'80s analog tascam help

  • Thread starter Thread starter eriksn
  • Start date Start date
E

eriksn

New member
ok, i'm working on gathering up some '80s tascam equipment to record some demos on. i've got a 234 syncaset 4track and am looking for a good mixer.

i've read about the System 20 from 1981 and the four components to it (MM-20 6-input mixer, EX-20 4-microphone input mixer expansion module, PE-20 4-channel parametric equalizer module, and MU-20 4-channel VU meter display), and i've also read about the M-06. i'm wondering if someone can give me concrete differences between the system 20 and the m-06 because it seems to me that the m-06 is basically just the system 20's four components joined together in one and produced at a later date. any and all help would be greatly appreciated. thanks
 
There were at least two versions of the System 20. The latest had improved op-amps over the original, but they look the same on the outside. The system 20 is great for anyone that wants to learn something about signal flow and gain structure. The modular design and interconnection via patch cables make an excellent learning system.

The fundamentals of recording are pretty elusive to the majority today, so I can recommend it for that reason alone.

It doesn’t have the best signal-to-noise compared to newer boards, but it’s not that bad, and the semi-parametric EQ on the PE-20 is far ahead of the simple shelving high and low EQ on the M-06. The mic pres on the EX-20 are great. They are XLR balanced using Tamura transformers… pretty nice surprise for a low cost system.

Be sure never to buy an EX-20 by itself, for it has no power supply. It has a plug that connects to either the MM-20 or PE-20 for power. Well, you can build a supply pretty easily if you’re handy with a soldering iron, but just so you know.

You may also want to take a look at the M-208 for better specs and ease of use. This would be my choice for use with the 234.

~Tim
:)
 
I think...

the most basic and ideal mixer for the 234 is the M-30. It's a little fancier than the M-200 Series, with better EQ,... but on many other features it's a toss-up.

If you want a classier rig that still screams "vintage",... look at the M-35.

;)
 
...Or a 300 series. Not much more $$$ and a lot more functionality.....
 
what about the M-106? anyone have any thoughts on this unit, especially in comparison to the System 20 and it's components?
 
If you get all the components of the System 20,...

it would include the PE-20, 4-channel parametric equalizer. That's a better feature than the fixed EQ on the M-106.

Of course, the M-106 is 6 channels, & the System 20 is 4, so the M-106 wins on that count.

The System 20 has the EX-20 expander section that employs XLR inputs, but the M-106 features 1/4" inputs only.

The M-106 has a better Eff/Aux Send/Rcv section, where the System 20 does not have any, but it relies on the open "patchability" of e'thing to achieve the same results.

The M-106 has a more complex monitor section. Again, the System 20 relies on it's open architecture for complex monitor funtions.

The System 20 is a unique bird, and the M-106 is loaded with features for it's size, relative to the time it was made. (Of course things are smaller now).

A fundamental feature of the System 20 is open patchable architecture, which is very cool. The M-106 is a feature loaded all in one'r, (self contained unit).

It's a very tough decision. I think it's a toss-up.
 
...

The M-106 has four independent PGM (Buss) faders, and two stereo Master faders. The System 20 and M30/35 are not that complex in the Master section & do not have a comparable feature, but simply have one Master fader.

The M-106 is compact and rack mountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top