Tascam M520 Story...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
...cleaned the whole 4 channel strip with faderlube, seemed to work, but now the same old problem:
channels 5 and 7 wont work unless i raise the trim to the max, then the sound "breaks through" and i can lower the trim.
any ideas?
or spare channel strips???

ps.: still searching for the big wooden side panels.....

yo Ethan, do you still do those panels? could you do one for the m-512?
 
Last edited:
winz950 said:
...cleaned the whole 4 channel strip with faderlube, seemed to work, but now the same old problem:
channels 5 and 7 wont work unless i raise the trim to the max, then the sound "breaks through" and i can lower the trim.
any ideas?
or spare channel strips???

ps.: still searching for the big wooden side panels.....

yo Ethan, do you still do those panels? could you do one for the m-512?
Click to expand...

I'm kinda looking for a m520. When (if) I get one then I'll make 2 or 3 sets of panels... Need the originals for templates.

--Ethan
 
winz950, that is the model I have, complete with sides and with the stand!

Reel person ... thanks, I now have a buss section :) All my busses are now working ... thank you very much.

Question ... What do the XLR outputs, well, what do they output? I tried to hook up my monitors but had no luck getting any output from them. I would much rather use XLR instead of RCA.

Would good quality cables and adapters negate the fact that this board outputs from RCA? Can someone maybe pipe in on sound quality of RCA vs XLR vs 1/4inch? How do you guys have your consoles set-up?
 
Last edited:
Do you mean press all the assign buttons?
Click to expand...

Yup!

Is there some kind of routing that has to be done in the back? Right now I have a line into channel 2 that I can hear in pre-fader and solo, however when I try to assign it to a buss, I have no luck.
Click to expand...

Okay...step one is to heed what A Reel Person said and make sure all those jumpers are in place...good call Dave. ;)

Outside of that there is no "routing" that has to be done externally on the M-520...rather, nothing else that will disturb the internal routing functions, step one of which is latching all the buss assign switches for the purpose of our test.

The next step involves some understanding of how the M-500 consoles are setup as far as how the BUSS MASTERs are monitored...

A conventional contemporary board will usually have a way to route subgroups (BUSS MASTERs) to the main or stereo buss with the push of a switch. The M-500 consoles don't have this simplified convention. The M-500's equivalent of latching an assign switch to route the BUSS MASTERs to the main siamesed STEREO A/B busses is to flip the source switches for monitor channels 1 ~ 8 to BUSS. Then of course you have to turn the LEVEL knobs for monitor channels 1 ~ 8 up to a comfortable level, and set the PAN knobs as desired. Its basically a matrix mixer without an option to pass go and send the BUSS MASTERs straight to the STEREO busses. Why did they do this? This is a recording console...that's what they built it for. Not that it couldn't function well as a live board with the 8-channel BALANCE AMP section that you see on the back (with the 8 XLR outs), but it was setup, and very well IMO, to meet many demands of a recording studio. By doing it the way Tascam did they were assuming that you would want independent control of your levels at the BUSS MASTER direct outs (found at the 8 PGM OUT jacks on the back) and in the control room and studio feed (which is what the STEREO A and STEREO B busses really are...) The monitor mixer accomplishes this since the PGM OUT jacks source direct from the BUSS MASTER faders, and then you have semi-independent control over how those post-fader BUSS MASTER signals arrive at the MONITOR SELECT switch rack (the row of switches in between the AUX MASTER and STEREO A/B MASTER faders) via the monitor mixer LEVEL and PAN knobs. I'm trying to say the same thing in several ways. I really hope I'm not confusing you. Think of the MONITOR SELECT switch rack as a "this is what I want to hear in the STEREO busses" row of switches, and the top one, the MON switch is the stereo mix of the 16-channel monitor mixer.

To summarize, if you've got any of the input channels (1 ~ 20 on the M-520) assigned to any of the 8 subgroups, in order to hear them in the STEREO busses you have to switch the appropriate monitor mixer channels to source from the BUSSes, and then you have to latch the MON switch in the MONITOR SELECT switch rack.

If you've been an ITB guy, you are going OTB in a relatively big way with an M-500, but you'll get it. ;)

What are you going to do for a manual? That is to say, you really ought to have one.

