Tascam M-___ Story...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
Okay...the mixer frame is completely ready.

Next thing is finishing the power umbilical. Then to test the power supply...then power the mixer frame unloaded. Then start loading and checking as I go.

But I'm done for tonight. image.webp
 
Wellll...nothing blew up. :)

The power supply mods and new umbilical needed no tweakering. I did have to make a minor change in the frame with the 0V reference for the +6V rail, and one of the modules (#1) had continuity in the megaohm range between the 0V contacts on the module and the chassis of the module. The two should be completely isolated, so I pulled it all apart to figure out where the problem was and I'm glad I didn't let it go because it was an electrolytic cap that was getting pinched by part of the chassis...the jacketing of the cap can was scratched off in a couple places. It's a cap that has to be mounted funny, and module #1 was the first one I recapped and I don't think I realized how the cap needed to be oriented. Anyway, all good now.

image.webp

image.webp


The next task on the list is to do a full test of all the functions on each I/O module and the "control" module (master module) and see what I got...then tackle whatever doesn't pass muster.
 
And for those of you that have been dying to know, here's what an M-512 looks like sitting next to the M-__.

Mind you there is some significance to this as the owner of the M-__ is fairly certain it is the prototypical predecessor to the M-50, later the M-512/520. Indeed like a good "show car", the model that actually hit the market is lacking a certain mojo. This is NOT to say the M-512 isn't replete with it's own mojo...it's just interesting to see the two together.

image.webp
 
Well color me excited!

All bands of the oscillator are working now! I don't usually like the whole "it fixed itself" thing because I want to know *why*, but at this point I'll take it! :D
 
Love that last comparative picture! :)

Hope you'll have the opportunity to take some daylight shots which might be a bit less fuzzy!

Hey, maybe check out your local craig's list for a cheap secondhand Canon camera! Lots of them are usually for sale for under 40 bucks! Just an idea to ponder. ;)

Cheers! :)
 
Okay...problem #1...and I think I recall this from before...the "BUSS MASTER" level control on module #12 is pretty much inactive...when I patch the oscillator output to the BUSS IN jack on that module (which brings the signal in right ahead of the pot), the meter pegs, and turning the pot fully counter-clockwise only drops the level by about 3dB. Remember module #12 is the funky module that looks like it was the test-bed for the rest. So I'll have to have a look at that. It's not a deal-breaker, but in that slot in the frame that control is the master level for AUX 4. And I want this thing to be 100%. So on the list of issues it goes. More later I'm sure.
 
The Ghost of FM said:
Love that last comparative picture! :)

Hope you'll have the opportunity to take some daylight shots which might be a bit less fuzzy!

Hey, maybe check out your local craig's list for a cheap secondhand Canon camera! Lots of them are usually for sale for under 40 bucks! Just an idea to ponder. ;)

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll get some daylight shots...the iPhone does surprisingly well but the lense is simply limited. Great pics for a phone though.
 
Module #12 BUSS MASTER pot issue fixed. Bad solder joint on the ground terminal. Check!
 
sweetbeats said:
Yeah I'll get some daylight shots...the iPhone does surprisingly well but the lense is simply limited. Great pics for a phone though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as camera phones go, I guess it has its merits but as you've said, the lense is limited by being fixed at a wider angle which creates those nasty edge distortions. And the zoom feature of the camera doesn't fix that as its an electronic zoom which just pixelates the image. Plus the lens can not be stepped down to a smaller aperture which would increase the depth of focus. So it's really only suited to very pedestrian uses. Any 5 MP or higher "point and shot" camera with an optical zoom would easily produce superior results.

Anyway, glad to see you making process on getting the M__ 100% function! :)

Cheers! :)
 
I think I've figured out the definitive answer as to why the M-__ never went to production:

Because it's too damn complicated for the average operator!!!

Oy.

Usually when I go through a full function test on a mixer I get into sort of a pattern or a rhythm as I move through each channel...it's hard to find that with the M-__ because of allllll the routing and features. It took me well over an hour to do two I/O modules. It's actually a good exercise and I'm getting a handle on some minutia functional details and taking notes as I go, but MAN this thing makes me a little dizzy.

