Tascam M-520 thoughts?
- Thread starter crbp742
- Start date
jslabovitz
New member
Lots of people hate on old Tascam's, but the 520 is still a fun beast. The main thing is to not compare it to modern 'clean' mixers, nor to vintage transformer-based mixers. It's very much a product of the 1980s; if you like that sound, you'll probably like the 520.
Pros:
- Good ergonomics and feel (pots, switches), and reasonably well built
- Very flexible routing, with good workflow for 8- or 16-track recording (what it was designed for).
- Excellent manual.
- Nice big meter bridge with all eight groups and stereo busses.
- Pres and EQs are useable.
Cons:
- Almost everything connects via unbalanced, -10db RCA connectors. I don't mind the RCA connectors (they're fine as long as you aren't plugging/unplugging frequently), but I'm slowly realizing that the lower signal level and the unbalanced connections are a hassle when most of your outboard is +4/balanced. You'll be wanting to keep your racks pretty close to the mixer -- no 20-foot snake runs!
- Every input *must* go through both the input strips and one of the 8 groups, and then into the stereo mix. This isn't the quietest mixer, so adding another amplification stage is not optimal. (It's probably possible to short-circuit this by using group outputs, but it would make things more complex.)
I bought mine for $350 (I think) and then had to put in a few hours of time de-oxidizing and lubricating all the pots and switches. That was a good lesson in how the thing works, but if I did it again, I'd try to buy one in better condition.
Hope this helps.
Pros:
- Good ergonomics and feel (pots, switches), and reasonably well built
- Very flexible routing, with good workflow for 8- or 16-track recording (what it was designed for).
- Excellent manual.
- Nice big meter bridge with all eight groups and stereo busses.
- Pres and EQs are useable.
Cons:
- Almost everything connects via unbalanced, -10db RCA connectors. I don't mind the RCA connectors (they're fine as long as you aren't plugging/unplugging frequently), but I'm slowly realizing that the lower signal level and the unbalanced connections are a hassle when most of your outboard is +4/balanced. You'll be wanting to keep your racks pretty close to the mixer -- no 20-foot snake runs!
- Every input *must* go through both the input strips and one of the 8 groups, and then into the stereo mix. This isn't the quietest mixer, so adding another amplification stage is not optimal. (It's probably possible to short-circuit this by using group outputs, but it would make things more complex.)
I bought mine for $350 (I think) and then had to put in a few hours of time de-oxidizing and lubricating all the pots and switches. That was a good lesson in how the thing works, but if I did it again, I'd try to buy one in better condition.
Hope this helps.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
More than you ever, ever needed or wanted to know about the M-500 series from Tascam:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/analog-recording-mixing-tape-gear/tascam-m520-story-263863/
https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/analog-recording-mixing-tape-gear/tascam-m520-story-263863/
ethyrvalve
Norman Nanoweber
I used this console for several years before upgrading to a pair of linked Studer 169 boards.
It was mostly great. I agree with most of jslabovitz's notes.
Pros:
-Very flexible routing and monitoring options.
-Built in DI and RIAA inputs--really indicative of the nice thoughtful design.
-Redundant 'Access Send' output--(to my ears this was the cleanest output option) in case you don't have a half-normal patchbay.
-The pres sounded fine to me.
-Very reliable
-Built-in 8 channel 'matchbox' unbalanced -10dBv to +4dBu converter.
-Meter bridge lets you patch in external signals (e.g. your 2-track)
Cons:
-Tape monitor section sounded slightly different (worse). While it is really nice to have dedicated tape returns, the sound could get very dark (particularly with 16 tracks). I'd often have to switch the channel inputs to 'tape' to let people hear how things really sounded on tape. This is one area where I might have investigated op-amp upgrades if I kept the console.
-The EQs. I very much disliked them. I took pains to only use them for cutting.
-The faders got a bit noisy when dusty (not a huge deal, since they were easy to clean--but I wonder if there was a bit of DC on them to exacerbate this?). The easy solution was keeping it covered at all times when not in use.
And yep, check Cory's megathread.
It was mostly great. I agree with most of jslabovitz's notes.
Pros:
-Very flexible routing and monitoring options.
-Built in DI and RIAA inputs--really indicative of the nice thoughtful design.
-Redundant 'Access Send' output--(to my ears this was the cleanest output option) in case you don't have a half-normal patchbay.
-The pres sounded fine to me.
-Very reliable
-Built-in 8 channel 'matchbox' unbalanced -10dBv to +4dBu converter.
-Meter bridge lets you patch in external signals (e.g. your 2-track)
Cons:
-Tape monitor section sounded slightly different (worse). While it is really nice to have dedicated tape returns, the sound could get very dark (particularly with 16 tracks). I'd often have to switch the channel inputs to 'tape' to let people hear how things really sounded on tape. This is one area where I might have investigated op-amp upgrades if I kept the console.
-The EQs. I very much disliked them. I took pains to only use them for cutting.
-The faders got a bit noisy when dusty (not a huge deal, since they were easy to clean--but I wonder if there was a bit of DC on them to exacerbate this?). The easy solution was keeping it covered at all times when not in use.
And yep, check Cory's megathread.
Liked it so much, that upon my re entry into the recording world bought another one.