Tascam MX-80 Repair...
- Thread starter sweetbeats
- Start date
Putting this device between your board and machine is the wrong application. If you must go +4 into your 58, get a proper 8 channel -10 to +4 converter. (I so happen to have one if you are interested)
Using the 58's +4 inputs instead of -10 inputs does not have any bearing on the machine's performance. Your board is -10 is it not? There is no need to hang a converter on the output unless it needs to feed a +4 only unit.
Using the 58's +4 inputs instead of -10 inputs does not have any bearing on the machine's performance. Your board is -10 is it not? There is no need to hang a converter on the output unless it needs to feed a +4 only unit.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Rruskin, I follow you. Look at the oroginal post though...I'd be using the MX-80 to go from the atr to the board. The M520 has a built in 8-channel -10 to +4 balance amp in it. I'd be using that to go to the atr, and that is only if I do end up using the balanced I/O on the 58 long term (i.e. if the cable runs are longer than what I'm comfortable running unbalanced).
So...with that being said, anybody have any suggestions for how I might tweaker my MX-80 back to 100% functionality???
So...with that being said, anybody have any suggestions for how I might tweaker my MX-80 back to 100% functionality???
At what length would you start getting uncomfortable? IMHO - the MX 80 in perfect condition will do more sonic damage than good.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
At the point that signal loss or hum start to become an issue
Because of the unnecessary gain and summing circuitry?
Exactly...that's why I'm devising a +4 to -10 converter...for the tape returns...you are right...the console does not have that
Again, I'm using the M520's onboard 8-channel -10 TO +4balance amp (picture below), but I need something to convert the signal back to -10 coming back from the 58.
Attachments
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Cory, would something like this help?
http://www.ebtechaudio.com/lls-2des.html
You can get an 8 channel solution for about $200.
----
http://www.ebtechaudio.com/lls-2des.html
You can get an 8 channel solution for about $200.
----
Using low capacitance wire with good connectors you'd have to go much longer than 30 feet for that to be an issue.
Yes.
[
B]Exactly...that's why I'm devising a +4 to -10 converter...for the tape returns...you are right...the console does not have that[/B]
Again, I'm using the M520's onboard 8-channel -10 TO +4balance amp (picture below), but I need something to convert the signal back to -10 coming back from the 58.
Even though pointless, you can go into the 58 balanced and come out unbalanced with no problems. The info on the tape is the same either way. Neither your board or machine performs any better @ +4.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Daniel,
Yes, that would be a viable option if needed. The other point of this thread though is to try to get my MX-80 working properly regardless of whether or not I use it as a converter, which I think I'm not going to after Rick's points.
Rick,
The issue is that this may possibly be the case at some point, and is precisely why I wanted a deck with +4 balanced I/O and n/r units that are also +4 balanced capable. So...
Okay. That does make sense to me. Thank you.
I realize that it would be silly/pointless to go in one type and out another, and even at that I'm not sure what I would have to do when calibrating the deck as Jimmy at Tascam said if you are going to use the balanced I/O, then calibrate it using those inputs and outputs, and then likewise if you are using the unbalanced I/O. Thinking (writing) out loud here...I'm sure the effect would be pretty minimal, but Jimmy was very clear on that point...I guess if somebody was using their deck that way (mixing their input and output circuits), you'd calibrate the deck to the input type you are using and then you'd have to just deal with the slight change in signal level you would see by using the outputs that weren't loaded during the calibration.
Phew!
