have otari mx5050 8 track, need mixer

[Ashurbanipal]

I need a mixer for my otari mx5050 8 track. Am leaning towards Mackie Onyx, Allenand Heath ZED series, or Soundcraft M series.

Which one sounds the best?

I like having all the features that the Mackie and Allen and Heath's have that are around $1500 US. Do the cheaper ones that have fewer features offer the same sound quality?

[sweetbeats]

What specifically are the features you like best about Mackie and the Allen & Heath?

[Ashurbanipal]

4 band EQ, groups, control room mix that's separate from master. I could get by with one of the smaller ones that doesn't have those, but only if the sound quality is just as good. I haven't decided how much I want to spend. No more than $2000.

[sweetbeats]

Are you set on buying new?

How many channels do you need and how many groups?

I realize this is OT from what you were originally asking, but realize that in your price range none of the mixers you mentioned will be a good for tracking to an 8-track recorder if you need to record more than 4 tracks at a time because none of them have more than 4 groups nor do they have post fader direct outs on the channel strips...unless you use aux sends to do it.

That's why so many of us here are partial to the older Tascam mixers...inline mixing features and I/O galore...rugged build and nice sounding.

Is the I/O on your 5050 balanced or unbalanced and is it +4, -10 or both?

[Ashurbanipal]

nor do they have post fader direct outs on the channel strips

Good point, that I had not thought about, however the Soundcraft M series does have that.

Is the I/O on your 5050 balanced or unbalanced and is it +4, -10 or both?

Unblalanced, definitely +4 and maybe -10 but I don't remember.

I'm open to suggestions on good sounding older mixers.

[sweetbeats]

Sorry...missed that on the Soundcraft...

Another option (since the Spirit M12 is lacking in monitoring facilities) is the Allen & Heath MixWizard WZ3 14:4:2. More than the others, but well within your budget ceiling.

I've worked extensively with a GL3300-32 and it has been a great mixer to use. The 14:4:2 has all the I/O and monitoring options you would need and more in a fairly compact package. A lot of pro features in a small format. In that way it is reminiscent of the older Tascam mixers.

I've also worked with an older Mackie. Not apples-to-apples with the newer generation but there were some things left desired with it...plus the Onyx series mixers as far as recording are really geared for tracking to digital over the optional f/w card.

How many channels do you need?

As far as used mixers, I really haven't found anything else that compares to the older Tascam mixers in terms of build quality, design and features. They were designed around the project studio. I presently have an M-520, and M-308B and a prototype 500-series mixer. Based on what you are looking at and what you are wanting to interface I'd direct you to an M-312B...12 x 4 x 2 x 1, inline features for quick flip between MIC and LINE inputs (with separate TRIM knobs), 3-band eq but mid and lower bands are swept, 100mm faders, full routing capability, a silly-flexible 8-channel monitor mixer for tape returns, full control room and talkback facilities...hand and fist above the mixers you are looking at in terms of mixing power and flexibility. Something to think about for sure. Maybe $400 +/- for one in good condition?

Here's a full-color brochure on the 300B-series...

[Ashurbanipal]

How many channels do you need?

More than 8, but I haven't thought through that. I of course want to be able to monitor the tape while recording, and not having to patch all the time would be nice, so maybe 16, but I'm mostly concerned with getting the best sounding pre's, eq's and mixing and such that I can afford and then I'll make comprimises elsewhere.

[sweetbeats]

Man...I'm hoping others will chime in, but IMHO the sonic differences in pre's between the mixers you are talking about and/or a Tascam 300-series or anything in that arena are going to be hair splitting...none of them are "boutique" pre's and neither are any of them ROC special...y'know what I mean? I'd be happy using any of those pre's but from an engineering standpoint I can tell you that I think you are making a mistake sacrificing good control room and monitoring capability to get maybe a slightly better mic preamp (based on somebody's opinion)...I'm just basing that admonishion on your priority list:

I'm mostly concerned with getting the best sounding pre's, eq's and mixing and such that I can afford and then I'll make comprimises elsewhere.

You need to ask yourself also what you are expecting this mixer to do for you. It won't make you sound better or improve your skills. I'm not questioning that at all...I don't know you from Adam but I know its a mistake I made. I've heard incredible sounding songs from people on this very forum and they've done it with "second-rate" mics on 25 year old cassette 4-trackers. I'm picky, and I think I can recognize a good mix vs. a bad mix and this stuff blew me away. And I figured if they can do that on that gear then gear is not my limitation and neither will the difference between the pre's on a MixWizard, ZED, Onyx or Spirit M mixer...I can tell you from experience that its an exercise in frustration to use a mixer where you have to jury-rig monitoring functions and patch and re-patch to get the job done and at that point you and the talent would rather anything with the right functions be in place than something that some marketing guru told the world was "better". That's my 2p but I feel pretty passionate about that and I don't believe you are going to find anything in your price braket better suited for mating with that 5050-8 than something akin to the M-312...the WZ3 14:4:2 comes pretty close.

And as far as pre's go? Maybe I'm biased/inexperienced/insane, but my favorite pre's in my studio are on my 20 year old Tascam M-520...haven't used the 308B yet as it needs work but based on the channel architecture and the opamps used I bet I'll like those even better, and that's comparing to a Yamaha i88x (only 2 pre's but they are based on the Yamaha DM-2000 pre's...Google that...highly touted pre's as were the i88x's in kind) and a Presonus Digimax FS. Hands-down I like the M-520 better. If somebody was going to give me my choice of the mixers you listed or minty Tascam M-312B, I'd take the Tascam. It would be a better fit for what I do.

So, do what you're going to do, but knowing what I know today I can't imagine spending $1200+ bucks on a mixer that lacks the things I need in the control room and doesn't sound as good to me as a mixer that's got it all and more that costs 1/3 to 1/4 the money.