When I picked up the console, there were a series of RCA cables running from the tape-in of channels 1-8 to the FLB 1-8 of the meterbridge. I have left them as they were. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Just leave those for now. They won't disturb what you are trying to do right now. Let's get this first part figured out and then I can explain what those cables running from the meter bridge are for, okay?
 
Thanks a lot SB,

So if MON 1-8 correspond to buss 1-8, what are 9-16 for? ... input 1-8?
 
Monitor mixer channels 9 ~ 16 also correspond to BUSS MASTERs 1 ~ 8. This way you could create 2 separate mono mixes of the BUSS MASTERs using the monitor mixer essentially as two 8 x 1 matrix mixers (although the M-500 mixers unfortunately do not have a direct out for the monitor mixer...You'd have to PAN monitor channels 1 ~ 8 hard left or right and then channels 9 ~ 16 would have to be panned opposite of whatever you did for 1 ~ 8 to get those two mono mixes, and then they're gonna be in separate speakers in the headphones or in your monitors unless you are running your monitor speakers in mono, which is not likely the case, but this could work for a mono live system...probably would be easy enough to mod the board to add those direct outs for the monitor mixer though...blahblah).

When you flip the source select switch for the monitor channels to TAPE then each monitor channel sources the corresponding TAPE input on the input channels (i.e. the TAPE jacks on channels 1 ~ 16 of the M-520 can be monitored by the monitor mixer channels 1 ~ 16 respectively when the monitor channel source select switches are flipped to TAPE). So you can mix and match; simultaneously monitor-mix the BUSS MASTERs and up to 8 tape returns simultaneously which can be dropped into your STEREO mixes with the press of a button, with full control over the levels of each of those 16 sources.
 
Scrambling to get the M-520 put back together enough to safely move it into the control room.

The screws that hold the brass pivot-pins (the pins that allow the meter bridge and back cover to tip back to expose the wiring) to the side panels were loose and bent...in fact every screw on the side panels (that hold the cross-members to the side panels) were quite loose. Anyway, I actually had replacement screws in my screw bin...just the right size/thread pitch...they're even black. :D

As I was doing the above though I noticed that the right end of the back cover (under the meter bridge) was not shaped like the left side. It is pretty clear that something heavy was placed on the meter bridge at some point (hence why the pivot-pin screws were bent). There are triangle shaped steel pieces that brace the ends of the L-shaped back panel. These triangular shaped members also mount the posts for the meter bridge and have the holes that the free end of the pivot pins go through; they are the pieces that pivot...they look like this:

Plate%20Assy.jpg


Anyway, the right-hand one was bent on the top...tweaked. Just so happened I got a good pair of them with one of the spare parts purchases I made. I remember thinking "What am I ever going to need these for??" Well, there ya go.

I also got the armrest recovered. The old material was easy to pull off...2 decades of natural oils from people's arms and hands completely dessimated the adhesive just below the BUSS MASTER faders. What was left of the original adhesive came off very easily with some acetone.

Here is the armrest plate, the new covering material (on the right) and the old covering material (on the left) and a piece of the laminate trim...

Armrest%20Ready%20to%20Cover.JPG


Here it is after adhering the new covering material to the plate...I used my favorite spray adhesive to do the job: 3M 77. You can see how the new and old covering material blend, but when the newly covered armrest is placed adjacent to the wood laminate trim it makes the reds in laminate pop, and then the beige looks really nice with it. I didn't want to vastly deviate from the factory color, but I think this is a slight improvement on the factory covering color-wise, and of course the condition of the new covering is much improved over the original. :)

Armrest%20Completed.JPG


Here is anaother shot...closeup of the end of the armrest plate showing the end-wrap of the new material:

Armrest%20Detail.JPG


So anyway, tonight I may get the armrest reinstalled, get the wood-laminate trim pieces cleaned up and reinstalled and get the mixer moved. :eek:
 
Well, its all cleaned up and my lovely wife helped me move it into the control room...a bit of an obstacle course. :o

Anyway, I took a bunch of pictures before we moved it. I'm really, really pleased with how well it cleaned up. I'm anxious to put the pictures up and share, but I'm having some issues with my ftp site, so the pictures will have to wait.

My plan at this point is to deep-clean/recap/upgrade opamps on a 4-channel module at a time. Since I have spares I can have a set on the bench with the board fully loaded and functional, and then as time is available I can do the work and swap in a refreshed module and then begin work on the one swapped out.
 
How noisy is my M-520???

So how much self-noise does my M-520 generate?

