mixer reccomendations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nate_dennis
  • Start date Start date
nate_dennis

nate_dennis

Well-known member
Hey guys. I know this has been a topic for discussion going back years. I'm really trying to figure out what mixer I should look for/save up for. Here are the things I would like out of it: solid pres (phantom power a plus), a musical EQ, 2 aux/fx sends at least, I'd like 8 bus (but not required, I don't mind a patchbay.)

I've been digging the idea of the 312b from Tascam. So something along those lines. I'd like to snag one for around $300, but that's not firm. Maybe I'm nuts for thinking that I can get something like this for that cheap. Any info would be super helpful.



oh; i forgot!!!
If you would please let me know some of the features and why you like it/recomend it. I really appreciate all of your help. It's been a long long journey and I feel like (if everything goes to plan) by early next year I'll finally have my recording setup about how I want it. . . . . . So really, thanks so much for all your info and patience.
 
nate_dennis said:
I've been digging the idea of the 312b from Tascam.
Click to expand...

I hate to suck all the rocket science out of this but if that's what you like, why not just hunt one of those down? :confused:

They're a great mixer! :)



VV4G8108small.jpg




Cheers! :)
 
I agree totally, Nate...

I use just keep your eye on craigslist...I see M-300 mixers going for stupid prices.

If the 4-buss architecture works for you I really feel you cannot do better for the price.

GREAT mixer for 8-track, sound great, nice eq section, all the monitoring you need, 100mm fader throw and also evereything you'd need for smaller format FOH applications...a true dual-purpose board and I don't mean one or the other...they can handle both very capably at the same time, and on the 312 and 320 you get the talkback mic channel as well and expanded aux functionality.

Truly one of my favorite series of mixers of all time.
 
The Ghost of FM said:
I hate to suck all the rocket science out of this but if that's what you like, why not just hunt one of those down? :confused:

They're a great mixer! :)
Click to expand...

sweetbeats said:
on the 312 and 320 you get the talkback mic channel as well and expanded aux functionality.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just having hard time tracking down the feature list of these desks. As much as I really dig having a great desk, part of the fun for me is the searching, the learning, and research. So, as a result, I really like learning about other consoles that would be useful.

Can either of you comment on the # of aux send/returns on the 312/320s?

Thanks again (and ghost, that's a sexy pic, just sayin'.):cool:
 
BTW, I just came across the M520 and I just about . . . well, that's inappropriate, but I love it (from the looks, idea of it.) I've never used one. What are the thoughts on this. From the quick looking i've done these are a "love em or hate em" board. Does it have phantom power?
 
nate_dennis said:
BTW, I just came across the M520 and I just about . . . well, that's inappropriate, but I love it (from the looks, idea of it.) I've never used one. What are the thoughts on this. From the quick looking i've done these are a "love em or hate em" board. Does it have phantom power?
Click to expand...

The M-520 does have phantom power but is a slightly older design compared to the 300B series of boards and are a bit antiquated with the older style access send receive jumper arrangement which depends on you having to pull out a jumper pin to plug in a compressor and also depend on you not losing that jumper pin when you want to use the channel straight. I know this is a small niggle of mine but I have seen so many used M-520's and other boards that share this design not including them because their owners lost the bloody pins. :spank:

The other thing that seems to go missing on these boards are the power supplies! External supplies are really cool from a techies perspective but make the board useless if they're not included...along with the umbilical cable with it proprietary multi-pin connectors.

At least with the M-300B series, you get modern TRS insert points on all the channels and busses, built in phantom power, 4 aux sends, 1 of which is pre/post switchable and 1 effects send with two effects returns that feed the stereo buss. And best of all, the power supply is built in and they're very clean in terms of hiss with boatloads of overhead before clipping as well as being very musical sounding.

Keep in mind, an M312B originally retailed for $3400 when they were new. These were not some cheap Beringer/Alesis/Yamaha wanna-be sub-$1k board. They were seriously well put together pieces of gear. To think that they can now be had for 10 cents on the dollar makes them one of the best values out there right now.

