Why does the Tascam m-106 have PGM out 1-4 and only monitor out with no faders?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimmyTheDonutClerk
  • Start date Start date
JimmyTheDonutClerk

JimmyTheDonutClerk

New member
well this one has boggled my mind for quite some time! Like what’s the purpose of the program out! Are they supposed to be the outputs that you use for your studio speakers?
Right now I have a setup that’s looks like this;

The program outs (all of them 1-4) are going into my Roland rubixx 44 (with 4 inputs/outputs) and my rokit krk going out of the rubix interface so the rubix is sort of collecting the program outs and combining them sort of?
Just neee an explanation on this! Cause the m-208 and forward all have 2 stereo outs that aren’t with faders for the levels.
My problem here is that with just the monitor output in use for my speakers I can’t monitor all 4 PGM outs but only 2 at a time!

Thank you for taking the time
 
So, what’s helpful to realize or accept is the M-106 is a small format budget mixer, and along with that comes a limited feature set. But being that it was designed and built in the mid 1980s by Teac/Tascam it is a much, much more robust build than anything in that same class you will find from the last two to three decades…built much more like a “real mixer” if you’ll excuse the subjective generalization. And also because it was designed and built by Teac/Tascam in the mid 1980s, you’ll find that while the feature set is limited compared to a larger format mixer, it has a lot of very useful features rarely found, if at all, on mixers in its same class. Typically in this format and class you’re going to have four to eight input channels and a single stereo mix buss. Yes, I think in the decades since the M-106 was a current product things like a fixed HPF and phantom power have become pretty standard. So those things are lacking. But the M-106 has those four PGM groups, a useful monitor section, direct outputs for each input channel, and inline monitoring capability. So, to your quandary…it is helpful to think of the PGM groups not so much as four mono submix subgroups, and then you’re scratching your head looking for the main stereo buss…think of PGM 1-4 as two stereo mix busses. Like a main stereo buss and an alternate stereo buss. *Yes* you can use them like four mono subgroups, but in your case do you really need that? Each input has a direct out. If it was me I’d have the direct outs 1-4 connected to the computer interface, I’d use PGM 1-2 as my main stereo mix buss, and then I’d use PGM 3-4 as an alternate stereo mix buss or pair of mono mix busses if needed for summing before the computer and repatch for that take. That way you have full control over a stereo mix at the console, but also two PGM groups left for extra sends (two mono or one stereo), or summing ahead of the computer…whatever. And the monitor select switchrack allows you to flip back and forth between those four mono busses in pairs. If you need to use all four PGM groups as multitrack feeds, you can monitor what’s feeding them in mono using the AUX buss. Is all of this ideal? Maybe not…you have to do some repatching maybe and get a little creative with your process…maybe…but try and do ANY of this with a similar class and format Behringer, Mackie, Phonic or whatever. Hope that helps.
 
Yo, this was the most cohesive and straight forward and thorough answer I’ve ever gotten online ever! Thank you so much you really sparked my imagination
And now I’m never selling this baby! Had it since 2015 though so it’s getting a bit on the rough side but I’m gonna get it all cleaned up!
Thank you again sweetbeats and a happy Hanukkah to you my kind sir!
 
Lots of great folks on this forum, but I bet many of use would easily agree that Sweetbeats is a cut above.
That’s super generous. Thanks. In honest return, I’ve learned so much and received help from many kind people on this forum including you.
 
Yes, its great to have Sweetbeats on the forum, sometimes I'm away for a while and get sidetracked by other things, but its nice to see the detailed information
he often provides upon returning here- cheers!

I have an M-106 along with a few other mixers in my collection, the largest being a Tascam M-1516, which is pretty good, and since it was made in the early-mid 90's, its not too so heavy that lifting/carrying it would be a hernia risk.

The most basic mixer I use as a standard of comparison is the Teac 2A (the matching unit to the A-3440) which was in production from late 1978 thru 1983-84, which should say something for its longevity. (The earlier Model 2 non A goes back even further toward the mid 70's...) I imagine the M-106 replaced it in the product line as the next generation of "basic" recording mixers from 1985/86 onward with some extra features such as phono inputs for turntables. With the comeback of Vinyl nowadays, having that capability is certainly an asset.


One thing I will say about the 2A- the attached MB-20 meter bridge in itself is very cool, it feels weird to not have one when I say 2A's by themselves on Ebay, for example.

I much prefer the FOUR upright 2A/MB-20 meters vs the two lying flat on the M-106. Its much easier to see the meters on the 2A/MB-20, whereas I find myself having to put a book or something under the M-106 to tilt up upward, though its not really too much of a big deal, but I applaud the "humble" 2A/MB-20 for its very nice design and layout, especially for a novice-intermediate level to appreciate. Love the 1, 2, 3, 4 individual pushbuttons vs the 1-2 & 3-4 sharing on the 106. Even style-wise, extending to the open reel machines, I like the A-3440's look & layout better than the Tascam 34.

I also have a Mackie Pro FX 12, its about ten years old- I could say the same thing in regard to the face down (or is it face up?) 2D not 3D meters- but thats common on most modern mixers nowadays, (even in the old days, compare an M308 vs the 1516, ditto on the meters, nice on the 308, upright easy to see, though the bargraphs on the 1516 are large enough and spread it enough to make it ok on the eyes...)

The Mackie (vs 2A/MB-20 or 106) seems better suited for hooking up various things for live practice at home- connections on the front, rather than back, and ample amounts of 1/4" jacks and XLR's unlike the rca connectors on the vintage Tascams - even on the MX-80- interesting unit, but no 1/4" jacks whatsoever not necessarily a dealbreaker, just alot of 1/4"-rca adapter cables. But it seems apparent, that this Mackie and many other similar mixers of today, are not designed to do much in the way of multitrack recording and 4 separate output busses that even the 2A provided via four simple pushbuttons!

Or come to think of it, maybe the M-06 (vs 106) was a corresponding 1980's followup to the 2A.... Actually, the op manual for the M-06 which can be found online, and is only a few pages, not a huge binder like the 308, 512, etc.. is a good way to learn the basic of signal flow/routing, as can be shown in the diagrams for that model- obviously, its much simpler being a budget level model, but still has some good info in it thats worthwhile to look at if someone might be interested, so just thought I'd mention it,
 
Back
Top