I'll give you the conditions, and if I get some guesses I'll post up the result. I honestly don't have the experience to know if what I'm seeing on the VU meters is normal or not, but here are the conditions:

  • Channels 1~20 input source set to MIC (nothing connected at the input jacks)
  • MIC TRIMs for channels 1 ~ 20 at maximum (fully clockwise)
  • All channels 1 ~ 20 assigned to all BUSSes 1 ~ 8
  • Channels 1 ~ 20 input faders at maximum
  • BUSS MASTER faders 1 ~ 8 at maximum
  • MONitor mixer channels 1 ~ 8 sourced to BUSS MASTERs 1 ~ 8
  • MONitor mixer channels 1 ~ 8 levels at maximum (fully clockwise)
  • MONITOR SELECT sourced to the MONitor mixer
  • STEREO A fader at maximum

So what VU level do you think I get?

In other words, all 20 channels are each routed to all 8 subgroups, and each of those groups is routed to the STEREO A buss and I've got every TRIM/gain knob/fader maxed in the signal path.
 
An...

An unterminated mic jack that's set to On and Trim at 100% CW would in many cases be expected to generate a lot more noise than if it's got a mic connected.:eek::eek:;)

... or so I've found on several other units. YMMV.
 
Okay...okay...Uncle!

You guys...I know you are just trying to keep me from doing any more useless exercises with my board...it was hitting -3 ~ -5 VU...does that sound like a lot or to be expected?

Still can't link pics from my ftp site...they are working on it...:mad:
 
sweetbeats said:
You guys...I know you are just trying to keep me from doing any more useless exercises with my board...it was hitting -3 ~ -5 VU...does that sound like a lot or to be expected?

Still can't link pics from my ftp site...they are working on it...:mad:
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's to be expected, 'cause an unterminated preamp input running full bore hi gain might be expected to be unduly noisy, when if properly connected it has no such noise or problem at all. When the channel's not being used, select Line, put all Trim and fader down to 0, & deselect it from the buss. To have full wide open gain on unused channels that are disconnected would tend to add unwanted noise to any mixer, or so I've found relatively common that I'd just not do it. It doesn't translate directly into having the same level of noise when properly connected and set.

I'd simply not sweat it.:eek:;)
 
Dude! That's a keeper!
Click to expand...

:D:D:D:D:D

Yes. 12 years and counting...birthed 4 amazing children and has seen me through a lot, and I her. Moving mixers is the least of her talents and blessings. :)

Just ordered the LeCover for the M-520 on Beck's recommendation. ;)

Still can't download files from my ftp site :mad:. They're "working on it." :rolleyes:
 
'Working on it' is tech code phrase for 'We don't really know what is wrong nor do we have any idea when it will be fixed'


AK
 
Can anyone comment on whether it would be worth the effort to put balanced inputs and patches on this board. I am trying to get a "scientific" sense on whether RCA is on par with balanced sonically and it what conditions it may be better go balanced
 
btw ... i find the balanced line-ins to be not up to par, and much prefer the sound of a 1/4 adapter through the pre-amp. I'm of the opinion that the sound is great on the board, and much prefer the summing OTB compared to my ITB mixes. Now i need to buy some hardware compressors :)
 
rpapa said:
Can anyone comment on whether it would be worth the effort to put balanced inputs and patches on this board. I am trying to get a "scientific" sense on whether RCA is on par with balanced sonically and it what conditions it may be better go balanced
Click to expand...

A waste of time. If you start with a clean signal and use low cap cable, the rca in/outs are fine.
 
IT domain administration is part of my livelihood..."working on it" also means "I know what to do but I'm totally buried and I have no idea when I'm going to get to your issue." :D

Rpapa, Rick I spot on IMO. Balanced circuitry wasn't intorduced into professional audio because it sounded better sonically, but because it dealt with the RFI and hum of longer unbalanced cable runs. If your cable runs areless than, say, 25', and like Rick said if you are using good quality cable, then all balanced I/O is doing for you is sending your signal through a bunch of totally unnecessary circuitry. The specs on my 58 are actually worse through the balanced I/O vs. the unbalanced I/O.

btw ... i find the balanced line-ins to be not up to par, and much prefer the sound of a 1/4 adapter through the pre-amp.
Click to expand...

rpapa, can you clarify this? The M-520 doesn't have balanced line-level inputs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top