Okay...This goes back to an age old question of mine though that I'm not sure I've really ever gotten an answer to...The manuals for my Tascam gear (whether it be the 58, 48, M520, PE-40, etc.) each talk about the benefits of the -10 unbalanced line level convention for recording and studio use. This is of course in direct conflict with the market standard today which is that if your I/O isn't +4 on TRS or XLR connectors it is sub-grade consumer level gear, an idea that I have bought into in the past in a big way and am slowly accepting as a falacy (do you agree?) The specs for my 58 and 48 even demonstrate that there is better performance in an area or two when using the unbalanced I/O as opposed to the balanced I/O. So here's my question:
I selected dbx 150X noise reduction units so that I could maintain a balanced signal path if the need arose to do so when recording (due to long cable runs). The 150X's will accomodate balanced or unbalanced signals from -24 to +10 dBv, adjusted via trimmers on the front panel. If it turned out that I would never need to operate the 58 using the balanced I/O, might I get better performance out of Tascam DX-4D's (owing to the potentially cleaner, better-performing -10 unbalanced path, as well as the omission of a level-setting potentiometer)?
Yes, that would be a viable option if needed. The other point of this thread though is to try to get my MX-80 working properly regardless of whether or not I use it as a converter, which I think I'm not going to after Rick's points.
Rick,
The issue is that this may possibly be the case at some point, and is precisely why I wanted a deck with +4 balanced I/O and n/r units that are also +4 balanced capable. So...
Okay. That does make sense to me. Thank you.
I realize that it would be silly/pointless to go in one type and out another, and even at that I'm not sure what I would have to do when calibrating the deck as Jimmy at Tascam said if you are going to use the balanced I/O, then calibrate it using those inputs and outputs, and then likewise if you are using the unbalanced I/O. Thinking (writing) out loud here...I'm sure the effect would be pretty minimal, but Jimmy was very clear on that point...I guess if somebody was using their deck that way (mixing their input and output circuits), you'd calibrate the deck to the input type you are using and then you'd have to just deal with the slight change in signal level you would see by using the outputs that weren't loaded during the calibration.
Phew!
Okay...This goes back to an age old question of mine though that I'm not sure I've really ever gotten an answer to...The manuals for my Tascam gear (whether it be the 58, 48, M520, PE-40, etc.) each talk about the benefits of the -10 unbalanced line level convention for recording and studio use. This is of course in direct conflict with the market standard today which is that if your I/O isn't +4 on TRS or XLR connectors it is sub-grade consumer level gear, an idea that I have bought into in the past in a big way and am slowly accepting as a falacy (do you agree?) The specs for my 58 and 48 even demonstrate that there is better performance in an area or two when using the unbalanced I/O as opposed to the balanced I/O. So here's my question:
I selected dbx 150X noise reduction units so that I could maintain a balanced signal path if the need arose to do so when recording (due to long cable runs). The 150X's will accomodate balanced or unbalanced signals from -24 to +10 dBv, adjusted via trimmers on the front panel. If it turned out that I would never need to operate the 58 using the balanced I/O, might I get better performance out of Tascam DX-4D's (owing to the potentially cleaner, better-performing -10 unbalanced path, as well as the omission of a level-setting potentiometer)?
I'd worry about the 30+ ft cable runs if and when they became necessary. Otherwise, why complicate things?
Okay. That does make sense to me. Thank you.
My understanding is that the MX-80 is a microphone preamp. That kind of gain added to a line level signal would scare the crap out of me regardless of how much pad was available to you. It's just the wrong application for that device. I'm not saying it won't work, just that it won't do anything good for your signal.
The silliness I was referring to was going +4 when there wasn't a need. The signal doesn't care what level it travels on as long as it's a clean path. I disagree with Jimmy - btw. If you had to mix input and output levels, the deck would not care. It would be a small pain the ass, though.
Market standard often known as hype.
So here's my question:
I selected dbx 150X noise reduction units so that I could maintain a balanced signal path if the need arose to do so when recording (due to long cable runs). The 150X's will accomodate balanced or unbalanced signals from -24 to +10 dBv, adjusted via trimmers on the front panel. If it turned out that I would never need to operate the 58 using the balanced I/O, might I get better performance out of Tascam DX-4D's (owing to the potentially cleaner, better-performing -10 unbalanced path, as well as the omission of a level-setting potentiometer)?
