Tascam M-___ Story...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
Heheh...no offense but your post tells me you either AREN'T that familiar with the M-50/M-512/M-520 (and I figure you are) -OR- you need to spend some more time looking at the pics and studying this thread. I used to own an M-520 and know them inside and out. This ain't no M-50/M-512/M-520! :D

The M-50/M-512/M-520 mixers weren't modular inline, nor did they have double rows of controls on each strip...or an inline monitor section or an eq section nearly as full-featured as a PE-40 channel.

Look again... ;)
 
BZZZZT! Nice guess, but not a match!

Sweetbeats can speak for himself, when he gets out of bed :spank::eek:;),...

but this is definitely a one of a kind prototype from which the M-50/M-512/M-520 were adapted for the mass market. Sweetbeats already ran it by the oldest old timer he could find at TEAC Hqtrs in Montebello, and even he could not identify clearly what it was, other than a one-off prototype from that era that never made it to market. There are no engineering drawings. manuals or records that exist for it, nor is there any mass marketed TASCAM mixer exactly like it.

IMO, maybe it was too complex for the average user to comprehend,... or maybe it was a specially commissioned item. To me it's like Frankenmixer Deluxe! I'll not steal sweetbeats' thunder. He's written fuctional descriptions that make my head spin, complete with photos and hand drawn schematics.

With all due respect, it's noticeably "like" those mixers, but is "not" either of those mixers.

Thx.
:spank::eek:;)
 
Oops!!!

Sorry Beats, I'd not seen your reply when I popped this one off.:spank::eek:;)
 
No sweat!

You hit some other good points to reinforce this is a one-of-kind!!
 
Been awhile.

The M-__ is still in my midst, and since I sold my 32 x 8 Soundtracs console a few weeks ago, and since my MCI JH-416 desk is a long ways from being usable, the M-__ has suddenly become less...dispensable. It is out of storage and back in the studio.

Waiting for the contact cement to cure on the re-upholstered wrist-rest, and I have actually begun fabbing the wood trim panels.

I have been tempted many times to get rid of the panels that came with the mixer...ratty-nasty beat-up panels. I'm glad I held on to them as they have been very useful as hole locator templates. Here are some of the rough trim pieces and a couple of the old panels:

IMG_3891_1_1.JPG



I'm REALLY struggling with how to apply detail, if any, to the pieces...I'm trying to decide if I should chamfer any edges or just leave the squared-off. I was originally going to chamfer select edges to tie in with a 45-degree detail that you see repeated on the screening of the M-500 mixers and many of the rack components from the same era...and present on the M-__ control surfaces as well. But the M-__ has such a chunky square look to it as well...not sure. Looking for opinions. what would you do?

Have a look...here it is with the meter bridge top panel and one of the side panels:

IMG_3894_3_1.JPG


IMG_3899_7_1.JPG


IMG_3898_6_1.JPG


IMG_3896_4_1.JPG



Like that last one, the one showing the side panel, I'm trying to decide do I just leave it a rectangle, or do I cut a 45-degree section out right there just below the wrist rest?

And should I leave all the edges square, or chamfer (bevel) some of them with a 45-degree cut to match the screening detail on the control surface?

Here are a couple shots with the roughed meter bridge end panel...trying to decide what to do there too. The way it works out I think it'll stick out further than the face of the top panel, so I'm wondering then if the tops of the meter bridge end panels stick up above the top of the top panel the same amount that they protrude out from the front...

IMG_3900_8_1.JPG


IMG_3901_9_1.JPG



Sorry...I realize that my questions juxtaposed with the pictures may not make a lot of sense...hard to describe without being in person...maybe I should shoot a video...
 
Ok

Seems like the M.... would be a great mixer to put online in the studio, once and for all.

You're the only one who really understands it, anyway!

