Tascam mixing desks

[Uli_the_Grasso]

I guess that LEM is European. Most mixers that I serviced were much easier to open than that Tascam.

Tascam cut a corner or two, indeed, but in the seventies there was no competition. Tascam was a newcomer and had no competitors in the market of feature-loaden 8-4-2 mixers for 3000 bucks.

Tascam was not a benevolent US-Asian god but traded quality for quantity. In the eighties, better op-amp types and falling component prices could bring back some quality, but then they still, yet or again had design flaws and impossible servicability.

Servicing or modding a mixing desk is in no way an exotic act. A consumer product like a walkman is a fire-and-forget device, but a mixing desk for 3000 bucks is not. Yet Sony´s mobile casette players are easier to repair than that Tascam desk. These Tascam desks break on not too uncommon occasions, and it is a PITA when you cannot open them.

 

[dkelley]

Face it: Old Tascam mixers are not any better than old mixers of other brands. A brand that comes into my mind is Ross. Tascams were loaden with features - parametric EQs, lots of busses and long faders - but of low quality.

I wouldn't say "low quality", and not just because I use an m224 in my studio.

I'd say medium quality. The stock m224 is quite a good sounding desk, warm, very useable. With some opamp upgrades (not even requiring any other parts if you just do one of the basic opamp upgrades) you get lower noise and similar sound for only a few dollars per channel.

Tascams are built with individual circuit board channels so they can easily be swapped out or removed for modification or repairs. Unfortunately they made it very difficult to lift the top cover to get at those boards, you have to remove a million screws and everything holding the PSU etc to the bottom and sides of the board's mounting area to open it up. But with some mods (again, I did the mods myself, mostly new long shielded wiring) you can get an easilly opened board that is very fun to work on. Not a neve by any standards, but in my opinion much more musical sounding than mackies or other entry level boards of any generation, particularly of that generation though. I would say the tascam was going up against lower to middle grade euro desks of the time, such as studiomaster etc. and even a&h and the like. Not necessarily as good in some ways, but better in others, and from my experience, FAR superior build quality throughout and great reliability compared to most of the similarly priced competition from those days.

I wouldn't sell my tascam board for anything, although I would certainly put it in a second room if I got something much better .

Good boards, upgradable, useful, musical, super cheap these days. Highly recommended in my book. Almost no maintenance compared to other brands. That comes from personal professional experience.

But yes, of course, not high end, and not superior electronically to anything else of the day, but somehow they managed to keep a great musical sound with the low end opamps available of the day.

Cheers,
Don

 

[jpmorris]

I mean no disrespect, but did you check the date of the post you're replying to?

 

[A Reel Person]

Don't be a douche, (jp).

This topic is still relevant. Who says old threads are necessarily irrelevant, by definition?

Sure, it's an old thread, but that's a relevant current reply to this topic. I mean, the Analog Forum is a "vintage" forum, so why not celebrate "vintage" threads? Heh. Anyway, it's not quite the same as dredging up a "Re-elect Bush in '04" thread in the cave.

Carry on!

 

[cjacek]

I've been on both sides of the fence, in the past, by either replying to several year old threads or pointing out to those who have done the same. In retrospective, I feel I was in the wrong 'cause many threads from the past, can easily be discussed again with a fresh perspective or jush rehashing the same stuff. It's all good, 'cause, as ARP points out, it's all relevant. It doesn't mean that those who reply to a seemingly "old" thread don't know it. I think they're on to something. I can bet that similar topics, only reworded, have been going on since the inception of this board, round and round like a carousel. Why reword when there is one just like it 5 years ago ?

 

[A Reel Person]

I dunno what I said 2 years ago. I'll have to reread it.

Anyway, all new members comb the archives and comment on old threads. I did. (When I arrived), I probably commented on 25-50 dusty old threads before I'd caught up to the present. Nonetheless, many topics remain relevant despite it all.

 

[jpmorris]

Anyway, all new members comb the archives and comment on old threads. I did. (When I arrived), I probably commented on 25-50 dusty old threads before I'd caught up to the present. Nonetheless, many topics remain relevant despite it all.

Be that as it may, if he's expecting a reply from Uli, I think he's going to have a long wait.

 

[Beck]

Plus if you're googling a brand or model this bbs comes up in the search results alot. I always find threads I haven't seen before that way.

The really frustrating ones are the closed archives where someone has posted bad advice or inaccurate characterizations, and you can’t reply.

 

[Track Rat]

Did I mention that the old M-3500 is still chugging along like a champ?

 

[MCI2424]

The M-3500 uses 22 KOhms coal film resistors for the series resistors of the busses. (http://www.cellardweller.com/mods.html)

"Replacing all the crappy TL072's with NE5532's... I did that to my old M3700 myself..." (http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/11633/0)


Bullshit! Tascam did not copy Neve or Telefunken circuits but used op-amp chips which were brand new technology at that time. Old school circuits consist of transformers, discrete transistors, caps and resistors, but Tascam cut them and the costs.


