+4/Bal to -10/Unbal & vice-versa - conversion options...?

Mine has 24 Tape Returns too, but they are not much different than the Line Inputs. The only differences is that the Tape Returns have an impedance of 10k ohms, and the Line Inputs 16k...but their input levels/range is the same.
I always just use the Line Inputs for everything. If I was recording multiple sources and going through the board to the deck...then yeah, the Tape Inputs would be more useful for monitoring back off the deck....but in my situation, I record direct to the deck from my outboard pres, and I'm only doing at most 4-5 tracks at a time so I never need/use the 3500 for signal routing to the deck, but just for monitoring from the deck....and therefore the outputs of the deck just come back to the Line Inputs. Actually...all the I/Os go to my bays, and I just patch as needed.

Then there are the dumps from deck to DAW...and so I just patch the deck's outputs to my A/D boxes (also on the bays).

I mean...it's like six of one, half dozen of the other...Tape Returns or Line Inputs. :D
I don't think the impedance difference is all that much of an issue...it's a minor difference...although, I'm curious how you are controlling the input level to the 3500 Tape Returns, since the Trim knob is pre-Tape Return input and has no effect on the Tape Return level....???
At what levels are you recording to your deck...???
See...I'm using the deck at +4 going in, and I'm using 499 tape and hitting it for all it is worth...so the output from the deck is naturally high, and meant for +4 inputs...which is why I need to trim down the Line Inputs on the 3500.
There is no Trim for the Tape Returns...you get the full level coming off the deck...so where are your recording levels on the deck?

I'm just trying to formulate the "best practices" SOP for my situation...though I do think from what I described in my last post that it's OK for me to do it either way...High output (+4dBm) from the deck and trim down the Line inputs on the console, or switch to Low output (-8dBm / -10dBV) on the deck and set the trim where it normally falls for -10dBV signals.

The real kick is that I have the LA-3500 +4dBm Balancing Kit...though not installed, as I never needed it...but what sucks is that they only made it for 16 tracks of returns even though the console has 24 Tape Returns...yet they doubled up on the output board, and gave you two sets of 8 at +4dBm Balanced, which can give you 16 Balanced Group outs...but like WTF, the board has only an 8-Channel assignment matrix, so both sets of 8 +4dBm outputs would have the same signals. DUH! :rolleyes:
Makes no sense to me.
They should have given one 8-channel output PCB, and three 8-channel input PCBs for 24 Tape Returns.
I've been staring at the LA-3500 Balancing Kit considering if there was a way to "reverse" one of those Group Output boards for Tape Return use...:)....but I don't see any possible way...it's just a wish.
I don't want to install it for just 16 Tape Returns, and then when I'm using more tracks...having to futz with the remaining output levels a differerent way...though I guess it wouldn't be that bad.

And then there is the other option...the one that is actually recommend in the 3500 manual...and the is to use the Mic inputs which are already +4dBm and Balanced...turn down the trim all the way and engage the Mic Pad.
My only hassle with that is currently all of my 24 mic channels on the 3500 are wired to my preamp patchbays...and not my Line patchbays....they are at opposite ends of my console desk....soooooooo...it would take a lot of rewiring to make that a usable option. I'm not motivated....but I may try at least a couple of channels just to hear it. Heck, I NEVER use my 3500 preamps anyway...but then, not sure how much they would change/color the signal off the deck.
The stock 3500 preamps don't get a lot of good press from folks who have been able to compare them to better pres.

Anyway...I may be splitting hairs with all this...but at least when I can talk it out here and get a few responses, it helps me clear out all the hash in my head and come to a conclusion about which way to go. ;)
 
Last edited:
There is a lot of reading here which I admit I have not read all of it, but by not using the tape returns you are making the routing of the 3500 less flexible. Why don't you just make up a balanced to unbalanced +4 to -10 pad for each tape input and connect to the tape returns? The pads are very cheap to make, just a few resistors, if you have a patch bay you could even build it into the back of that. This is how I have my M3700 wired and it works just fine. All the info here.

