Someone help me think through my M-520 console set up with my DAW

[glimmertwins]

...okay so for the first time ever I finally have a space large enough to house all my gear including my Tascam M-520 console, my Tascam 388, and a UAD Apollo interface(paired with a Saffire for more pre-channels). I have used all these pieces individually, but never together before - so I wanted some help thinking through how I should set this up.

What I think I should do:
1.) Track through interface: I was thinking it makes sense to use the preamps from the Apollo/Saffire as the first stop for my audio - that way I have the option of adding UAD plugins like reverb or compression during tracking since I don't have a ton of hardware pieces. I likely won't have more than 8 tracks I'm recording at a time since it's a small studio and I'm normally a 2 or 3 mics on the drum kind of guy.
2.) Playback out of interface through 520 for mixing - So in that scenario I would use the computer to capture performances and then play them back routed out to the M-520 - that's a total of 16 channels from my computer in a balanced signal converted to unbalanced RCA(RCV insert on console) via a couple of Fostex 5030s which convert balanced to unbalanced).
3.) Mix 16 channels on M-520 console and route 8 channels to the buss.
4.) 8 channels out of buss to Tascam 388 to record direct to tape after mixing(so performance is already captured).
5.) Monitoring - this is another piece I'm unsure of. Ideally I would like to monitor the output of the Apollo, the output of the 520, and the output of the 388 so that I can kind of pick an choose where the mix sounds best for each song - so some songs I might not want the dirty 388 sound so I record the final mix out of the 520, etc. I assume I would need some sort of external monitoring hardware to do this(I'm sure Dangerous makes something for this).

What would you do? Am I making any sense at all? In a nutshell I'm thinking tracking through the interface, mix through the 520, and use the 388 essentially as an effect on mix down to dial in some tape dirtiness according to how hard I hit it. But is there a better way to approach this set up? Alternatively, I guess I could just track through the 520 and use the apollo as a tape machine and maybe I can set up a couple of channels on the apollo as inserts to track with effects and capture the M-520 output but I have heard this 520 can sometime lack some clarity which is why I was considering bypassing the pre amps.

What do you guys think? Is the 388 with the 520 overkill(especially if you have UAD tape plugins)? Thanks in advance for all your help!

 

[RFR]

Hmm. I have a 520 with a 16 track. Just starting to research incorporating digital. (Actually been researching for a while)
If it was was me, I'd track to tape through the board, then edit and mix in the box to some degree, then do the complete mix through the board.

Miroslav here on the forum has a extensive experience with combining the tape with daw hybrid method of recording.. he's probably one of the better ones if you want to pick his brain.

For sure I know you can do quite a bit with the m520. It's quite capable.

 

[glimmertwins]

Hmm. I have a 520 with a 16 track. Just starting to research incorporating digital. (Actually been researching for a while)
If it was was me, I'd track to tape through the board, then edit and mix in the box to some degree, then do the complete mix through the board.

Miroslav here on the forum has a extensive experience with combining the tape with daw hybrid method of recording.. he's probably one of the better ones if you want to pick his brain.

For sure I know you can do quite a bit with the m520. It's quite capable.

Thanks for the reply! I like your idea to track all analog and do the processing/pre-mix in the computer world. I would still want to find a way to utilize the near realtime tracking with effects capabilities of the UAD since I have more plugins than hardware gear.

I'm looking through miroslav's posts now and lots of good info there I'm trying to digest. I guess as I think about this I'm having a bit of a philosophical debate of how to take the best parts from each method and leave the worst behind. There are times when 8 tracks straight to 388/tape is perfect for what I want to do...and others where I am going to painstakingly layer tracks over and over again in the computer, etc. I guess I'm looking for maximum flexibility which is more a "coming from the DAW world" kind of idea.

The one thing I'm sure about is I want to mix outside the box - I haven't had much luck with anything but claustrophic mixes while mixing inside the box. I don't know the science behind it, but I have always felt ITB mixes are much narrower than those mixed OTB.

 

[miroslav]

Miroslav here on the forum has a extensive experience with combining the tape with daw hybrid method of recording.. he's probably one of the better ones if you want to pick his brain.

Yeah...we've discussed your analog/digital plans a few times.
You've been on that ledge for awhile now. I've I was there, I would give you a hard push.


glimmertwins

You're at the early stage of considering a hybrid setup. There will be a period where you will try very hard to incorporate all your analog gear (it's hard to let go) in with the digital stuff...but then, you will on your own find what makes the most sense and yields the best results, to you.