Think about it. The less circuitry in the path, the cleaner the path. You need more circuitry to get to +4. They didn't redesign to keep the specs the same. They added on to get the +4 feature. Marketing = hype For convenience sake, I'd go with the DX-4D's but the 150X's would work just as well once wired up properly.
Last edited:
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Rick...
Hmmm...
Lots of great food for thought/consideration. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you. I have a tendency to try and setup for less than likely scenarios...takes a lot of time...I think Daniel (cjacek) is likely smiling and shaking his head in an endearing way right now. He's cautioned me in the same way more than once!
I enjoy the process, but the gear doesn't get used in the meantime...too much engineering and not enough art, though I like to think that any good artist is part engineer, and any good engineer is certainly an artist!
You are absolutely right. Thanks. Yes, the MX-80 has a -30 pad, but you are right...it is not the proper application, and you've helped me understand why. Again, thank you.
Okay...I get you on the silliness comment, and I think all Jimmy was trying to address is that (in response to my "what is the way Tascam engineers intended it to be done" question I was asking him at the time) when you adjust the repro levels on the deck, it is done with a load on the outputs. If you change the load on the output side it will effect the repro level...let me restate that...the load on the output side can effect the output amp's output level. But, yes, as we are both stating it would be a small amount if at all. Jimmy's statement was a specific response to a specific question, and I didn't really make that clear.
Hmmm...
Lots of great food for thought/consideration. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you. I have a tendency to try and setup for less than likely scenarios...takes a lot of time...I think Daniel (cjacek) is likely smiling and shaking his head in an endearing way right now. He's cautioned me in the same way more than once!
I enjoy the process, but the gear doesn't get used in the meantime...too much engineering and not enough art, though I like to think that any good artist is part engineer, and any good engineer is certainly an artist! You are absolutely right. Thanks. Yes, the MX-80 has a -30 pad, but you are right...it is not the proper application, and you've helped me understand why. Again, thank you.
Okay...I get you on the silliness comment, and I think all Jimmy was trying to address is that (in response to my "what is the way Tascam engineers intended it to be done" question I was asking him at the time) when you adjust the repro levels on the deck, it is done with a load on the outputs. If you change the load on the output side it will effect the repro level...let me restate that...the load on the output side can effect the output amp's output level. But, yes, as we are both stating it would be a small amount if at all. Jimmy's statement was a specific response to a specific question, and I didn't really make that clear.
Richard King
New member
IF you want to do this, Tascam makes the LA-81 (balanced to unbalanced converter) for that purpose. http://www.tascam.com/products/la-80.html http://www.roscorrentals.com/equipment_specifications/Tascam LA-81.pdf I agree with Rick though. If you aren't doing long cable runs it's a waste of time and $$. I really don't see why Tascam put that capability on the mixer if they didn't make it a two way process.
Whether connected via the -10 or +4 outs, there is a load on the output stage of the deck. Whatever the output load, it shouldn't influence the input calibration in the least. You set up your repro and sync 1st, lock them down, and calibrate your record electronics. Me thinks you either misunderstood what Jimmy said or he was doing the old tech support "tap dance and fart" routine for you.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
*bump*
Just bumping this up for one more try...
Never actually got any advice on possible troubleshooting for the problem with my MX-80...anybody?
Just bumping this up for one more try...
Never actually got any advice on possible troubleshooting for the problem with my MX-80...anybody?
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Resurrecting this one...
I'm in need of a discreet 8-channel mic pre and a basic 8 x 2 summing line mixer for my Ampex MM-1000.
This MX-80 was my very first vintage Tascam product. I got it for $35 several years ago. Through it my eyes and mind were opened to the world of vintage Tascam. I've used it seldomly but the reality is that it has been a gig-saver when I've pulled it out. It is relatively smooth and full sounding.