:spank::eek:;)
 
Yeah, Dave...its feeling good to have simplified a bit...its nice to have less to draw my attention, and with the increased focus to rekindle my interest in projects that got lost in the fracas. This is the whole reason I decided to sell the Soundtracs console. Just helped load up my last Ampex 440 carcass for a buyer night before last. It was in a so-so Ampex rolling console too, so for me its another big chunk-o-mass gone. Me likey.

I haven't done ANY music in SO long...this recent surge is being driven by my kids who are spending a lot of time in the music room writing their own songs and practicing them together. Its the good reason I built that room, but the mess and unfinished setup just won't do. I want to be able to capture and spur what they are doing, so i'm trying to get the room to a state of some order and functionality before I miss this season.

Otherwise I've been very busy on my house...finished re-siding this summer and the exterior is painted...finished building a halfpipe and have just about got a 130 sq ft cabin playhouse framed up and weathered in in the back of the property that has been promised for 7 years...finishing up the flooring inside now too. Also just about ready to take to the road a motorcycle I got for free in August that's nearly refurbished.

But, yeah...i probably AM the only person breathing that has a functional working knowledge of the M-__. I'm sure there will be more bugs to work out since 10 strips haven't been recapped or otherwise gone through...and it'll always have some quirkiness thanks to its prototypical heritage, but it'll LOOK good, I'll never feel like a lemming with it, and I think it'll always be a fun mixer to use. And I think some of its more unique group monitor switching features will come in real handy in combining the two facets of the studio, the digital and analog. Certainly the designers of the M-__ didn't imagine it'd be so useful that way, but without knowing it they built something ahead of its time. :)

I'm going to put the PSU in a rack with a couple mkII LA-40's to interface with the MM-1000. The 8 buss outs have two jacks...one set to the MM-1000, and one set to an 8-channel interface...no patching. Same on the returns since each input strip has two separate line inputs with separate trim knobs...MM-1000 to one set of 8 line inputs, the DAW to the other. Effects and monitor sends will be the challenge as I'd really like to have at least 6 aux busses, but I also think it'll force me to focus and not try to make a setup for all scenarios...and lose focus.
 
You mean, like, my absence has been apparent?

The other thing I've been mentally noodling, since I learned so much about grounding in audio systems with my Soundtracs mixer project, is the grounding in the M-__.

I had to delve into the grounding when reverse engineering the missing power supply on the M-__, but my focus was simply on making sure it wouldn't blow up vs. excelling at shunting environmental noise. I betcha i'm going to, at the very least, make sure all components of the frame have good continuity, one to the other, and that the ground bond between the psu chassis and the mixer frame is excellent, and that the bonding points for the supply rail 0V references are according to best practices. Once those things are proper (if some or all aren't already...and I can tell you from memory at least some are NOT already), then from there I can deal with the bonding of the module chassis to the frame and the individual pin1 bonding points as needed since it'll be easy to pull a module here and there and work on it, vs. getting to the guts of the frame which is easy right now since its empty and partially disassembled.
 
Well, color me surprised...i check to see if all sections of the frame had good continuity one to the other, and they do! Check THAT one off the list! ;)
 
Hey Cory, nice to see you back posting here again! You were missed!

About the wood trim beveling, I think that would give it an odd aged look and a definite departure from any other TASCAM board with wood trim, which pretty much all of them employed clean 90 degree edges.

My 2 cents.

Cheers! :)
 
Thanks, Jeff!

Yeah, the more I look at it the more I'm thinking the same thing...no beveling. BUT...what about at the bottom front of the side panels? Below the wrist rest?

side_panel_cut.JPG
 
Speaking as a woodworker...maybe a small radius like an 1 1/2" at the bottom front of the side panels would look better and also serve to eliminate the sharp edge that might catch someones head that was working on rack gear below it.
 
sweetbeats said:
Thanks, Jeff!