I still track to tape. I have a 2" 24 track deck for that.
For tracking, I only use my mixer, a TASCAM M3500, for cue/headphone mixes, and lets me add some EQ and outboard FX/processing but only to the cue mix. That way I can get a decent realistic headphone mix, and if need be I can set up more than one cue mix with the console if I should have someone else over recording with me, and they wanted to hear something different in their headphones.
The stuff going to the tape deck never touches the mixer. I have outboard pres, EQ, comps, etc....so if I need any of that going to tape, I'm not getting it from the console.

When I'm done tracking to tape, I dump all the tracks at once into my DAW. I rarely need more than the 24 tape tracks, but if/when I do, I have a pretty involved synchronization setup that lets me lock my DAW and tape deck...so I can dump as many passes from the deck as I want and keep it in sync.
I have three 8-channel converters...so that's 24 channels total A/D conversion...a perfect match for my tape deck.

After that, I do all my edits, comps and lots of spot FX/processing in the DAW. I have an extensive outboard FX/processing pile of gear, but I also have an even more extensive collection of plug-ins, and over the last few years I'm doing more of that "spot" processing in the DAW, as it is very easy and I can slice up a track and only adjust a single section, rather than applying to the entire track as I would have to when using outboard or channel processing. That's what I mean by "spot" processing. My DAW does "object" FX/processing...meaning I can slice up a track and just touch the pieces I want directly, rather than at the track/channel level.

Once all that is done, and I end up with a fairly complete "pre-mix" in the DAW....I then come out of the DAW using my 24-channels of A/D conversion and go into my M3500 console and that's where I will then use the outboard FX/processing for the final finished mix. That way, the outboard processing ends up being more of a final "touch"...while my DAW "spot" processing is what does the hard work of whipping the tracks into shape...and the bulk of my outboard processing is mostly focused on the stereo bus rather than a lot of the individual channels.
I may use the console EQ on individual channels, and maybe I'll throw an external comp on the drum OH channels or maybe on one or two other tracks...etc....but like I said, I try to get my tracks in shape while they are in the DAW...so when I'm doing the final mix there isn't a lot of heavy work that is needed, only final polish kind of stuff.

To be honest, and you should consider it also with your 520...my M3500 is not anything spectacular AFA consoles go. It's not going to add any serious "magic" to the sound or anything like that, and I think the harder I use it, like lots of channel EQing and lots of Aux busing for FX and processing...it will actually degrade the sound.
These were low-budget project studio boards by pro standards (it didn't seem like low budget to me when I dropped $8k for my M3500 back in 1990)...and they are old. My M3500 is 25 years old and probably needs a complete overhaul, recap, and other kind of tune-up, just like your 520....but IMHO, it's just not worth the time, effort or money.
So, I use it as minimally as I can, and try not to over-burden it during mixdowns.

I've been in the hunt for a more upscale console for a few years now, something used, but something that comes from a more pro-level pedigree and something that's been already recapped and tuned up. Had a few in my sights, but nothing yet. I'll keep looking, but I've come to the conclusion that if I had to live without the console for any mixing duties, at this point, I can probably convert to an full ITB mix and get the results I want...but I'm not ready yet, and I'm still looking for that replacement console just because I love having the console and the outboard gear and that "real" studio vibe...though even if I ended up mixing ITB, I would still track to tape first, so I plan to stay hybrid for the long haul.

OK...I think I've covered it all.
RFR can proof read for me and tell me if I missed something, 'cuz I've been trying to sell the hybrid approach to him for awhile now.

 

[glimmertwins]

Thanks for your reply!

You're at the early stage of considering a hybrid setup. There will be a period where you will try very hard to incorporate all your analog gear (it's hard to let go) in with the digital stuff...but then, you will on your own find what makes the most sense and yields the best results, to you.

I think that's what I'm starting to realize - I need to decide how I want to work given my working methods and available gear.

When I'm done tracking to tape, I dump all the tracks at once into my DAW. I rarely need more than the 24 tape tracks, but if/when I do, I have a pretty involved synchronization setup that lets me lock my DAW and tape deck...so I can dump as many passes from the deck as I want and keep it in sync.
I have three 8-channel converters...so that's 24 channels total A/D conversion...a perfect match for my tape deck.

