tacsam m-30 or tascam m-512??

[christiandaelemans]

hey all, i’ve got 2 mixers in my line of site, one of which i’ll want to use with a tascam 38. a pretty well kept tascam m-512 with 2 burnt out VU bulbs, local, for 450. and a well kept, however still yet unseen (seller is busy but has been very nice, even lowered price for me) m-30 mixer that’ll have to be shipped for 640.

i’m gonna use it to basically be the only desk that my tascam 38 reel to reel sees. mix in the desk, track through the desk, digitize through the desk (and some other outboard junk).

both have likely been unserviced, but the 512 owner has told me the eqs are aggressive and powerful. he’s tested it for me and says everything works. it’s just the 2 bulbs that are out.

i’d like some thoughts on how these 2 mixers stack up to each other. the m-30 would be a cute little addition to my desk, that could certainly track an album on the 38 all by itself. however, i love the way that the 512 is just friggin huge and has so many options. it WILL hang off my desk though by about a foot lol. below is an image of the desk.

 

[RFR]

Not familiar with the m30. I am familiar with the M512 and the M520.
I use the 520 with a 16 track. The 512 with an 8 track should be great.

Anyway, I’ve been very pleased. Been using the 5 series since the 90s

 

[sweetbeats]

The two aren’t even comparable. If you can deal with the difference in footprint, the M-512 is a much better option just in terms of features and flexibility…easily twice the console for 30% less money. This seems like a no-brainer to me. If you are wanting an analog console to interface an 8-track multitrack machine, I’m assuming multi-channel DAW interface, and “a bunch of other junk”, the M-512 is going to do that much better than the M-30. I’m no knocking the M-30. I’m just comparing what your stated application is compared to the feature set of the two tools you presented.

The M-30 is an 8x4 console with 8-channel monitor or return mixer. The M-512 is 12x8 with 8-channel monitor mixer, but has much better metering and flexibility, multiple inputs per channel, inline monitoring, 100mm faders, 8-channel balance amp, hi-Z inputs, talkback and oscillator facilities, better AUX bussing…like, the M-30 almost has no AUX bussing…M-512 even has individual AUX masters on faders…it’s literally twice the mixer with lots of flexibility. AND…you can actually check it out before you buy it. No-brainer.

I’ve owned an M-520 and an M-512…the M-308 is kind of in between the M-30 and M-512 feature-wise.

Ugh make it stop…more M-512 benefits: mich more flexible EQ…don’t know WTH the guy means by “aggressive” EQ. I actually am not a fan of pretty much any 80s/90s Teac/Tascam EQ I’ve used…not bad or anything just not exciting and I really don’t like the whole obsession with peaking filters for all bands…anyway it is useful and the M-512 way more so than the M-30. Phantom power and switchable per channel. Phase reverse…separate trim controls for the multiple inputs per channel. Did I mention inline monitoring? Multiple facets of this on the M-512. The M-30’s mic inputs are transformer-coupled…sure…they will sound different than the M-512. But it’s those little Tamura trafos…I literally have no idea why the present day lore around those things. They are a cheap transformer. Not everything is Jensen or Lundahl or Studer. I think the M-512 mic amp sounds fine. I think personally I’d pick it over the M-30. The M-30 mic amp is simple, an updated version of the Teac Model 5 and Tascam M-35. Again, lots of people love the M-30 and I think it’s perfectly fine for lots of things, and it’s simplicity is it’s real benefit. And still has monitor facilities for an 8-track setup, but I would not want to try and use it if interfacing the things you’re talking about interfacing. The M-512 will do all that and give you room to grow or flexibility to reconfigure.

 

[christiandaelemans]

The two aren’t even comparable. If you can deal with the difference in footprint, the M-512 is a much better option just in terms of features and flexibility…easily twice the console for 30% less money. This seems like a no-brainer to me. If you are wanting an analog console to interface an 8-track multitrack machine, I’m assuming multi-channel DAW interface, and “a bunch of other junk”, the M-512 is going to do that much better than the M-30. I’m no knocking the M-30. I’m just comparing what your stated application is compared to the feature set of the two tools you presented.

The M-30 is an 8x4 console with 8-channel monitor or return mixer. The M-512 is 12x8 with 8-channel monitor mixer, but has much better metering and flexibility, multiple inputs per channel, inline monitoring, 100mm faders, 8-channel balance amp, lo-Z inputs, talkback and oscillator facilities, better AUX bussing…like, the M-30 almost has no AUX bussing…M-512 even has individual AUX masters on faders…it’s literally twice the mixer with lots of flexibility. AND…you can actually check it out before you buy it. No-brainer.

I’ve owned an M-520 and an M-512…the M-308 is kind of in between the M-30 and M-512 feature-wise.