So steady as she goes. Modules 1 & 2 are 100%.

I did affirm something pretty cool...each I/O module can function as a stereo line level input.

Fuh-lexible.
 
sweetbeats said:
Because it's too damn complicated for the average operator!!!
Click to expand...

I can usually get a good sense of a mixer's road map by looking at the various controls and jacks and develop a mental image of where everything can go. But I too failed to get that image in my brain when it came to the M___!

That said, just because a mixer has x number of features doesn't mean you have to utilize every last one of them in order to get full value out of the product. Even on the lowly M312B's that I used to own, I don't think I ever made use of the aux 3 & 4 sub systems or the talk-back facilities. I just used the parts of it that made sense to me to use and happily ignored the rest of it. The M___ by its very nature of being a prototype device means that it's design was a work in progress with many features that survived and migrated onto other mixers and other features which died right there on the vine. No shame in any of that.

Cheers! :)
 
All good points.

The trick is that the M-__ could be very well utilized in my studio bridging the analog and digital facets...

But more importantly at this stage I just want to *know* everything works, and in that process get a final handle on the specifics of each function...details that would be clear in a manual or block diagram, but obviously neither of those documents exist. Details like the solo functions for the stereo, monitor and PGM busses are in-place...and the master channel mute kills everything *except* the output at the direct out jack or signal dumped from the monitor buss to the stereo buss via the MONI TO STEREO function...and in the AUX buss switchracks the PRE/POST function only affects the control if the pair of AUX busses are sourced to the module input. If the pair is sourced to the monitor buss via the INPUT/MONI switch the PRE/POST switch is inactive...and furthermore if the LINE 2 switch is depressed (LINE 2 was intended for tape returns), that trumps both the PRE/POST *and* INPUT/MONI switches.

Stuff like that...I'm not looking to find ways to use every function, but expect much of the M-__'s functionality *could* be well utilized, so it's valuable to get into the weeds of what's what on this.

And in particular the REMOTE functions, which could really be helpful for global switching between DAW or tape playback, and global monitor switching. And actually the REMOTE functions can be used as mute groups! There are two mute groups possible with the REMOTE functionality.

I'm really thinking some video of the functions would be interesting and also helpful for me.
 
What would be really nice is if the folks who put the M___ together in the first place, assuming they're still alive, would be to step up and explain what their design objectives were, who they felt might be the typical end user and so on.

Have you ever made an attempt to speak to these people?

Cheers! :)
 
Electronics Engineers are not Recording Engineers (most times). So a proto-type with lots of blue sky electrical engineering that could then be put in front of a number of recording engineers for feedback could be a valuable tool to refining what would ultimately make the cut of a production piece. Especially back in the days before CAD/CAE.
 
��
The Ghost of FM said:
What would be really nice is if the folks who put the M___ together in the first place, assuming they're still alive, would be to step up and explain what their design objectives were, who they felt might be the typical end user and so on.

Have you ever made an attempt to speak to these people?

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...

Yeah quite some time ago before things changed at Teac in Montebello and Jim and Jimmy and the analog support department went by the wayside I talked to Jimmy...as I recall he started there just after the M-__ was likely developed and he confirmed it was one of theirs, but that he didn't know anything more about it and that it should have been destroyed. The overwhelming picture was that nobody there had any interest in it...I even tried to track somebody down at Teac in Japan but was unsuccessful so I just sort of gave up on that whole initiative.

I think I documented that early on in this "Story".
 
A Reel Person said:
I think I said that a few posts back!
:spank::eek:;)
Click to expand...

LOL for real! :D

But this function testing I'm doing really truly is helping, not only with navigating (finding what I need when I need it) but also being able to intuitively knowing what control I need to go to quickly. And getting acclimated to the LEDs for quick assessment of the condition state of different controls.

I think before too long I'll be finding my way around pretty well. But it's a pretty dense and diverse control surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top