Ya, that's what scares me a bit about that approach - I like to do manipulating of tracks in the DAW realm(I use ableton looping heavily while in the writing process) and haven't had very much success with attempts to synchronize tape decks in the past. I know it can be done, but I would be starting at ground zero in terms of synchronization tools and I don't have enough outboard gear to make the OTB first approach worth while.

Once all that is done, and I end up with a fairly complete "pre-mix" in the DAW....I then come out of the DAW using my 24-channels of A/D conversion and go into my M3500 console and that's where I will then use the outboard FX/processing for the final finished mix. That way, the outboard processing ends up being more of a final "touch"...while my DAW "spot" processing is what does the hard work of whipping the tracks into shape...and the bulk of my outboard processing is mostly focused on the stereo bus rather than a lot of the individual channels.
I may use the console EQ on individual channels, and maybe I'll throw an external comp on the drum OH channels or maybe on one or two other tracks...etc....but like I said, I try to get my tracks in shape while they are in the DAW...so when I'm doing the final mix there isn't a lot of heavy work that is needed, only final polish kind of stuff.

This confirms something I was thinking too - take care during tracking and if you have to do any heavy lifting in terms of EQing in the mix process, do it in the computer realm and only use the analog capabilities of these lower tiered boards for polish kind of stuff.

To be honest, and you should consider it also with your 520...my M3500 is not anything spectacular AFA consoles go. It's not going to add any serious "magic" to the sound or anything like that, and I think the harder I use it, like lots of channel EQing and lots of Aux busing for FX and processing...it will actually degrade the sound.
These were low-budget project studio boards by pro standards (it didn't seem like low budget to me when I dropped $8k for my M3500 back in 1990)...and they are old. My M3500 is 25 years old and probably needs a complete overhaul, recap, and other kind of tune-up, just like your 520....but IMHO, it's just not worth the time, effort or money.
So, I use it as minimally as I can, and try not to over-burden it during mixdowns.

I think I lucked out with mine - it was owned and maintained by the guy who builds Future Retro synths as his front end for his army of vintage synths. He was selling it to switch to a rack of his own 'db Mastering unit' boxes that he was about to put into production. I would say it's probably better maintained than most m-520s I have seen pop up.

I've been in the hunt for a more upscale console for a few years now, something used, but something that comes from a more pro-level pedigree and something that's been already recapped and tuned up. Had a few in my sights, but nothing yet. I'll keep looking, but I've come to the conclusion that if I had to live without the console for any mixing duties, at this point, I can probably convert to an full ITB mix and get the results I want...but I'm not ready yet, and I'm still looking for that replacement console just because I love having the console and the outboard gear and that "real" studio vibe...though even if I ended up mixing ITB, I would still track to tape first, so I plan to stay hybrid for the long haul.

I hear ya - I had a 12 channel Studer mixer a few months back(great small format console) but I had to sell it to fund this garage conversion project which would allow me to have room to have a proper mixing/tracking room. Hoping to grab one of those again in the future, but the Tascam will have to carry me for now. I suppose I could just go all ITB, but I feel like my mixes are so narrow when I mix in the box so the 520 is a way to change that and if it's a little on the dark/dirty side - that's okay, because it happens to suit my aesthetic well.

Again thanks for the thoughtful reply. I completely see your logic for how you approached your set up and though I don't think it would necessarily work for me, it helps me recognize that I need to really think out how I record, what gear I have available and how I want to use it in the creative process, etc. Thanks for all the suggestions!

 

[RFR]

Yeah...we've discussed your analog/digital plans a few times.
You've been on that ledge for awhile now. I've I was there, I would give you a hard push.



OK...I think I've covered it all.
RFR can proof read for me and tell me if I missed something, 'cuz I've been trying to sell the hybrid approach to him for awhile now.

Miro, I think you did a fine job explaining.

My only wish is that we could magically show up at your place and discuss this stuff over a beer or some coffee.

This typing sucks. But, it does allow one to converse despite the physical limitations.

Not to derail glimmer twins thread, but yeah, you have been pushing for that leap into hybrid world. Nothin the matter with that.

2 things holding me back.1) money 2) knowledge.

The money isn't such a big deal but still dumping a grand minimum for something that im not sure of is dicey for me.

I know the best knowledge is obtained not by reading and researching, but by doing.

