREO B out jacks and you were basically going from stereo out to a stereo in it is likely something related to your cabling. BTW the BALANCE AMP section is transformerless. You called it the “balance transformer” but there’s no transformer.
@@samslavin8957 there’s no benefit to using the balance amp output of the M-500 console to your HA8000 DIRECT IN jacks because they are unbalanced stereo. The unbalanced input on the Behringer unbalances the balanced output of the Tascam balance amp. If you’re wanting to use an AUX buss to feed a DIRECT IN jack on the Behringer I would use an RCA to 1/4” TS cable, or an RCA to RCA cable connected to an RCA to 1/4” TS adapter at the DIRECT IN jack, and then latch the MONO switch on the Behringer on whatever HA8000 channel you are feeding with the Tascam AUX buss. Your elaborate adapter chain is all mono anyway. If your talent needs stereo then you’ll need to feed the DIRECT IN via two AUX busses or some other stereo out, and I would purchase or fabricate a proper dual RCA to TRS cable set (one RCA to tip, the other to the ring). You could buy a standard “insert cable” and get a pair of 1/4” TS-F to RCA-M adapters and be done with it. You can connect that to a STEREO out, a pair of AUX outs, or even use a couple PGM groups as a quasi stereo aux buss and plug in to the respective PGM group outputs. Lots of options. I wouldn’t put the AUX buss outs on a patchbay unless you really need to do that much plugging and unplugging and reconfiguring. If you’re running this rig and recording multiple bands each day then maybe that makes sense, but IMO you’ll want to fab up a custom snake from the patchbay to the HA8000 so you don’t keep tearing your hair out with signal issues.
This was the console Rod Temperton had in his home studio in LA that he wrote all those hits on...Michael Jackson, George Benson, Brothers Johnson etc..
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.
Just was reading your thread about this. I have the chance to pick one up for 300, guy has the power supply and claims it's fully functional but who knows. Are these easy to work on? I know the channels come out in 4 but could I fix something if I needed to? Thanks
Well what are you picturing when you ask if something can be fixed if you needed to? Like, anything can be fixed, it just depends in your skill level and desire. It’s not as easy to work in as a console with individual channel modules that can be removed. It’s not as hard to work on as a console that’s not at all modular. The M-500 series, like, if you have a problem with an individual channel you have to pull the 4-channel module and then pull the individual card out of the module. So it’s a moderate PITA. But just moderate. The hardest part is unplugging all the connectors to the 4-channel module to get it out.
What would you say the sonic character is of this unit? It looks to be of the same generation as the 246 Portastudio which I’m familiar with.
Hi. It is the same era as the 246, but the signal path is completely different. That being said it might sound similar to the 246 just in terms of the mixing section? The thing is I personally don’t think about any of this era or echelon of gear having a sonic “signature” per se. you get more into that when you’re talking about transformer coupled gear, or less garden-variety circuits. The M-500 series was a nice low-mid budget design that sounds nice, and I’ve heard some people say they like the way the summing busses break up when pushed, but I think it’s relevant to keep in mind the M-500 series isn’t a boutique console…it was a low-mid budget console in its day. Build quality and design has cheapened over time in this bracket, so there’s that. And in general I would definitely say the M-500 series sounds “warmer” and less generic than modern-day low-mid budget consoles. If quantified that might reveal the cause is higher distortion and noise and lower performing opamps compared to modern day offerings…I don’t know…a lot of people DON’T rave about the mic amp, but just from the standpoint of the circuit itself, while not “fancy”, it is a more expensive design than a lot of other low-mid budget console preamps. And I think it sounds fine. Hopefully that gives you at least some points to consider. I think I’d use an M-500 preamp (also the same mic amp that’s found in the MX-80 rack-mount unit, and the M-50 console that preceded the M-500 series, and my prototype 12x8 inline modular console that was the prototype for the M-50) before any contemporary Mackie, Behringer, or low-mid budget Soundcraft or Allen & Heath console for instance. And I have direct experience with all of those among many others. Yeah, those other consoles’ mic amps *may* have more gain, and may be quieter, which is what the marketing people push and now we consumers think makes a good mic amp, but I think the M-500 mic amp just sounds more warm and musical. Again, not boutique holy-grail world’s best-kept secret mic amp, it sounds “nice”, and my personal opinion is I lean toward it over modern console mic amps in the same budget bracket.
@@SweetbeatsTechStopThanks for that description - it definitely gives me a good idea of its sonic qualities. I have had a Soundcraft 12 ch mixer w/o a power supply for some time I told myself I would retrofit with a new power supply but now thinking that might not be worth it. A unit like this one, however, might be great paired with some quality preamps and outboard gear. Love these overviews 👍🏻
Informative and it is a beauty
I have one of these but I dont use it. Is it any use or advantage compared to "in the box" approach ?
Seb Warren Music ..I think if you used this with a pair of out board eqs..and some compressors you will like the difference..I have a hybrid set up and like my mixes better that way
Hi S . . . Is it for Sale …?
I just bought this mixer Im finding it a little confusing ,The pans dont seem to control left and right,they control the mix bus ? how do you make a recording that has drums in stereo but tweeking guitars more left or right ???
I think there is no dedicated mix bus but 8 buses that you can use as a stereo output. You route the channels thru the matrix and voila! usable pan per channel
i have one and have just placed in my studio.....candidly it's operation to get started is beyond me...initial attempt to get signal flow through have not produced results, but i can see the signal overload light illuminate when playing a guitar in track 1 and track 2 (Trs cable)..of the respondents here can anyone let me know a better system for getting started than the manual....some hints, or some other video resources...