It has been an ACCESS jack jumper donor for my 12 x 8 Tascam mixer, a color knob cap donor and now has color caps that don't match the stock configuration...it has some rack rash on it...I cleaned the pots with DeoxIT F5 FaderLube years ago but it never really did the trick. Well, I learned so much about effectively cleaning pots when I went through my M-520 refurb so I'm going to redo the pot cleaning.
I even replaced the phantom power input receptacle from an oddball 2-pin XLR format to a standard 3-pin XLR to work with my Stewart phantom supply I got for the purpose of using it with the MX-80.
Its really clean aside from the scratches...the mic jacks look new.
So, here this thing has been on the chopping block SO many times since I almost NEVER use it and its all funky looking and (getting back to the point of this thread) the channel 7 line amp doesn't work. The channel 7 mic pre is fine but the path to the summing mixer is not. I've thought of selling it or trading it I don't know how many times. Its like the black sheep that does just enough to make you keep it around and now its ship has come in because I need every feature of this thing to work to use it with the MM-1000.
The MX-80 is basically an 8 x 2 mic mixer with individual clip LED's, TRIM controls, a three position toggle for each preamp for nominal level, -30dB pad or MUTE, phase reverse, and a stacked pot for the line amp level and pan. What makes it nice is that there are insert jacks or ACCESS jacks for each channel on RCA's; one for SEND and one for RCV (receive). That means that you can plug your 8 mics in and use the SEND jacks as discrete -10dBv direct outs for each preamp, and then use the 8 RCV jacks is discrete line inputs to the 8 x 2 line mixer. The line mixer has two sets of outputs with individual level controls. As mentioned above there is also a phantom power rail though it relies on an external supply...each channel is individually switchable.
So, along with a set of self-powered monitor speakers and a headphone amp the MX-80 makes a wonderful solution for my interim need for something I can rack in the MM-1000 console to drive inputs and monitor outputs and accomplish a basic mix. My mixer is in storage and the MM-1000 will be here and there for awhile as we get closer to executing a remodel and addition to our house.
Just need channel 7 on the line amp to work...grr. Armed with heaps-a-lot more knowledge than when I started this thread (as well as a specific need) I'm ready to crack the case on this one...
Opened it up tonight. I'd forgotten how relatively big the main transformer is in this. The PSU filter caps seem small compared to the transformer size. There are only three caps on the PSU and I have them here so while its open I'm going to replace those and the filter caps will be replaced with caps that are over 2x the value...I have them, they'll fit just great and it won't hurt anything.
I don't have a schematic for the MX-80 but I opened up my manual for the M-520 to look at that and compare. I visually traced the RCV jack for channel 7 and, as expected, there is a series coupling cap there...C145...a 2.2/50V cap and I suspect that that is the culprit. Too tired tonight but I'm going to replace that. I'm pretty sure that's what is causing the trouble but there is also a cap strapped between the input of the 072 line amp and ground. Don't think that could be causing the trouble but that will get replaced too if C145 doesn't do it.
I'm in need of a discreet 8-channel mic pre and a basic 8 x 2 summing line mixer for my Ampex MM-1000.
This MX-80 was my very first vintage Tascam product. I got it for $35 several years ago. Through it my eyes and mind were opened to the world of vintage Tascam. I've used it seldomly but the reality is that it has been a gig-saver when I've pulled it out. It is relatively smooth and full sounding.
It has been an ACCESS jack jumper donor for my 12 x 8 Tascam mixer, a color knob cap donor and now has color caps that don't match the stock configuration...it has some rack rash on it...I cleaned the pots with DeoxIT F5 FaderLube years ago but it never really did the trick. Well, I learned so much about effectively cleaning pots when I went through my M-520 refurb so I'm going to redo the pot cleaning.
I even replaced the phantom power input receptacle from an oddball 2-pin XLR format to a standard 3-pin XLR to work with my Stewart phantom supply I got for the purpose of using it with the MX-80.