SMD has few advantages for audio. Investment costs are high. Designers make mistakes. SMD is fine when done right and with proper production quality control.

Face it: Old Tascam mixers are not any better than old mixers of other brands. A brand that comes into my mind is Ross. Tascams were loaden with features - parametric EQs, lots of busses and long faders - but of low quality.

Pro equipment was made for professional applications. Tons of comprimises had to be made for non-pro gear. You can't fault the manufacturers for that. There is not 1 single part that I can;t take out of my MCI 24 track 2" recorder in less than 10 minutes. It was designed for constant, reliable use in a pro studio. The motors could tow your car.

Home equipment is tough to service, tougher by a large margin to align, but it was designed to be affordable and that is what it was. TASCAM consoles are what they are. They are affordable consoles for home studio applications. If one were to plug a 100W amp into a channel, one would expect it to fry.

SSL consoles weigh 2 tons, consume $1000/month in electricity, require air conditioning all the time and you cross your fingers if you shut it down. It may not come back up.

So, the upside of the TASCAM consoles/tape machines is that you CAN move them without a fork lift and you CAN shut them down after use.

The rest is just being careful and doing your homework on how to use it.


Reading the manual is a good start.

 

[A Reel Person]

Yeah,... no doubt.

All very good points!.............

 

[cjacek]

I agree. Very reasonable reply.

 

[Mark7]

Who are you and what have you done with MCI2424?

 

[cjacek]

I can certainly attest to the fact that pro gear can be serviced much easier. I picked up a TASCAM 58-OB and started going through the manual and also prodded inside the unit and it was a night and day difference between that and the rest of my TEAC / TASCAM gear. Very accessible, plug-in PCB boards, extra heavy duty everything etc .... I love my other stuff, and it sounds great, but it's a nightmare as servicing is concerned.

 

[cjacek]

Who are you and what have you done with MCI2424?

Dummy up ..... therapy in progress!

 

[FALKEN]

........bump!

 

[snatchman]

Hello all. SOT...I have a Tascam M-2600mkII console. Have anyone of you ever open up/work on these consoles?...

 

[analogkid]

I normally bypass commenting on threads like this - someone starting a thread by not only insulting a company's product (which may or may not be legitimate criticism) but by also insulting owners of said brand name. In this case I make an exception simply to make a point:

The equipment doesn't make great recordings, the engineer does. You can buy 'the best' of everything and get complete shit results because of complete incompetence (which likely explains so many bad digital recordings these days)or get incredible results from outdated junk ( can anyone say Sgt. Pepper? Yes, those 4-tracks were considered obsolete junk at the time; US studios were already using Ampex 8 and even 16-trackers). As to the case at hand, plugging the output from a power amp into an input for a mixing board is the act of someone who was either in too big a hurry to check what they were doing or someone who just didn't know better, either way I doubt that person will ever make that mistake again. For the record, it is not up to the manufacturer of a product to make sure that things aren't hooked up incorrectly - that is and will always be the responsibility of the user.


AK

 

[dementedchord]

i'm sorry why is it exactly that i care what that idiot said back in '04??? although i did work on an old model$ souncraft once for a steve vai tour where someone put the output of an svt down the snake without a DI and blew the freekin traces off the channel... hey you dont suppose Uli was behringer???

 

[lonewhitefly]

I normally bypass commenting on threads like this - someone starting a thread by not only insulting a company's product (which may or may not be legitimate criticism) but by also insulting owners of said brand name. In this case I make an exception simply to make a point:

The equipment doesn't make great recordings, the engineer does. You can buy 'the best' of everything and get complete shit results because of complete incompetence (which likely explains so many bad digital recordings these days)or get incredible results from outdated junk ( can anyone say Sgt. Pepper? Yes, those 4-tracks were considered obsolete junk at the time; US studios were already using Ampex 8 and even 16-trackers). As to the case at hand, plugging the output from a power amp into an input for a mixing board is the act of someone who was either in too big a hurry to check what they were doing or someone who just didn't know better, either way I doubt that person will ever make that mistake again. For the record, it is not up to the manufacturer of a product to make sure that things aren't hooked up incorrectly - that is and will always be the responsibility of the user.


AK

i agree with your point, but should also mention that sgt pepper was recorded on 1" 4-track, so in some ways it was better sound than the US 1" 8 tracks in terms of track width. but this is silly nitpicking because i think the beach boys material sound sonically superior the beatles' anyway ...

which proves your point exactly! (yes i just said the beach boys were better than the beatles)

anyway, i just wanted to comment that i think people should use whatever they have until they have absoultely acheived the best possible result from the equipment that they can before moving on. like, if i can't make a decent little record on a 4 track cassette, why move up? it took me 8 years to feel good enough about my 4 track cassette recordings to move up to 4 track reel.