Alan.
 
Hey Alan...thanks for the response.

Yes, there are many ways to pad/convert the signal level, and I'm not ignoring them. There are also ready made boxes that do all that and a bit more, like taking care of the balanced/unbalanced conversions.

I know it was a lot to read in this thread, but I was trying to be very clear about the specifics and all the options.
Right now I'm considering that I don't really need pads/conversions because - 1.) the MX-80 has a built in High/Low Output switch (also has a High/Low Input level switch) so I can easily drop the output level from +4dBm to -10dBV going to the TASCAM console.

My questions/considerations were about which way was better, to 1.) drop the MX-80 down to -10dBV and use the Line Trims on the console to set the level, which means the trims are up about 75% or 2.) leave the MX-80 at +4dBm and roll back the Line trim to about 30%...?...both wasy give me the same signal level into the console.
I've tried it both ways and I do not obviously hear any difference in the signal...but I was just wondering which would be the "best practices" approach of the two. I think option #1 would be better simply because it doesn't require the Line amp to be turned up as much...and that certainly would help keep the signal coming in a bit cleaner.

I also had some concerns about hitting the -10dBV inputs with hotter voltages...but after looking at the TASCAM manual and specs, I've come to the conclusion that there should be no issues with that. The console has a lot of headroom.

I understand where you are coming from about having more flexibility with the addition of the Tape Returns, but that only would be the case in a specific setup/need.
I don't have any flexibility loss in my setup, as I only use the TASCAM for cue mixes during tracking and form my final mixes....and in both cases having the tape deck outputs going the the console's Line Inputs is perfectly fine and I don't see anything to be gained from the Tape Returns instead of the Line Inputs...???
If you have a specific example of why/how the Tape Returns will give me something more than the Line Inputs in my situation...let me know. I have all the consoles I/Os on the patchbays...so I can connect things any way I want easy enough...I've just always used the Line Inputs...and can't recall ever needed the tape/monitor inputs for much of anything other than a few times I used a couple of channels for FX returns.
I rarely need more than 24 channels....

Thanks Alan!
 
The big advantage of using the tape returns instead of the line inputs is that if you wish to use the inline monitoring this will only work when using the tape returns. For example if you have a lot of tracks tied up for simultaneous recording and you want to monitor the tape returns for quick playback you will need to use the inline faders. However if you never are in this situation using the line inputs is fine. Personally I would stay away from using the XLR's as tape returns, it's too easy to accidentally turn on the phantom and destroy the output caps on the MX-80.

Cheers
Alan.
 
witzendoz said:
For example if you have a lot of tracks tied up for simultaneous recording and you want to monitor the tape returns for quick playback you will need to use the inline faders. However if you never are in this situation using the line inputs is fine.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

If I was using the console to track through and had lots of instruments, etc....then yeah, the Tape/Monitor inputs would be the way to go for the deck...but I never had that much stuff going on...and I don't track through the console anyway. All my mics/preamps and instrument DI stuff goes straight into the tape deck...so the console it always free for just monitoring, and that's how/why I end up using the Line Inputs.

Yes, as much as TASCAM recommends using the Mic Inputs with trim and pad all the way down for +4dBm tape decks...
...I just don't feel that compelled to even try it.
The phantom power is an easy thing to accidental engage just one time for a disaster...and I also just don't want the tape outputs running through the console's preamp section. I don't use those preamps for tracking, so why would I would to run all my tape outputs through them!
 
chronicle said:
note to self...memorize and see note to self
Click to expand...

:D

Yeah...sometimes over thinking is the real problem...but when it comes to level structuring and impedances, if you don't get them right, you might still pass signal, but it could sound like ass, and then you're chasing other things trying to fix it.
 
Check the 3500's block diagram to determine if the tape inputs get routed back through the same circuitry as the line ins. I'm thinking that the tape in signal path is shorter than the line ins are. I always opt for the shortest.
 
