vintage or modern mixers with great eq (on a budget!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter christiandaelemans
  • Start date Start date
christiandaelemans

christiandaelemans

Member
hey y’all. i was wondering if you guys had any mixers, vintage or modern, that you think have really good eq for the price. i’m really only interested in having 8 channels to bring audio into, 8 buss if possible. preamps be damned, since i use an external preamp anyways and i only use 1 mic per source.

i’m currently using a tascam m512 console, paired with a focusrite ISA ONE going into either my 8 channel interface or tascam 38. the mixer is nice, but i feel like it’s a little dark. i route the headphone output of the focusrite into my consoles receive on track 10 (i find the tascam m512 has better fidelity when you bring in signal through the receive inputs), and it sorta acts as a single channel for any monitoring any input i'm bringing in. no unplugging necessary when recording, i just put the main output into a different jack on my patch-bay to send signal to my recorders.
 
Last edited:
Old Yamahas are good - Yamaha O1V 16-Channel Digital Recording Mixer Mixing Console in particular - inexpensive and high quality - also the Yamaha PM400 have a great sound - Transformers on the way in and out make it exceptional ‘Vintage’ sound.
 
I don't understand the purpose of using 1 device's headphone out into a console at all. That being said, bringing a line level signal into a channel receive drops the signal directly onto the channel fader, thereby bypassing the entire front-end circuitry. I had a Tascam Model 15 board that included the eq when patched this way. If your 512 is the same in this regard, you might like the eq once it sees cleaner audio.
 
I don't understand the purpose of using 1 device's headphone out into a console at all. That being said, bringing a line level signal into a channel receive drops the signal directly onto the channel fader, thereby bypassing the entire front-end circuitry. I had a Tascam Model 15 board that included the eq when patched this way. If your 512 is the same in this regard, you might like the eq once it sees cleaner audio.
basically, the actual output of my preamp is being directly plugged into my recorder. this way, the tascam 38 is getting proper levels since for some reason, the m512 outputs very low channel levels. but, this means i can’t hear my signal when i’m listening and overdubbing. so, i take the headphone output of the preamp and drop it into the mixer, so the mixer is able to be used as a one stop shop for my incoming signal and previous tracks.
 
basically, the actual output of my preamp is being directly plugged into my recorder. this way, the tascam 38 is getting proper levels since for some reason, the m512 outputs very low channel levels. but, this means i can’t hear my signal when i’m listening and overdubbing. so, i take the headphone output of the preamp and drop it into the mixer, so the mixer is able to be used as a one stop shop for my incoming signal and previous tracks.
The 512 should not behave that way. Something is either wrong with it or the way you are using it.
 
The M512 that came out in 1985 is an upper level model, so I would think its EQ section would sound very good.

Maybe you're overlooking something in your overall setup, causing it to sound as you perceive, which can be tweaked and improved.

I have always liked vintage Teac/Tascam mixers, starting with the 2A/MB-20 that came out in '78 and was still in the product line thru 1983, along
with my favorite recorder, the A-3440.

The 2A/MB-20 might be very basic for most experienced users, but its a great starting point, and I really like that it has 4 upright VU meters,
much easier to see vs my other M-106 with only two meters that lie flat down- which is very common with all mixers made nowadays. Atleast
with the basic & small Tascam M-06, another model they made, the meters were tilted upward a bit- so bonus points for that.

The only 'bad' thing I can say about the M512, is the big/heavy size, its ok if it stays where it is, but lifting/carrying/moving one is a like
risking a hernia. I have a Tascam M-1516 (made early-mid 90's) - its certainly not a small mixer, but by that time period, they were made
alot lighter, so not a struggle if it ever has to be moved.

I also have a new 'toy' on the way, I gave my Mackie ProFX 12 to a someone in a trade deal, and I am getting a vintage 1982 Tascam M-30.
Once again- 4 upright VU meters :) (The M-308 had them as well, plus two more).

I am not an expert by any means, still always learning things from the Teac/Tascam op manuals.. for example, M-30 vs M-106, just a quick
visual observation: M-106 is the smaller mixer, but why has extra sliders on the output side, but only one on the M-30?
 
...I am not an expert by any means, still always learning things from the Teac/Tascam op manuals.. for example, M-30 vs M-106, just a quick
visual observation: M-106 is the smaller mixer, but why has extra sliders on the output side, but only one on the M-30?
The M-30 has a single fader controlling all 4 submaster outputs. The `106 has individual faders for each submaster out.
 