Problem is doing costs money. Too many times I've bought gear that i didnt understand only to discover it didn't do what i expected or i ended up having to buy something else (mo money) to get it to work.

I would have been the dumbass that bought a Layla without the pci card. Lol

But ill get up to speed eventually. I did get a pretty good rackmount PC with two drives, one of which is an ssd. So, some progress has been made.
On the other stuff, I'll be at Namm this year asking lots of hard questions. I want to know before I get financially committed.


@ glimmer twins.


I actually have two m520 s both in excellent shape. I know its an old board, and I'd rather have a Neve. But who wouldn't.

If I were you, I'd sell the 388. They are very popular and go for decent money. The drawbacks are age and format. 1/4 inch. Where the hell you gonna get heads when the time comes? I'd be much more inclined to get a half inch 8 track. The m520 is more than capable of all your signal routing needs for that.
That's just me. Id sell the 388 while they are hot.

Anyway welcome to the hybrid journey. We're on the road. Miro made it to the other side.

I know when I arrive, he's gonna give me a "I told ya so! What took you so long?"

 

[sweetbeats]

All good points so far...good discussion. I'll throw my 2p in...

Yes...a boutique outboard mixer to add "that sound" or some "magic" would be lovely. Unfortunately I've found them to cost more than a beer so there goes that.

So you use what you have/can get, right? I have had some pretty extensive experience with the Tascam M-500 series consoles and in my opinion they were well-built physically, have a good feature set and a number of unique features, and I think they sound pretty good...always thought the mic pres were a nice balance being non-sterile but not having *too* much "character"...Its never sounded "cheap" to me. I think its totally usable. The Hi-Z instrument preamps were always one of my favs for passive guitars. The power supply on the M-520 was relatively over-engineered...noise-floor can be reduced with a recap using modern low-ESR parts and a bypass of the main filter caps with a small value cap on the audio power rails. Cons: #1 I could never get the EQ to really do much for me...not a fan of EQ sections that are peaking in the hi and low bands...but it is most likely my knowledge limitations in applying EQ that is the main problem; #2 no direct path to the main buss...for summing everything has to go through the PGM groups to get to the STEREO buss. Yes, you can just use a pair of the PGM groups as your main buss when mixing down, source those in the STEREO buss for monitoring and use the PGM group direct outs to your master recorder to avoid unnecessary noise and distortion being added, but its still always been a head scratcher for me (i.e. why there isn't the inclusion of a L/R assign switch on the input strips). Anyway, overall I think these are not deal-breakers at all.

So all that aside, unless a mixer is really horrible sounding (i.e. too noisy, or chokes the sound for instance), in my budget range what I'm really seeing the mixer as is the control center...the hub of the studio. So that's the question I'm typically trying to resolve for myself in a setup, regardless of analog/digital/hybrid, does the mixer meet the I/O and monitoring needs of the global setup? I don't like having to hop from unit to unit for different functions (mixing, monitoring, routing, summing, etc.)...I know that is necessary sometimes, but I like a mixer that can handle being the hub for the tracking and mastering devices as well as cue monitoring needs and effects processing. Where a mixer runs short I'll use a patchbay so configuration changes are handy at my fingertips.

Note: I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff as opposed to just plugging up some cables and DOING something with the gear so keep that in mind...You'll learn a WHOLE lot more about what works for you and what you need, as well as chip away at your own needs to hone your workflow by just *doing* and refining the setup and connections. But its good to plan and try and get to a landing, and then work with it and refine.

I used to be all digital and years ago brought analog into it as an equal. Process-wise I most enjoy working OTB in an "analog" way...using the DAW like a basic tracking machine as opposed to doing a lot ITB. I've done plenty of the latter and there are too many options and tools ITB and I lose sight of the goal and end up neutering the source rather than working to get a good up-front sound leaving less to do later. Bells and whistles are bad for me.

So if it was me I'd have a foundation of the M-520 with the UAD connected to one set of 8 PGM outs, the 388 connected to the other set of PGM outs, and 16 DAW outs connected to the 16 TAPE jacks on the M-520 so you can easily sum and monitor those, and the 388 outs connected to 8 of the other LINE input jacks on the M-520 (probably on channels 9-16). That would give the most control at your fingertips right on the control surface of the M-520. If you don't like going through the M-520 to the DAW, then you can still connect your sources to the M-520, monitor through the console, and connect the UAD to 8 of the parallel ACCESS SEND jacks on whatever set of 8 channels (or more if you want to bring the Sapphire into it) best meet your sources (considering channels 1&2 have the instrument pres on them). Anyway, that's where I would start...just because you don't want to incorporate the M-520 signal path into your DAW tracks, doesn't mean you can't still use it as your command center...LOTS of patching and configuration possibilities on the M-500 series consoles.