The only difference is that the Line In goes through its Trim and Amp and the Tape In comes in after that via a Flip switch...otherwise the rest of the path through the channel is identical, so not really a question of shorter, and the Tape In has no contorl of the level coming in as there is no trim.
 
miroslav said:
The only difference is that the Line In goes through its Trim and Amp and the Tape In comes in after that via a Flip switch...otherwise the rest of the path through the channel is identical, so not really a question of shorter, and the Tape In has no contorl of the level coming in as there is no trim.
Click to expand...

Then the tape in is the shorter path. One less pot and 1 less amp. There is really no advantage in having either of those devices influencing the tape machine output.
 
RRuskin said:
There is really no advantage in having either of those devices influencing the tape machine output.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned....there is when your tape output is +4dBm, yet the Tape In is only -10dBV.

How do you trim down the level at the Tape In...???...it's wide open, and the +4dBm signal coming off the deck (which was also recorded hot)...pins the input into the RED.
 
If you used the lower output setting on the machine, you wouldn't need to trim the input @ the board. You gain nothing in sound quality with the +4 output either. What is actually on your tape remains the same. All that's happening is that you are going through a longer output path inside the machine.
 
Well...it looks to me like it's a a bit of a trade-off...either at the deck or at the console.

I will check the paths and see which (if any) actually sounds better and how the levels come at the console if I use the Tape In with the deck knocked down to -10dBV. It's also a 30' snake from the deck to the bays, and then another few feet from the bays to the console...I just felt a bit more comfortable having the higher level output form the deck...but I will try it out the other way.

When I decide where exactly the deck is going to sit "permanently"...I may cut down the 30' snake to the exact (shorter) lenght...and that may end up only being about 10' if I put the deck in one of the two spots I am considering. The other would be more closer to 20'.
I went with a 30' snake because I originally wanted it outside of the studio in the next room...wasn't sure how the noise and the heat would be, but now I know that the noise from the capstan/tape is insignificant, and while it does generate some "warmth" (I guess that's 'cuz it's analog ;) )...even on a few 90+ degree days...it wasn't really causing me grief in the studio. The AC was able to keep things from going above 75 degrees...without the deck I could keep things at around 72 degrees on very hot days with a lot of the gear turned on. In the cooler months it will be just fine...no need to use too much additional heat. Plus...I kinda' prefer having the deck within eyesight rather than in another room.
 
If you are using good low capacitance cable, a 30+ foot will be a non-issue. I ran my old -10 studio with a much longer run and had the opportunity to measure the performance with a friend's IVIE Technologies rig. The test results showed no measurable or audible loss of performance from console to 16-track back to the console.
 
That's good to hear, as I really don't want to shorten the tape deck snake in case I ever decide to change things up and move it further away. I don't want to have to make another 24-channel snake with soldering at both ends. :rolleyes:

I used a Mogami 48-pair cable....top quality stuff, and I agree, with good wire and grounding/power, it should be fine.
I've had 25' unbalanced runs already...using some REAL HEAVY DUTY military-grade multi-channel snakes (stuff was a bitch to work with, but you can run a tank over it)...and I never had any issues.

I'll try the deck-to-Tape Ins with the deck at low output/-10dBV and see where the signal hits. It's just a re-patch on my bays as the Tape Ins are already wired there. If I get a decent level and no hard peaks...I'll give that a go for awhile.

Since the deck is "new" (to me) and I've just started recording with it one song...I haven't yet gotten to any final mixing straight from the deck to the console yet...so at the moment I'm still trying out stuff with signal levels and at the moment only monitoring through the console as I track.