I will deep-dive more into their op manuals, but my initial impression would have thought it would be the opposite, the larger the more full featured mixer would have the extra faders rather than the smaller model.
 
I will deep-dive more into their op manuals, but my initial impression would have thought it would be the opposite, the larger the more full featured mixer would have the extra faders rather than the smaller model.
The # of knobs & faders is not necessarily an indication of fuller features. In this instance, the M-30 has 8 inputs vs the 106's 6. Furthermore, 6 of the 30's mic ins have transformers for low-impedance mics while there are none on the 106. The single master fader on the 30 makes for easier board fades than keeping any combination of faders balanced whilst fading on the 106. Lastly, IMHO, the build quality of the M-30 is considerably more robust than that of the 106.
 
Yes, there was no doubt that the M-30 is a higher level than the M-106. The M-30 came out in '82, three years before the M series was updated again with new models such as the 520/12, 308, 208 & 106. So, perhaps a '3' series to 3 would be more comparable than a 3 to a 1.

As you probably know, the M-30 is an updated Model 3 of the late 70's.

I can see that the M-30 would have more features on the input side vs 106, thus I figured it would be for the output side as well with more faders.

I suppose what I am asking about, or the lack of, would be found in the M-35 which Does have the extra output faders, so I imagine I will see in the op manuals how that would enhance the M-35's mixing functions vs M-30. (Or M-308 vs M-30).

Ps: Its nice to see that ideas were still borrowed from the humble 2A (which I use as a reference-starting point to the other Teac/Tascam mixers), whereby the M-30 still has the same individual track assign pushbuttons (just with some extra colors), I like that the 2A has four individuals, vs sharing two on the M-106, but not a super big deal or anything, merely just observations I find to be interesting when looking back in time at how those models were designed.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there was no doubt that the M-30 is a higher level than the M-106. The M-30 came out in '82, three years before the M series was updated again with new models such as the 520/12, 308, 208 & 106. So, perhaps a '3' series to 3 would be more comparable than a 3 to a 1.

As you probably know, the M-30 is an updated Model 3 of the late 70's.

I can see that the M-30 would have more features on the input side vs 106, thus I figured it would be for the output side as well with more faders.

I suppose what I am asking about, or the lack of, would be found in the M-35 which Does have the extra output faders, so I imagine I will see in the op manuals how that would enhance the M-35's mixing functions vs M-30. (Or M-308 vs M-30).

Ps: Its nice to see that ideas were still borrowed from the humble 2A (which I use as a reference-starting point to the other Teac/Tascam mixers), whereby the M-30 still has the same individual track assign pushbuttons (just with some extra colors), I like that the 2A has four individuals, vs sharing two on the M-106, but not a super big deal or anything, merely just observations I find to be interesting when looking back in time at how those models were designed.
I was involved with TASCAM for a number of years back then and am very well versed in the history. The reason some features are added or left out a particular piece of gear is a matter of meeting a price point. Yes, the M-35 has individual submix faders and a master. It is also fully modular, while the 30 is not. There was a substantial price increase because of these differences. On most consoles, having faders on the subs and master gives more flexibility if any submixes are assigned to the stereo master bus.
 
Last edited:
I was involved with TASCAM for a number of years back then and am very well versed in the history. The reason some features are added or left out a particular piece of gear is a matter of meeting a price point. Yes, the M-35 has individual submix faders and a master. It is also fully modular, while the 30 is not. There was a substantial price increase because of these differences. On most consoles, having faders on the subs and master gives more flexibility if any submixes are assigned to the stereo master bus.
 
Thanks for the info, I have the Tascam book that celebrated its 30th? anniversary, was very interested to read and learn how
the company grew and expanded over the years.
 
Mixers with decent EQs?

#1 - I'd take a look around for the Speck Electronics 16 channel EQ units, the EQ16 or the SSM 16. I picked one up an EQ16 a few years ago for $300 and I've been happy with it. You can wire it to have two channels of EQ on 8 inputs, or the fully 16 channels on 16 inputs. Nice units. The SSM16 is similar, but stereo.

#2 - For mixers... I always thought the 1st and 2nd gen Onyx boards had very usable EQs. With a jumper change internally you can have the direct outs from each channel include the EQ'd signal, which makes recording the processing easy.
 
Back
Top