Is a Tascam M-2516 +4???

  • Thread starter Thread starter poopchute
  • Start date Start date
'chute...

Your digi 002 does indeed have a total of 18 inputs and 18 outputs. 8 inputs and outputs are the analog ones, 8 are on ADAT Lightpipe (the "Optical" jacks on the back...these are either 8 channels in and out at 24-bit 44.1/48kHz or mirror the S/PDIF stereo I/O on the RCA jacks...you probably switch the function of the optical ports in the control panel for the 002 or somewhere in a menu on the control surface), and the last two are the S/PDIF stereo I/O jacks (again, the RCA jacks or also present on the optical jacks if so selected).

So what you need is an 8-channel analog to ADAT Lightpipe converter and some optical cables.

Some options:

  • M-Audio Octane (2U, includes mic pre's and a cool onboard M+S encoder, but the Lightpipe path is one way only...no return path from the computer which may not matter to you...I've heard real mixed reviews on the pre's and converters on this box...pure snobbery? I have no idea.)
  • Alesis AI3 (older, no longer made but can be found used...basic but gets the job done...8 in and out over lightpipe 48kHz, but 20-bit...not a deal-breaker AFAIK)
  • Presonus Digimax D8 (again, optical out only, but can also serve as an 8 channel standalone preamp since it has 8 direct outs...inputs are on XLR only which would actually help you with the MCI being XLR out...not sure if the MIC/LINE switch on that unit actually bypasses the mic pre and routes signal to a line driver or if it just a pad on the mic pre.)
  • Behringer ADA8000 (well...its cheap, and does everything you need it to do...its...uh...cheap. Not gonna bash Behringer, but I've had maladies and successes with Behringer gear so YMMV, but it would get you going for cheap for now...)
  • Aphex 142 (likely the best quality of the bunch but very basic...half-rack device 8 analog in 8 ADAT Lightpipe out...analog input is on 25-pin DSUB connector)

Lots of more options for lots of more $$$.
 
Last edited:
poopchute said:
I know people are going to say Im going to spend all that money on a wide format machine and then dump it to digital?!?
Click to expand...

It's not the dumping but the editing that you should be especially concerned about. It degrades the signal even worse.
 
cjacek said:
It's not the dumping but the editing that you should be especially concerned about. It degrades the signal even worse.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get that notion from. Editing is not the same as processing. That's my understanding, at least
 
RRuskin said:
I don't know where you get that notion from. Editing is not the same as processing. That's my understanding, at least
Click to expand...

The more you do to an analogue signal, the instant you dump it to digital, the more you introduce distortion, errors and other anomalies. In fact, the minute you hook up your tape out and into your soundcard and start sampling (aka "recording"), you've degraded your original signal. I call "sampling" processing and everything else after that which changes the signal more, which includes editing. In my book, the moment you press "record", on your computer or stand alone digital recorder, you start processing, introducing errors and throw out bits of the original signal. You add to this, "processing", by way of your definition, and the original signal goes all to hell. Hey, but that's just my view. As you say, others disagree. ;)
 
cjacek said:
The more you do to an analogue signal, the instant you dump it to digital, the more you introduce distortion, errors and other anomalies. In fact, the minute you hook up your tape out and into your soundcard and start sampling (aka "recording"), you've degraded your original signal. I call "sampling" processing and everything else after that which changes the signal more, which includes editing. In my book, the moment you press "record", on your computer or stand alone digital recorder, you start processing, introducing errors and throw out bits of the original signal. You add to this, "processing", by way of your definition, and the original signal goes all to hell. Hey, but that's just my view. As you say, others disagree. ;)
Click to expand...

Editing in the digital domain is akin to editing analog with a razor blade in that signal gets shortened and/or re-arranged. That is not the same as eq, dynamics control, or other sonic enhancemments associated with "processing." Your "book" imo, is full of myths & typos.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh...the beauty of digital editing...the chance to go back and change reality for all those who come after. What a wonderful process.
 
sweetbeats said:
Ahhh...the beauty of digital editing...the chance to go back and change reality for all those who come after. What a wonderful process.
Click to expand...