I'm trying to get to an all-analog mix once again like before I started dumping to a DAW and then mixing back out from it.
I'm really liking the audio off the MX-80 deck so far...but I'm going to miss the DAW editing options, as I can hear the typical tracking noises (string rubs/clicks/etc) during the pauses in the playing, but I'm getting back in the groove with that again and remembering to avoid it or keep it minimal.
When I got use to dumping to a DAW...I never gave that stuff a second thought any more because I knew I could edit it out 1-2-3...so now I'm sort of "re-learning" how to deal with those things without the benefit of DAW editing. :D
 
How about dumping into the DAW, edit, edit,edit, transfer back to tape (printing any volume automation), and mixing from tape?
 
Track Rat said:
How about dumping into the DAW, edit, edit,edit, transfer back to tape (printing any volume automation), and mixing from tape?
Click to expand...

I already track to tape...and I've dumped to DAW many times, edited/comped, and then simply played back from the DAW out to my console and mixed OTB.
That works very well and is a common approach by people that like using a hybrid setup.

Going from the DAW back out tape....mmmmm....I don't think that would really add anything, it would just take away, IMO (mostly the high-end)...not to mention, I mix down to a 2-track tape deck, so sticking one more tape pass in there wouldn't improve anything.

If I don't get as clean a mix by just mixing from the 24-track tape deck as I got use to with the DAW...then I will do as in the past with my 16 track deck...dump to DAW edit and mix OTB, out from the DAW through the console.
It's not that I'm trying to avoid the DAW just to avoid the digital step...not at all.
I think it's the best of both worlds doing it hybrid, and you can certainly take your tracks to a much higher quality level thanks to the DAW editing/comping tools.
Mainly I was trying to get back to my early days when I did all-analog because I remember being able to work much faster that way. When the tracking was done...it was time to mix.
With the DAW...it's another step, and a big one. Once you start editing/comping a couple of dozen tracks, and tweaking out all the imperfections....it's time consuming...probably more than the tracking and certainly more than the mixing steps.
But like I said...I'm not going shoot myself in the foot just to stay all-analog and speed things up. In the end, I want to raise the quality bar...and the DAW step is undeniably capable of doing that for almost any mix if you know how to use its tools.

AFA tracking to tape but then mixing ITB or just tracking to the DAW and mixing ITB...mmmmm, I don't see myself using that SOP any time soon, if ever. I like the hybrid Tape-DAW-console/outboard-Tape approach very much...it takes what I consider the best of both analog and digital worlds, and gets you a better finished product.
Of course...there can be times, with certain styles of music where the rawness of the all-analog approach and the lack of refined editing/comping capabilities works great.
If I was recording a full band...I could see the all-analog SOP working real well, but for a solo musician, the control and precision of the hybrid approach just works better IMHO...at least it does for me, but I'll see, how skipping the DAW on at least a couple of tunes goes, and I might even do a mix on one song, both ways...and all-analog, mix it, then dump to DAW, edit and mix it again. Should be interesting.... :)

I'm loving the 2" 24-track so far...that alone has already raised the bar, I think. My Fostex 1/2" 16-track is a sweet sounding deck...but you can hear the 2" tape difference right away, and I don't even need noise reduction, plus I can hit the 2" a lot harder than the 1/2" deck.
 
OK...so I tried using the Tape Inputs on the console, with the MX-80 output set to Low/-10dBV...and I have to say, I'm liking it. I haven't done any measurements/tests to compare the sonic difference of the slightly shorter path of the Tape Input VS the Line Input...but it sounds fine and the levels match up well with the deck, which was my initial concern.

As mentioned earlier, the way I use the board, using the Tape Ins instead of the Line Ins doesn't really make much difference in the routing flexibility for me, but I ended up with unexpected "perks" that makes me like the Tape In path better.

1.) The way my patch bays are wired...by using the Tape Ins, it moves the patch cables over and out of the way of the other gear points I use the most. :)
2.) With the full meter bridge on the TASCAM 3500, the metering gets changed from the stock setup and switching options then allow for Line In and Tape In (along with Aux/Grp metering)...but here's what has sort of fallen through the cracks on me and that I just now rediscovered...the Line In metering is Post EQ and Pre Fader, OK, that's cool...but the Tape In metering is simply the tape input, so I can now easily check the Input levels OR the Post EQ levels with a flip of a switch. :cool:
It was one of those things that I just forgot about a long time ago, as I was using the Line Inputs for so long.