Its really clean aside from the scratches...the mic jacks look new.
So, here this thing has been on the chopping block SO many times since I almost NEVER use it and its all funky looking and (getting back to the point of this thread) the channel 7 line amp doesn't work. The channel 7 mic pre is fine but the path to the summing mixer is not. I've thought of selling it or trading it I don't know how many times. Its like the black sheep that does just enough to make you keep it around and now its ship has come in because I need every feature of this thing to work to use it with the MM-1000.
The MX-80 is basically an 8 x 2 mic mixer with individual clip LED's, TRIM controls, a three position toggle for each preamp for nominal level, -30dB pad or MUTE, phase reverse, and a stacked pot for the line amp level and pan. What makes it nice is that there are insert jacks or ACCESS jacks for each channel on RCA's; one for SEND and one for RCV (receive). That means that you can plug your 8 mics in and use the SEND jacks as discrete -10dBv direct outs for each preamp, and then use the 8 RCV jacks is discrete line inputs to the 8 x 2 line mixer. The line mixer has two sets of outputs with individual level controls. As mentioned above there is also a phantom power rail though it relies on an external supply...each channel is individually switchable.
So, along with a set of self-powered monitor speakers and a headphone amp the MX-80 makes a wonderful solution for my interim need for something I can rack in the MM-1000 console to drive inputs and monitor outputs and accomplish a basic mix. My mixer is in storage and the MM-1000 will be here and there for awhile as we get closer to executing a remodel and addition to our house.
Just need channel 7 on the line amp to work...grr. Armed with heaps-a-lot more knowledge than when I started this thread (as well as a specific need) I'm ready to crack the case on this one...
Opened it up tonight. I'd forgotten how relatively big the main transformer is in this. The PSU filter caps seem small compared to the transformer size. There are only three caps on the PSU and I have them here so while its open I'm going to replace those and the filter caps will be replaced with caps that are over 2x the value...I have them, they'll fit just great and it won't hurt anything.
I don't have a schematic for the MX-80 but I opened up my manual for the M-520 to look at that and compare. I visually traced the RCV jack for channel 7 and, as expected, there is a series coupling cap there...C145...a 2.2/50V cap and I suspect that that is the culprit. Too tired tonight but I'm going to replace that. I'm pretty sure that's what is causing the trouble but there is also a cap strapped between the input of the 072 line amp and ground. Don't think that could be causing the trouble but that will get replaced too if C145 doesn't do it.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Hm...wellll...
I recapped the power supply (4 caps) and hosed out all the pots with DeoxIT F5 Faderlube...that actually seems to have helped. The pots were really scratchy before and I remember trying so hard to get DeoxIT to dribble down through the pot shaft before I knew better and that's just silly because if there's ANY grease still in the shaft housing it'll prevent the cleaner from getting to the resisitive element and the wipers anyway...and if it *does* get own there it'll just bring grease and dirt with it. So I sprayed a healthy amount into each pot body, sweep-sweep-sweep etc., and then another dose and the let it drain and dry. Its definitely way better now. That's encouraging. What ISN'T encouraging is that the channel 7 line amp still isn't working. I replaced that coupling cap C145 which goes in between the jack and the input of the 072 SIP opamp...I replaced that even though it tested A-OK after I pulled it. Then I pulled C146, which is ALSO a coupling cap in between the output of that opamp and the level pot. It was shot. I thought AHA! Gotcha. Well, no. C145 is a 50V cap and C146 is a 25V cap. I betcha somebody blasted the channel 7 RCV jack with too hot of a signal. C145 handled it but C146 got cooked. But there's something else not right.
Hm...can't get to the Tascam Forums right now...their server is down or offline. I need to refresh my memory on this one...I *think* the MX-80 had a busted pot when I got it, and I *think* it was the level pot for channel 7. SO...that could mean a hairline crack in the board...I'll do some point to point continuity testing first to rule out a cracked trace...then I'll make sure the opamp is getting power and then I'll run tone into the channel 7 RCV jack and start chasing it through. I need to look at the M-520 line in circuit again and compare to the MX-80 and get a firm handle on what does what...I'll get this...