Ugh make it stop…more M-512 benefits: mich more flexible EQ…don’t know WTH the guy means by “aggressive” EQ. I actually am not a fan of pretty much any 80s/90s Teac/Tascam EQ I’ve used…not bad or anything just not exciting and I really don’t like the whole obsession with peaking filters for all bands…anyway it is useful and the M-512 way more so than the M-30. Phantom power and switchable per channel. Phase reverse…separate trim controls for the multiple inputs per channel. Did I mention inline monitoring? Multiple facets of this on the M-512. The M-30’s mic inputs are transformer-coupled…sure…they will sound different than the M-512. But it’s those little Tamura trafos…I literally have no idea why the present day lore around those things. They are a cheap transformer. Not everything is Jensen or Lundahl or Studer. I think the M-512 mic amp sounds fine. I think personally I’d pick it over the M-30. The M-30 mic amp is simple, an updated version of the Teac Model 5 and Tascam M-35. Again, lots of people love the M-30 and I think it’s perfectly fine for lots of things, and it’s simplicity is it’s real benefit. And still has monitor facilities for an 8-track setup, but I would not want to try and use it if interfacing the things you’re talking about interfacing. The M-512 will do all that and give you room to grow or flexibility to reconfigure.

i’ve read a bit of your vast story with the tascam m-520, so i know you are well acquainted with those lines of mixers. maybe i worded it wrong, but i wanted to track to tape and mix via analog mixer, then digitize the final results, probably plugged through a limiter, for distribution to the wider world. i don’t mess with DAWS, it’s too much option and not enough “this is it, kid, have fun” like it is with this new world of analog tape i’ve entered as of a few months ago.

how would you describe the sound of the m-512? or m-520 in your case. i don’t want high end sound, but i do want it to be warm and warrant enough character to not have to mix via DAW and just utilize the eq.

i loved the EQ on the tascam 244, if i could get that in mixer form that was compatible for a tascam 38, i feel like i would be happy. if that’s what tascam EQ is like across the board, then i think i’ll like it.

 

[sweetbeats]

If you liked the 244 EQ you’ll be perfectly happy with either the M-30 or M-512. Like most mixer from the era, I think they sound a bit warmer than contemporary “budget”, consoles which all sound too sterile to me. Granted the “warm” is due in part to lower spec opamps than modern consoles. The mic amp in the M-512 is the same as the M-50, my Tascam prototype console, the MX-80 rack mount mic amp and the 388.

M-500 series has full solo and mute facilities as well as solo-in-place. For me personally I think because of the capabilities of the M-512 it’s a more fun console to operate.

 

[RFR]

how would you describe the sound of the m-512? or m-520 in your case. i don’t want high end sound, but i do want it to be warm and warrant enough character to not have to mix via DAW and just utilize the eq.

I’ll say this. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve plugged a guitar in the first channel using nothing but what’s available on that channel strip and got a great clean, but with a little bit of character, guitar sound.

The preamps as well as the eq sound fine to me and being able to plug in direct sure has made my my life easier.

As far as I know the 512 is exactly the same as the 520 with the exception of fewer channels.
So with the inline monitoring, you’ll have 8 channels of tape returns and another four channels for effects returns. (2 stereo or 4 mono)

 

[sweetbeats]

I’ll say this. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve plugged a guitar in the first channel using nothing but what’s available on that channel strip and got a great clean, but with a little bit of character, guitar sound.

The preamps as well as the eq sound fine to me and being able to plug in direct sure has made my my life easier.

As far as I know the 512 is exactly the same as the 520 with the exception of fewer channels.
So with the inline monitoring, you’ll have 8 channels of tape returns and another four channels for effects returns. (2 stereo or 4 mono)

Zactly. I always liked the hi-Z inputs on the M-500. It’s a simple circuit so I don’t know why it sounds nice but it does. Yes, the M-500 series are versatile consoles.

And that’s pretty much it M-512 vs M-520: 8 fewer input channels, 8 fewer monitor mixer channels, 4 fewer meters, but the same monitoring facilities because 4 of the meters monitor PGM groups, or AUX busses, or stereo master busses. And of course the M-520 has an outboard power supply vs integrated on the M-512. Everything else is the same.

 

[christiandaelemans]

Zactly. I always liked the hi-Z inputs on the M-500. It’s a simple circuit so I don’t know why it sounds nice but it does. Yes, the M-500 series are versatile consoles.

And that’s pretty much it M-512 vs M-520: 8 fewer input channels, 8 fewer monitor mixer channels, 4 fewer meters, but the same monitoring facilities because 4 of the meters monitor PGM groups, or AUX busses, or stereo master busses. And of course the M-520 has an outboard power supply vs integrated on the M-512. Everything else is the same.

this is a sorta unrelated question to the main topic, but do you have a recommendation for replacement bulbs for the 512? i have noticed that more “well kept” tascam units feature a more orange glow to the VU meters, rather than yellow or white glows. and my 38 has this orangish attribute. i’d like to match it somewhat, so if you’re aware of any bulbs (i know the original fuse types are extinct) like that, i’d love to know. i’d probably have to replace all the bulbs and not just the 2 downed ones if i want to make them all look the same.

 

[sweetbeats]

Usually yellow or white are an LED conversion. I’m not a fan. I understand why many are. So just get incandescent lamps. Look for 100mA 8V solder lead lamps. Yes, on the M-500 series consoles they have the clip in fuse lamps. Maybe you can find them now. Years ago you couldn’t. So u just used solder lead lamps. You can get some and see if the match up close enough to what’s in there, but just keep in mind if some are dead, the others can’t be far behind. Also the lamps are polar. This doesn’t matter if the lamp power rail is AC. It does if it’s DC. I think the M-500 is an AC rail. But regardless I always install the lamps in one orientation anyway. You’ll see the solder lead lamps have a different shape at one end. It doesn’t matter which way they go, just that they all go the same way.

 

[RFR]

My 520 has all led lamps. Gives off a bit of an Amber light. I don’t mind. It came like that and all lamps light up, so I’m good with it.