So I guess sometimes it is true like I said earlier...the answer is simple and right there in front of your nose. :D

Thanks to Rick and Alan for prodding me to go with the Tape Ins...I ended up with a pleasant outcome that has nothing to do with the actual levels, which was all I was focused on...so in that regard, it is more flexible now with metering.
I'm going to run with this setup for awhile, but I think it will end up being permanent for use with the MX-80.
 
miroslav said:
OK...so I tried using the Tape Inputs on the console, with the MX-80 output set to Low/-10dBV...and I have to say, I'm liking it. I haven't done any measurements/tests to compare the sonic difference of the slightly shorter path of the Tape Input VS the Line Input...but it sounds fine and the levels match up well with the deck, which was my initial concern.

As mentioned earlier, the way I use the board, using the Tape Ins instead of the Line Ins doesn't really make much difference in the routing flexibility for me, but I ended up with unexpected "perks" that makes me like the Tape In path better.

1.) The way my patch bays are wired...by using the Tape Ins, it moves the patch cables over and out of the way of the other gear points I use the most. :)
2.) With the full meter bridge on the TASCAM 3500, the metering gets changed from the stock setup and switching options then allow for Line In and Tape In (along with Aux/Grp metering)...but here's what has sort of fallen through the cracks on me and that I just now rediscovered...the Line In metering is Post EQ and Pre Fader, OK, that's cool...but the Tape In metering is simply the tape input, so I can now easily check the Input levels OR the Post EQ levels with a flip of a switch. :cool:
It was one of those things that I just forgot about a long time ago, as I was using the Line Inputs for so long.

So I guess sometimes it is true like I said earlier...the answer is simple and right there in front of your nose. :D

Thanks to Rick and Alan for prodding me to go with the Tape Ins...I ended up with a pleasant outcome that has nothing to do with the actual levels, which was all I was focused on...so in that regard, it is more flexible now with metering.
I'm going to run with this setup for awhile, but I think it will end up being permanent for use with the MX-80.
Click to expand...

Your current set up will probably measure better than the old one because you are no longer going through all the extra gain stages. If I recall correctly, the line ins on your console send signal back through the preamp stage which has always been the weakest link on TASCAM consoles.
 
RRuskin said:
If I recall correctly, the line ins on your console send signal back through the preamp stage which has always been the weakest link on TASCAM consoles.
Click to expand...

No...the Line input doesn't go back through the preamp, but yes, I will be skipping the Line Trim pot and the Line Amp stages, so you are right that it will be cleaner that way.

Way back, I use to use both Line and Tape inputs when I was using lots of MIDI synth modules along with a tape deck...
...and then when I got away from all that MIDI sequencing stuff and went back to just playing/recording everything, for some reason I just kept using the Line inputs.
Then when I started using a DAW, I was dumping from the tape deck to the DAW...and I would just mix out from the DAW through the console...again using the Line inputs.
The Tape inputs just kinda' got lost in the shuffle. :D

Now that I have the 2" tape deck, I want to mix from the deck and try going without any DAW step...so I started considering the best way to stage the levels of the deck and console since they were different, but it's great that the MX-80 is easily switched from +4 to -10. I can still record into the deck at +4dBm, which marries up perfectly with my pres...but then output to the console at -10dBV.

Yeah, back to the Tape inputs again...and now I get the two extra perks I mentioned earleir, that I was not even expecting. :)

For any tracks that end up going to +4 outboard gear during mixing (comps/EQs)...I have a couple of 8-channel level converters, so I can easily use them if I really need to match levels on anything to keep the signals healthy...but I was already doing that even when using the Line inputs...so it's all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top