Sales pitch over/

Cheers! :)
 
The Ghost of FM said:
At least with the M-300B series, you get modern TRS insert points on all the channels and busses, built in phantom power, 4 aux sends, 1 of which is pre/post switchable and 1 effects send with two effects returns that feed the stereo buss.
Click to expand...

I do think the 312b is more appropriate for me now. Some day a big ol' board would be nice, but not now. Here's a dumb question. Am I correct in believing that the aux send/returns can be used as effects sends? If so, what's the difference in those and the "dedicated" fx send/return? Thanks so much.
 
Pardon my ignorance here, but am I correct in assuming that a 320B board is (more or less) a newer version of the 520?:confused:

As much as I would LOVE to get my hands on a 520, if the 320 is a newer style board with similar/better capabilities, I'll know what to look for when I get to that point, if I do that is. Good to know about the pins on the 520 too...

The external power supply on pretty much anything makes me nervous. I opted for a 424mkII over the mkIII because of the internal power supply alone.:D
 
nate_dennis said:
Here's a dumb question. Am I correct in believing that the aux send/returns can be used as effects sends? If so, what's the difference in those and the "dedicated" fx send/return? Thanks so much.
Click to expand...

When Aux sends are set to post fader, (like effect sends are), they'll behave identically to a knob labeled as "effect".

Generally, pre fader sends are great for things like cue mixes and post fader, as effects sends.

As far as the word, "dedicated" is concerned, that's only a labeling and knob color coding thing to aid you in having a better road map of controls to look at. There's nothing ethereal about an effects send circuit.

Cheers! :)
 
jjones1700 said:
Pardon my ignorance here, but am I correct in assuming that a 320B board is (more or less) a newer version of the 520?:confused:

As much as I would LOVE to get my hands on a 520, if the 320 is a newer style board with similar/better capabilities, I'll know what to look for when I get to that point, if I do that is. Good to know about the pins on the 520 too...

The external power supply on pretty much anything makes me nervous. I opted for a 424mkII over the mkIII because of the internal power supply alone.:D
Click to expand...

The key difference beyond the things already mentioned are that 300 series boards are 4 buss and 500 series, 8 buss. But both have direct outs on each channel so if need be, you can always expand your recording busses by simply patching into the direct out jacks (if needed).

Cheers! :)
 
I could write a book about the M-500 and M-300 boards...

I don't consider the M-300 mixers as the "next generation" of the M-500...They are too different.

If I had to choose between the M-500 and an M-300 I think I would choose the M-300.

Its a tough call because the M-300 lacks the 8 buss architecture, has one less send, but I think the M-300 has better headroom, better sound, and I really like the fact that the M-300 mixers have a true stereo buss (as well as the mono channel)...the M-500 can certainly function in a FOH setting but the M-300 is really setup to do that which also comes in handy in the studio...in a sense, in the studio the way the monitoring is setup on the M-300 you really have 6 groups you can use (1~4 and L-R). Now, if we are talking 16 track applications the M-520 wins hands-down because of the 16-channel monitor mixer. But for 8-track I'd take an M-312B over an M-512.

There were some price-point decision made on the M-300 mixers over the M-500 mixers that have no effect on the sound quality and functionality...the M-500 uses extruded aluminum cross-members for the frame and 4-channel modules with separate chassis and dress-panel pieces whereas the M-300 mixers are all formed sheet-metal and a single piece dress panel instead of 4-channel blocks...so the M-500 boards just have more of a "pro" level construction, but the M-300 mixers are plenty sturdy, and they are easier to move around if tou are gigging with it.

Its a tough call...the M-500 mixers do have some more flexibility in terms of sourcing and metering but for me it comes down to the sound and I like the sound of the M-300 mixers better...I can work around the differences in the feature set, but audio performance is something else. Not saying I don't like the M-500 sound, I just like the M-300 sounds better.

Nate, this will help...

Here are some docs on the:

M-500

and

M-300

mixers.
 
Thanks for the docs. I can't see them here at work, but I'll check them when I get home. I really appreciate all of your help. I'm pretty settled on tracking down a 312B.

So, now, can anyone tell me the physical dimensions of said board? I have scoured the www and can't find anything. Thank you so much. You all really are very helpful!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top