Yeah, the more I look at it the more I'm thinking the same thing...no beveling. BUT...what about at the bottom front of the side panels? Below the wrist rest?

side_panel_cut.JPG
Click to expand...
In the mock-up renderings I did a few months back, I included a cut where you indicated with the red line but it was on a full side panel dressing, not the semi coverage straight board. So, I'm not sure about that one.

The safety advice offered by tape4reel is valid but I'd probably want to do another mock-up first of that to have a better idea on how it affects the overall look. Give me a bit of time to do a quick mock up of that and then we'll see.

Cheers! :)
 
Here's the mock-up cut...



IMG_3896mockupcut.jpg


Doesn't seem to do anything negative to the look, so I'd probably green light that.

Cheers! :)
 
to tape4reel's comment, yeah I will likely crank my head on that corner at some point if I leave it as-is, but I can't see doing a radius...there is simply nothing rounded about this mixer.

Jeff, thanks for doing the mock-up. I was secretly hoping you'd do that...heheh. :D

that being said, I actually don't like the look, safety concerns aside. I'd have loved to fab full-coverage side panels but I just don't have the material wide enough to do it. So what i'm putting on is a compromise between the "factory" panels and a full-coverage panel, as the walnut is significantly thicker and a little taller than the stock panels...at least they have a bit more "chunk" to them. But with the rake of the panel (in matching the control surface), and the top and bottom edges being parallel, the side panel screams "i'm angled like this, so deal with it.". Then with the 45 cut I think it confuses the blatant position of the panel. It just looks confusing to my eye...takes away from the statement the panel makes without the cut. I guess i'm just thinking the uncut rectangle-shaped panel justifies itself, abating the argument or question in my mind "why didn't you go with a full-coverage panel?". Because the rectangular panel provides more visual tension since the lower line follows the rake of the control surface...and i didn't have wide enough material...heheh. The OTHER point is that the M-500 mixers have a plain rectangular panel...clearly the fact that the M-__ was made with a similar panel reinforces its connection to the M-500 mixers and i want to maintain that element. I WILL be every so slightly putting a radius to the edges both for operator safety but also to feign damage to the panels since those sharp corners are easily dented...though this wood is HARD. Just a slight radius.
 
Given the wood pieces you have to work with, that all sounds reasonable. Though I might suggest shortening up the side panel height to more closely match up to the M500 series side panels and that way, the lack of the corner cut will be less of reminder of its possible need.

Cheers! :)
 
If I shortened them up that much the side panels would be shorter than the "stock" panels though...the "stock" panels are about 3.5" wide, the walnut panels are about 3.75" wide. In order to negate the need for the angle "safety" cut at the leading edge of the side panels (below the wrist-rest), the panels would have to be about 2.5" wide, which is how tall the wrist-rest is (2.5" square steel tubing). So even the original side panels hang down below the wrist-rest which I think you can see if you go back to the pics in the first couple pages of this thread, IIRC. I really don't want to make the side panels more narrow because any reduction of any dimension will reduce the "chunk" factor...and there is a link from the side panels to the meter-bridge top as that is made from the same dimensional material and the meter-bridge top HAS to be that deep or it doesn't cover the chassis.

I'm not trying to shoot down ideas...it probably sounds like I already knew what I wanted and i'm just balking for the sake of balking, but trust that these posts are really a "thinking out loud" in response to the ideas being posted and I really appreciate it. It is really helping me hone in on what I want to do, so thanks.
 
No problem, Cory. ;)

You have the actual hardware in front of you so you're in the best position to make critical judgments on how it should go together.

Cheers! :)
 
Made some advances on the meter bridge end panels...need to make a final cut as far as the depth of the panels, but I'm pretty sure I just want to flush them up with the back edge of the side panels on the frame, like here:

meter_bridge_end_panel_trim.JPG



But I'm not sure.

Here are some other shots of the mock-up at this point:

IMG_3908_6_1.JPG


IMG_3911_9_1.JPG


IMG_3907_5_1.JPG


IMG_3903_2_1.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top