 

[RFR]

Great input coming from someone who knows this board from the inside out.

I never understood the lack if a dedicated L/R mixdown buss either. But I have worked with this board so long, I'm used to it and comfortable with it.
There is an upside to this. I usually use 7/8 for mixdown, but you can use 5/6 and or 3/4, ect, to mix down to seperate mixdown machines. In the old days, I'd at the same time do a mixdown to a DAT and a cassette to listen to in the car.

I've thought about using stereo master B to run a mix to the mixdown deck, but havent tried it. I know it would work, but wonder how it would sound. In this case, you could easily get all 20 channnels Plus another 8 mono or 4 stereo channels of pgm material (maybe synced keys) at mixdown.

There are so many options with this simple "budget" board that it can be mind boggling at times.

As you, I'm not in love with the eq, but it works. Ive always tried to get the eq right at the source and tracked with no eq at the board, only doing slight eq adjustments at mixdown time.

Using a daw opens up all manner of possibilities, but I would still do the mixing with real faders and ears rather than a screen. In other words, my daw would be like a tape machine with super editing features.

 

[miroslav]

I've not had any real problems with my M3500...it's served me quite well for 25 years now.
I'm just saying that I try not to depend heavily on it for both tracking and mixing options.

If you have outboard pres & EQ, there's really no need to track through the mixer...even if you had something more high-end.
I think that certainly takes some of the signal degradation away...and there's always some, 'cuz you're making that signal go through additional components, and they will all have some effect on it.

The way I've been mixing through my console, I've also not had any noticeable issues...but again, I'm not using the mixer for everything. So, by "lightening" the signal path and the mixer's work load, it also helps keep things cleaner.

Once you start coming from the DAW and out to the mixer...it's easier to hear what the mixer is doing, than when you just track trough it to tape and back through it to from tape to mix down.
When I use to use my Fostex G-16, things were less noticeable. Since getting the Otari MX-80, the sound quality has gone up during tracking. It's very clean. I got lucky...the heads were re-lapped to 75% life by JRF when I got it...and much of it had been serviced already, plus, it was a low-use deck originally...so I'm very, very pleased with it so far.

I'm just amusing myself with the whole studio thing. It's a personal quest to keep upping the ante if I can...
...so I don't mind dropping a few beers' worth on something a little higher-end if the right thing comes along.

 

[sweetbeats]

I wasn't knocking spending a few beers...I was just commenting on my own budget and the pursuit of a more enjoyable audio path compared to using "whatcha got" at the time.

Hoping at the end of the day my MCI JH-416 mixing desk project will not cost more than about...mmmm...about 1,700 good quality beers ...and be boutique-ish or at least sound good to me.

And I guess I want to underscore for the OP:do what you are doing...think it through, but don't spend too much time on it or lose sleep over it...get some stuff hooked up and start working with it. I think the M-520 can accommodate what you are wanting to do...it seems to me like your focus is on the DAW and the mixer would be primarily used as a monitor mixer, and the M-520 is really flexible to accommodate flexible and comprehensive monitoring control with as little or as much Tascam circuitry in the signal path in between the source(s) and the UAD/Sapphire.

 

[fstrat76]

I don't have an M-520 but my setup is also a hybrid, Tascam M-2600, 38 8 track, 42 2 track, Logic Pro DAW. I kind of do a similar approach as listed above, but have it setup like sweetbeats recommends where the M-2600 is really the command center. (Cory, great to see you back - great post!)

Since I mostly work alone, I typically arrange the music in my DAW (Logic Pro) creating a temporary piano/synth software instrument rhythm part, and then, since I am not a real drummer, create some digital drum tracks with keys or a Roland Drum kit using BFD software drums.

Since my 38 is striped with SMPTE, I can now track to tape. I am limited to this type of sync because of the 38, but it seems to work for me, and it is inexpensive. The DAW Interface outputs plug into the mixer's tape in's 1-8 (or 1-16) giving me full channel and/or cue and tape monitoring through the M-2600 (which also has an LR channel button!). So I have 7 tracks to record to tape, usually Vox's, Lead and Rhythm Guitar, Bass Guitar. If I am limited by the number of tracks, I can always dump those to DAW like mirsoslav does and then add more tracks to tape.