The concept of doing a punch in/out in the analog world is no different.
 
The last few posts is evidence as to why we listen to Analog music. Yes, that's Analog with a capital A and an emphasis on "anal."

For the record, I'm of the mentality that the less you "mess" with the signal (analog or digital, it makes no difference) the better the outcome. The trick is recording it correctly without much, if any, processing.

-MD
 
Ah, screw it, I don't wanna argue about it anymore (deleted the previous reply).
 
Hmm, Poop... these are things I have found to be true over the last twenty five years. I suspect it's all been said before anyway..

My first multitracker was a second hand Teac 80-8 1/2" 8 tracker on a British Soundtracs 16-8-2 board.

Then I traded the Teac on a new Tascam TRS-8 1/2" eight track. It wasn't that much different to me at the time. I didn't know much anyway. Me and my friends made at least four albums on that, mastered down to a DA-30 DAT. We also rented an old ex radio station in a basement in the city and set it up properly in there.

Then I traded the TSR-8 in on a new MSR-16 1/2" and upgraded the board to one of the then new Mackie 32-8 bus's and we made another eight or so albums on that. That was the mid nineties and hard disk recording was only just starting. The old tape ADAT's were on the market too. We never went that way.

So all we knew was small format tape anyway. We did what we did and it sounded like it sounded like. I still have copies of all the cd's we released during that time and some of the DAT masters.

Then I sold up, emigrated from that country and for years did nothing in the music field until I bought one of those little Boss BR1600CD's, maybe five years ago, and it sparked my interest again. It's quick and it's fun and we've made three or four albums on it but they've never sounded as good as the old 8 or 16 track analog ones we did in the nineties.

I've got friends with Digi's of all formats and have since made some albums in HD as well in larger pro studios. The pro stuff sounded good as you would expect it to.

The Digi based stuff, even when it was studio installed, always sounded kind of the same. Much better that the BR1600 could do and more 'modern' than anything we managed on the various tape setups I've had in the past but not necessarily 'better'.

And then one day last year I bought an old Revox PR99 two track 1/4" reel machine, carted it off down to a friends Digi equiped studio, plugged it into the +4db stereo out of his Tascam M3500 board, set up the band in the live room with good mikes and an engineer who knew what he was doing with mikes and placement, started playing and smacked that tape hard, live to two track.

Suddenly all that I had heard about the glories of tape was there. Compression, saturation, big fat warm bottom end - the whole box and dice. But I have to admit that in all the years we ran the small format tape rigs, I never heard 'that' sound.

Big time engineers seem to say that it is there on 2" 24 track but I've never used one so I don't know but I figure that it is all to do with the individual track width and the tape speed.

I could be well wrong but I know a 1/4" two track can do it at 15ips because we now do it all the time. And that gives an individual track width of 1/8". I've got a mono Nagra that has a 1/4" head width and that does it too. I'll trust all the big people who say that a 24 track 2" can do it as well and that gives a track width of 1/12" so this is what I'm figuring;

You need an individual track width of 1/12" or greater and 15ips minimum to get that tape thing happening. The smaller formats can't do it. My two previous 1/2" eight tracks couldn't and neither could the 1/2" MSR-16.

So that means... 1/8" full track, 1/4" two track, 1/2" four track, 1" eight track, 2" sixteen track or 2" twenty four track is what you need if you want to get that tape sound.

So if you need sixteen tracks and the reason why is you want that tape thing sound happening across all sixteen tracks then buy the 2" machine cause you're not going to get it on anything smaller, except a 2" 24 track. In fact, you might be better off with a 2" 24 track - same audio result, more tracks, same tape cost, more of them around, just as bloody big and possible cheaper in the longer run.

If you don't want that tape thing sound, just more tracks, then it doesn't matter, a 1/2" or 1" 16 track or a 1" 24 track will do that for you.