Oh and BTW it looks like the main PSU filter caps were just starting to leak.
I recapped the power supply (4 caps) and hosed out all the pots with DeoxIT F5 Faderlube...that actually seems to have helped. The pots were really scratchy before and I remember trying so hard to get DeoxIT to dribble down through the pot shaft before I knew better and that's just silly because if there's ANY grease still in the shaft housing it'll prevent the cleaner from getting to the resisitive element and the wipers anyway...and if it *does* get own there it'll just bring grease and dirt with it. So I sprayed a healthy amount into each pot body, sweep-sweep-sweep etc., and then another dose and the let it drain and dry. Its definitely way better now. That's encouraging. What ISN'T encouraging is that the channel 7 line amp still isn't working. I replaced that coupling cap C145 which goes in between the jack and the input of the 072 SIP opamp...I replaced that even though it tested A-OK after I pulled it. Then I pulled C146, which is ALSO a coupling cap in between the output of that opamp and the level pot. It was shot. I thought AHA! Gotcha. Well, no. C145 is a 50V cap and C146 is a 25V cap. I betcha somebody blasted the channel 7 RCV jack with too hot of a signal. C145 handled it but C146 got cooked. But there's something else not right.
Hm...can't get to the Tascam Forums right now...their server is down or offline. I need to refresh my memory on this one...I *think* the MX-80 had a busted pot when I got it, and I *think* it was the level pot for channel 7. SO...that could mean a hairline crack in the board...I'll do some point to point continuity testing first to rule out a cracked trace...then I'll make sure the opamp is getting power and then I'll run tone into the channel 7 RCV jack and start chasing it through. I need to look at the M-520 line in circuit again and compare to the MX-80 and get a firm handle on what does what...I'll get this...
Oh and BTW it looks like the main PSU filter caps were just starting to leak.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Bummer #1: The Tascam Forum (not the Homerecording.com Tascam Forum) is gone, and with it the initial history of this MX-80.
Bummer #2: I thought for sure the package used for the opamps in this thing was SIP-8...It is SIP-9. The 072 chips are labeled "072S". Can't find a data sheet for the SIP-9 version. Found one for the 4558 in a SIP-9 package. I'm going to check and see if the pin assigment matches the 072S and then I can proceed.
Bummer #2: I thought for sure the package used for the opamps in this thing was SIP-8...It is SIP-9. The 072 chips are labeled "072S". Can't find a data sheet for the SIP-9 version. Found one for the 4558 in a SIP-9 package. I'm going to check and see if the pin assigment matches the 072S and then I can proceed.
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
I found it...
First of all, yes the SIP-8 package matches the pinout of the SIP-9 package...its just that there are two + inputs (i.e. Vcc) on the SIP-9 (pins 1 and 9) vs. just one on the SIP-8 package (i.e. pin 1). On the SIP-9 package pins 1 and 9 are identical (i.e. tied) and I think the package must have been designed for convenience of installation into a couple different configurations. Pin 9 is not used on the MX-80 boards, so a SIP-8 package will drop right in and Mouser has the 072 SIP-8 chips in stock, minimum order of 1 at $0.50. Yay!!
Anyway, it was indeed the opamp. As I mentioned a couple posts ago C145 survived whatever happened (being a 50V cap) but C146 got fried (25V cap). When testing with the unit on and -10dBv tone going into the faulty path I found that the tone was getting shunted to ground...somewhere...continuity was fine up to the opamp but that's as far as I could test. I pulled one leg of a couple resistors associated with the path up to that point but they measured okay and the typical failure mode for film resistors is open anyway so I figured they were okay. I pulled the opamp but lack the knowledge for how to check if it had failed...I pulled another one to compare but it measured the same with the measurements I was taking so I just swapped them and no surprise, the problem moved.