That's one opinion but it is based on 2 full and involved CD projects and getting my hands dirty with the internal components and how stuff is put together.

[sweetbeats]

By the way, one of the beauties of the Tascam mixer is that you don't need extra channels to monitor 8-track returns...that's the plus of a mixer with inline features...the tape returns go into the line inputs and those can either be routed to the channel strip (for mixdown time with full eq and AUX functions), picked up by the monitor send for a cue mix while the MIC is routed through the strip (keep in mind the TRIM knob is stacked so you can set the gain independently for the MIC and LINE inputs), and/or you can also pick up all 8 returns through 8 channel monitor mixer...that is all on only 8 channels. So the 308 can do that, but the 312 gives you 4 more channel strips for whatever, plus the 312 adds two more AUX sends dedicated to the 8-channel monitor mixer so you've got three ways to create cue mixes. Plus we haven't yet even touched the 4 subgroups with balanced or unbalanced outs switcheable -10 or +4 AND the STEREO mix AND a mono mix...the 312B would be completely comfortable simultaneously handling an 8-track production while managing 12 sources in a live FOH setting and you'd have 4 balance +4 monitor feeds and a mono mix to the house pa and stereo for balcony fills or sub feeds and all the while the engineer has all the talkback and monitoring flexibility to communicate and monitor without repatching...and the 8-track sends can be monitored off the desk or the heads with the flip of switches. You can't do that with anything new for even 4 or 5x the price today.

[Ashurbanipal]

Thanks. You've about sold me on the tascams. I read in a post somewhere that the 308/312 etc are at -10db. Don't know if that's right. Since my otari is at +4 is that going to be a problem?

[sweetbeats]

If you do end up going with something like a Tascam M-300, I recommend the 'B' versions as they include phantom switchable in pairs of channels. And look for something local so you can try before you buy...the downside to looking at an older mixer is that they often need at least a little TLC to get them fully up to snuff. If you get new, you're good to go. Get "vintage" and you're really fortunate if you are "good to go"...usually its "good to go get a can of DeoxIT" but they are indeed hearty mixers. I was really shocked at the M-308B that I picked up for $50 a few months back. It was just trashed...here's a thread I started on it:

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=276750

Just nasty on the outside but looks new inside. That's a testament to how it was put together.

Download the brochure I linked a couple posts back. It has all the I/O detail in at as well as closeups of the channels strips and master section.

Yes, the direct outs are -10dBV, though they may be able to drive +4dBu as the specs indicate they max at +18dBV...that's pretty questionable though as to whether they would leave enough headroom in the mixer. You'd be pushing the noise floor. There are always level adapters too that take line level signals from -10dBV to +4dBu and vice-versa. BUT...are you sure the Otari is +4 only and is it balanced on XLR's or unbalanced on XLR's?

My MX-5050BIII-8 manual says that the I/O is unbalanced on XLR's and the I/O level is switcheable between +4 or -8dBu on the back panel of the electronics module (where all the call trimmers are...there are "H/L" level select switches)

This would make it completely compatible with an M-300 mixer though you'd need 1/4" TS ~ XLR unbalanced snakes/cables...

Remember that the M-300 series' mono, stereo and group outs are switcheable between -10dBV on RCA's or +4dBu on XLR's...a real nice feature. Plus, there are 1/4" TRS -10dBV insert jacks for all the input channels as well as the group, stereo and mono out...just one more nicety.

I may actually know somebody with a fully functional well cared for M-312B...it was for sale some time ago and I don't know if it is still around. I can find out if you like, no strings attached. Just if you are interested; I have no tie to seeing it sold or not sold but good M-312B's don't come around very often. PM me if you want me to follow up.

[Blue Jinn]

The 5050 1/2 tracks are switcahble between -10/+4 and can go balanced or unbal.

Note that the Tascam 5xx boards have 8 channels onboard +4 balanced out. Also the Fostex 5030 would work too. ALl are pin 3 hot, which I believe is also the Otari.

[sweetbeats]

Good point on the M-500 balanced out, but frankly having both an M-500 and an M-300 I really like the monitoring section better on the 300-series boards...the monitor mixer on the 500-series boards is nice but there is no master level control for it which is a minor inconvenience...I guess there isn't really for the M-300 either but there are control surface options for where to put the monitor mixer outs that have sum control and the 500 monitor mixer goes to one place...the monitor select switchrack. There is a direct out for the monitor mixer so you could patch it in to a set of group channels and then take those direct outs and bring them in to one of the EXT inputs accesible in the switchrack, but that's just kind of messy. I'm being picky. I know. Plus on the 500-series there is no way to directly route any input channel to the STEREO master buss...maybe a minor point but this is a limiting factor in certain settings. I find the 300-series boards to be more conventional to modern group buss design and application which I thought might be a + to the OP, but they still have all the powerful routing options of the older (and newer, for that matter) Tascam mixers. The 300-series is a very capable "dual-purpose" mixer but has more recording application features in that size mixer than anything else I've ever seen. Plus, as mentioned above, the 300-series employed the next generation of opamps in a number of spots with the 5532 which may mean absolutely nothing but they look a bit better on paper...F-W-I-W.

I do really like both the 500 and 300 series boards tho', and granted the 500-series have a more flexible and powerful aux section and they are 8-buss boards, but there was definitely a maturing in the monitoring and control room sections of the 300's. Wish they'd made an 8-buss 300-series with an oscillator onboard...the 300B mkII as it would have been.

[Blue Jinn]

Mmmh. I never really noticed that about the stereo mix. As for the cue/monitor mix, I got complicated and used direct outs to an 8x2 submixer and used that to feed a Behringer headphone amp. That was a not thinking inside the box so to speak moment, but it works ok.