Describe in detail how you have all the controls (switches, knobs, faders) of the channels to which you have the guitars plugged in. The M-500 series is a little trickier than other mixing consoles to understand at first, because not only do you have to assign inputs to PGM groups, but you have to then use the MONITOR mixer (the set of 16 LEVEL and PAN knobs above the 8 PGM group faders) to monitor the signal you have assigned to one or more PGM groups, and then you have to select the output of the MONITOR mixer as the thing you are listening to in the headphones or your monitor speakers.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop hey got the message n' really appreciate your contacting me. i'll follow a couple of leads from what you've suggested and see if i can get it to fire up....i've got the instruction booklet here and i'll reread to see if it correlates (in terms of understanding) to what you've written. appreciate n' thanks.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop hi, thought i'd write back ....the specific need for my use of the M520 is to receive inputs from mic and line and then use direct outs to input into my UAD sound card....the desk is ahead of me at the moment except for the fact that the direct outs will go straight into the Inputs of my soundcard (i'm using apollo twin (2 in) with behringer ada8200 (8 xlr's in)...i'm trialing the desk today and have seen that i'm getting signal via the clipping signal in the gain stage. i'm also getting phantom power on most channels....it seems one channel has no PP. at issue for me at this time, given the scope of the desk is that i have no VU metering, even though the signal is present. i haven't worked out how to get that to work. whilst i've got the manual, and will be of course reading and trying over the easter break, i'd just like to ask if you have a tip that would put me in the right direction? ultimately the plan is to bring back the stereo master bus from the daw to bring it back via my output stage on the soundcard into the M520 and power my monitors in the studio completely via the M520. hope this is all understandable and not a cause of any problems for you.
I bought the M512 4 months ago and I'm delighted with it! But the problem is that I run out of channels with thr FX return (stereo delay and mono spring reverb - so 3 channels). Does anybody know if it has FX return other than the channel itself?
So, Pablo, there are a couple things you can do. I'm going to assume you don't need to EQ your effects returns. If you DO need to EQ your effects returns, you are stuck using input channel strips as effects returns. But if not, and you are not using all your TAPE IN inputs, you can connect outputs from you effects gear to any available TAPE IN jacks and then over in the monitor mixer set the respective monitor mixer channel sources to TAPE, turn up the LEVEL control and PAN to taste, make sure you have MON selected in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack in order to monitor the output of the monitor mixer, and you should be able to hear your effects outputs in the headphones and at the STEREO A and B output jacks...and at the MONITOR OUT jacks. In the event you are using all your TAPE IN jacks, you can also use SUB IN jacks. Look at the back of the console at the jack panel behind the master section. You'll see a couple clusters of SUB IN jacks. These jacks inject the sources connected to them directly to each respective buss just before the summing amp of each respective buss. So you could connect effects outputs to the MON SUB IN jacks and then when you have MOBN selected in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack, you would hear your effects outputs...or you could use the SPARE SUB IN and have independent control of monitoring that set of effects outputs since the SPARE jacks have their own switch in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack. You will also see each AUX buss and each PGM group also have their own SUB IN jacks, so you can connect effects outputs to any of those busses as well. Then in the case of the PGM SUB IN jacks the effects unit outputs would be controlled by the respective PGM group fader(s) and you would then monitor them by sourcing the appropriate monitor mixer channel to BUSS, turning up the LEVEL control and PANning to taste, and then lastly press the MON switch in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack to monitor those PGM groups as you normally would, only those groups now also carry the signal from the effects outputs connected to the respective SUB IN jacks. The only downside to this second method (using the SUB IN jacks) is that there is no separate input level control for those SUB IN jacks, so if your effects units do not have output level controls or their nominal operating level is significantly less than -10dBv, you may not have enough signal at the SUB IN jacks to make this work. You can resolve this by getting an outboard line mixer such as the Tascam M-1, Fostex had something similar too, OR there are lots of current products on the market by ART, Samson, Behringer to name a few that do the same thing...usually 8 or 16 line inputs and a stereo summing mixer with 2 outputs, you could connect several effects units to the inputs of a line mixer, and then connect the outputs to any pair of inputs on the M-512 that best suit your setup...the SPARE SUB IN jacks might be ideal. This idea is all outlined in your M-512 manual starting on page 37.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Tha'ts EXACTLY the kind of answer I was looking for! Much obliged good sir!
Beautiful
Yes that is a beauty :D
Great consumer mixer!!!
Is this another board that you restored? I thought you ended up selling your first M520?
No these are old videos captured prior to selling my one and only M-520 back in 2009. Links to the videos were so buried in my monster M-520 thread on the homerecording.com analog forum I wanted to get them more accessible here on TH-cam and post some fresh links.
Sweetbeats' Tech Stop great explanations, thanks for putting these up. What are you mixing on nowadays?
Can u use the vu meters for each channelsz?
By “each channel” do you mean PGM group channel or input channel? Each VU meter can be physically patched to any -10dBv I/O patch point.
A mate of mine is giving one of these, plus the power supply, to me next week....for nothing.
welcome to the free M520 club
It seems like this was specifically designed for the tascam 85-16b tape deck can anyone confirm???
The 85-16 came earlier than the M-500 series. The M-520 wasn’t designed for the 85-16 per se, but it WAS designed to mate with a 16-track tape machine, and the M-512 with an 8-track machine. The M-500 series is more contemporaneous to the 85-16’s successor, the MS16.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thanks for the reply!! It would be a compatible pairing though right? I just picked up a m520 and am about to pull the trigger on a 85-16b
Oh absolutely...for sure. They are perfectly compatible.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop 🎥 🎸 YEP ! ! 👍
Oh no ... shifting cheek-to-cheek 2 suppress the G.A.S. M5 8 channel’s plenty ... suuuuure it is😝. Excellent mini-tutorials these & the Teac M5 ... which inspired me 2 hunt down one 4 myself Down Under.
Nick cage over here