So somebody plugged the wrong thing into the path at some point and it took out C146 and at least the first stage of the opamp.
I've now got a few NJR072BL's in my cart at Mouser.
First of all, yes the SIP-8 package matches the pinout of the SIP-9 package...its just that there are two + inputs (i.e. Vcc) on the SIP-9 (pins 1 and 9) vs. just one on the SIP-8 package (i.e. pin 1). On the SIP-9 package pins 1 and 9 are identical (i.e. tied) and I think the package must have been designed for convenience of installation into a couple different configurations. Pin 9 is not used on the MX-80 boards, so a SIP-8 package will drop right in and Mouser has the 072 SIP-8 chips in stock, minimum order of 1 at $0.50. Yay!!
Anyway, it was indeed the opamp. As I mentioned a couple posts ago C145 survived whatever happened (being a 50V cap) but C146 got fried (25V cap). When testing with the unit on and -10dBv tone going into the faulty path I found that the tone was getting shunted to ground...somewhere...continuity was fine up to the opamp but that's as far as I could test. I pulled one leg of a couple resistors associated with the path up to that point but they measured okay and the typical failure mode for film resistors is open anyway so I figured they were okay. I pulled the opamp but lack the knowledge for how to check if it had failed...I pulled another one to compare but it measured the same with the measurements I was taking so I just swapped them and no surprise, the problem moved.
So somebody plugged the wrong thing into the path at some point and it took out C146 and at least the first stage of the opamp.
I've now got a few NJR072BL's in my cart at Mouser.
evm1024
New member
You might want to get some SIP to DIP adaptors and then you have a wealth of opamps to try in this box....
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=3319782
--Ethan
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=3319782
--Ethan
sweetbeats
Reel deep thoughts...
Stinker...
Yeah I know...I looked that thread back up when I started back into this project, Ethan. Right now I'm on a fast track to get this thing up and running though and into the MM-1000 console. The other issue is that them adapters ain't cheap and I'm not sure there is room. The MX-80 is pretty crowded. The feedback resistors and caps of course are all close to the opamp, and the resistors are the type mounted on end...and with the SIP package everything is tucked close so I wouldn't be able to really lay the adapter over which would be needed for clearance in between the boards and the chassis. Maybe I'll get one someday and see what I can do as far as repositioning components on the board...maybe somebody has an extra one laying around for experimentation's sake!
I was really hoping to try 5532's in this just because I like their sound, but, alas, I was awakened to the fact that 5532's are typically NOT a drop-in for 072's.
2134 would be an obvious choice but their sound, to me, is just no fun...not enough character. The 2134 reminds me of an athlete: refined, effective, trained... The 5532 seems more like...like a classic silver screen actor. Still refined, effective and trained but leaves you with a different feeling.
Yeah I know...I looked that thread back up when I started back into this project, Ethan. Right now I'm on a fast track to get this thing up and running though and into the MM-1000 console. The other issue is that them adapters ain't cheap and I'm not sure there is room. The MX-80 is pretty crowded. The feedback resistors and caps of course are all close to the opamp, and the resistors are the type mounted on end...and with the SIP package everything is tucked close so I wouldn't be able to really lay the adapter over which would be needed for clearance in between the boards and the chassis. Maybe I'll get one someday and see what I can do as far as repositioning components on the board...maybe somebody has an extra one laying around for experimentation's sake!
I was really hoping to try 5532's in this just because I like their sound, but, alas, I was awakened to the fact that 5532's are typically NOT a drop-in for 072's.
2134 would be an obvious choice but their sound, to me, is just no fun...not enough character. The 2134 reminds me of an athlete: refined, effective, trained... The 5532 seems more like...like a classic silver screen actor. Still refined, effective and trained but leaves you with a different feeling.