When tracking, I usually never add EQ or anything from the DAW or anything outboard except maybe a little compression if needed, but it all does go through the board and busses first (the command center), so there will be some coloration or noise. That's OK though, as I have found that mic placement and getting that placement right and levels right make more of a difference than almost anything else in the chain (IMO).

Once the tracking is complete, I will dump the Tascam 38 tape tracks back to DAW through the mixer again. Then I may add some "digital" layers in the DAW with soft synths and such, but some of those software options are really time consuming and just get in my way. I like to record as if the song can be played live by human beings, but to each their own.

The best part about the DAW is editing. I may decide to rearrange a part or cut a part. It's also great for "fixing" things if absolutely necessary but I will usually just re-record the part. I will typically pre-mix ITB; I may add some EQ in the DAW, or even use outboard processing, and compression. The best part though is automation and the recall capabilities of a DAW. Once I am satisfied with the ITB mix, I will send 8 (or 16) channels from the DAW back to the M-2600, and final touch the mix going to the Tascam 42 two track.

I may even dump the stereo recording from the Tascam 42 tape back into the DAW, into a separate project just for mastering. That really helps me focus on the final product that I can test on several sources. Some people think that's overkill, but mastering is truly a separate step. Lastly, just for fun, I may even send out that master to my consumer Teac A3300SX two track reel!

So like mentioned, I use the Tascam mixer as my command center. Is it perfect, no, and it may add a little noise and color, but so far, I am really liking the workflow and the sound.

 

[miroslav]

Hoping at the end of the day my MCI JH-416 mixing desk project will not cost more than about...mmmm...about 1,700 good quality beers ...and be boutique-ish or at least sound good to me.

Speaking of an MCI console...I was at one time talking with briank (who I haven't seen around here in awhile) about his MCI 636. Last time we talked, he had it about 90% refurbished. I think he was looking to find a couple of more channel strips to fill out the board some, and then he was possibly going to sell it. I was interested, and if I recall, he had a target of this past spring/summer...but then he changed jobs or something, was living closer to work (which was further away from where he had the console)...and things kinda stopped there.
Last word with him was to let me know when he was ready....but I've not heard from him since maybe this past June.
I'll have to give he a shout...I just don't want to be a PITA about it. He knows where to find me if he wants to sell it.

That to me would be a nice bump-up from the TASCAM, and it would certainly be a console with character...known for it's pleasing sound when it comes to mixing Rock on it.

And I guess I want to underscore for the OP:do what you are doing...think it through, but don't spend too much time on it or lose sleep over it.

I agree.
No matter what I'm saying about m the TASCAM...I just keep working with it...'cuz it's the only thing I have at this time!
Certainly not losing sleep over it. I'm just saying that I would step up to something better if the right console and deal comes along.

So like mentioned, I use the Tascam mixer as my command center. Is it perfect, no, and it may add a little noise and color, but so far, I am really liking the workflow and the sound.

Yeah...having a comfortable setup if more important than just the gear itself. Working in your comfort zone (whatever it is) will always help your productivity.

 

[rodro12019]

I wasn't knocking spending a few beers...I was just commenting on my own budget and the pursuit of a more enjoyable audio path compared to using "whatcha got" at the time.

Hoping at the end of the day my MCI JH-416 mixing desk project will not cost more than about...mmmm...about 1,700 good quality beers ...and be boutique-ish or at least sound good to me.

And I guess I want to underscore for the OP:do what you are doing...think it through, but don't spend too much time on it or lose sleep over it...get some stuff hooked up and start working with it. I think the M-520 can accommodate what you are wanting to do...it seems to me like your focus is on the DAW and the mixer would be primarily used as a monitor mixer, and the M-520 is really flexible to accommodate flexible and comprehensive monitoring control with as little or as much Tascam circuitry in the signal path in between the source(s) and the UAD/Sapphire.

Hey there sweetbeats,

I have a Tascam M-520 and have learned a lot from your posts and YouTube videos. Many thanks for that! I'm in a similar situation as the OP and am looking for advice on integrating my M-520 with my new 32 in/32 out digital converter. May I ask you a few questions via email?

 

[sweetbeats]

You can ask them here so others benefit from the info share. How about we do that?