Me - I've got my eyes on a 1" eight track going up around here ex a government broadcasting corporation. It's not a lot of money, it'll give me the tape sound where I want it and run on 1" tape so it's cheaper than 2". And I can use track eight to sync up to digital if I need more tracks and the tape thing sound isn't necessary for all tracks. Seven tracks of analog if I'm syncing to digital is enough for me, or eight tracks of pure analog is also enough for an all analog project. I just like the restrictions and results that recording to eight tracks makes anyway.

Then again, I'm more than happy with what we're achieving just going live to two track. Two track 1/4" running at 15ips that is - a track width of 1/12" or greater.

Peace brother...

Jed
 
LINE inputs +4 or -10?

Balanced or unbalanced, your Ampex puts out a much higher signal than a –10 tape return wants to see. You will either need to run the output level way down or use the step-down portion of a bump box to accommodate so as not to run the board out of headroom. You are going to have to play the machine back through the board at some point, are you not?
Click to expand...

Yes, Rick, you are right...to be honest I've been making some assumptions about the LINE inputs on the M-___ mixer based on the direct access switch to convert the BUSS outs from -10 to +4. Yes I realize that's for the outs, not the LINE inputs, but based on how some other stuff on the board was configured I had a feeling that the LINE inputs could handle incoming +4 nominal levels.

So I did some testing tonight and if anybody can help me make sense of it that would be great. Sorry to hijack, 'chute. :o

I used a 1kHz tone for my tests. Yes I realize that is not "real-world".

I sent the tone to the slate (making sure that the oscillator output was not attenuated), switched the BUSS OUT level to +4 and maxed the BUSS MASTER pot...when measured with a true RMS voltmeter the output at the BUSS OUT jack was about 3.2 volts...that's about +12.3dBu. I connected that output to a LINE input on another channel. When raising the channel fader to unity gain and switching the channel meter to monitor the input, the meter read '0' with the respective LEVEL knob positioned at about 9 o'clock. Now, I'm not certain about the meter calibration. Haven't gotten to that yet...so ignoring the meter I decided to see how far I needed to turn the LEVEL knob before the PEAK LED would light...now, I'm not sure where those are set either, so yes I'm still making assumptions but Teac standard protocol for the era seems to be equivalent to about +12VU. The PEAK LED lit up with the LINE LEVEL knob positioned at about 3 o'clock, again with an input source of 1kHz sine wave at >+12dBu. Meters and lights aside I PFL'ed the channel to monitor the input directly after the LEVEL knob. Even with the PEAK LED just lit the 1kHz tone sounded clean. turn the LEVEL knob to about 10 o'clock and the tone distorted.

So, I don't know what that tells me because I'm never conducted the same test on a known path like my M-520 where I actually have the speccs for the LINE inputs and gain structure.

So, does my test say anything about how the M-___ LINE inputs would handle +4 nominal source levels?
 
sweetbeats said:
So, does my test say anything about how the M-___ LINE inputs would handle +4 nominal source levels?
Click to expand...

With respect to a 1Khz sine wave - it appears it does. Try program @ that level and see how it sounds.
 
Op,...

In my book you really gotta consider Ghost FM's offer to take the (2) M312's and MS-16 system off his hands. You'd get a great sounding & well kept system plus save a lot of dough in the long run! Maybe talk him down a bit. Heh.

2" may be overkill for home recording, plus the myriad of nightmares you'd be liable for when you're getting into used pro equipment, the majority of which would be well used or beat-to-shit, based on what I've seen. That it's refurbished thru Blevins, a reputable dealer, is a plus, but is it worth the price? The price of 2" tape itself is prohibitive, to say the least, unless you're Fleetwood Mac recording the next Rumours or maybe Pete working on Quadrophenia II.

2" analog might be overrated a bit in the scope of home recording, but if you went that way you could likely scuttle all your lesser gear. They say analog recording is expensive and cumbersome, but with 2" you really take it to the top. You have to be truly committed & having deep pockets helps.

Just MO, 2¢ worth. YMMV. Good luck.:eek:;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top