• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Tascam M-50 is my new preamp

vinyldavid

vinyldavid

Collectorius Giganticus
Subscriber
I just got a Tascam M50 mixer from a friend, as he upgraded to a Tascam M-512, and I set it up as a preamp in my home system.

Sounds better than everything I have, including the phono stage. It even beats the Hafler DH-101.

Has anyone else used any of the better Tascam mixers in either a home or studio setting? I used an M30 before this, and it was OK, but nothing special...this one just doesn't do anything to the sound, just amplify it.


At the levels I am driving it at (for a while before, it was SUPER loud), I didn't even hear it's noise floor.
 
Register to hide this ad
I used mine for a little while, and hopefully it's coming out of its road case for another shot soon.

je

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9655 (Medium).JPG
    IMG_9655 (Medium).JPG
    73.8 KB · Views: 314
botrytis said:
Well - professional gear has higher output than your regular stereo gear. Be careful you don't damage your amps.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this series was designed for home studio use, it's all standard line level if I remember correctly. Almost all RCA jacks, as well.

je
 
From the M-30 manual, pretty sure this section is the same for the M-50 except for 8 outputs:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tascam mixer out.jpg
    tascam mixer out.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 229
Yea, it is all unbalanced RCA, except for the mic inputs. Normal line level outputs.

And I use pro ams anyways (JBL 6230)
 
vinyldavid said:
Has anyone else used any of the better Tascam mixers in either a home or studio setting? I used an M30 before this, and it was OK, but nothing special...this one just doesn't do anything to the sound, just amplify it.
Click to expand...

I cannot remember any model numbers for sure, and I cannot find my electronic copies of the manuals on this computer although I am sure I had them at one point -

Had extensively used a 12 channel 4 bus, M-412 I want to say it was. Very heavy to carry that baby downstairs, I can tell you. Good sound but limited EQ on it.

My brother-in-law had a basement studio for a number of years with the Tascam 24 channel 8 bus mixer, which I also used a fair bit for mixdown from my DA-38. He had 3 DA-88s. Actually 4 as one was a spare, as well as a 16 track 1/2 inch analog recorder able to be patched into that mixer. Pretty flexible and I made some good mixes on it (loved his Lexicon reverbs !!) A number of indie albums came out of that studio.

I still have a model 1516 I think it is, connected to my defunct DA-38 so I gets no use. Not totally quiet, that one, but again I made a lot of mixes on it anyhow. Amazing how cheap you can get a DA-88 these days, so I did that and recorded/mixed this summer on the Allen&Heath GL-4000. Now that is a nice console if you are staying analog.

Tascam has done a good job on most all their gear, I should say.
 
They do sound really nice...

I have a massive number of decks in my system, so a mixer is a great preamp, especially an 8 buss mixer.
 
The +10dBV or +4dBu has little significance on outputs to the amps due to the variable level of the signal, IMO. Check the input sensitivity of pro amps compared to home amps. All but the really powerful pro amps have input sensitivity in the same general range as home audio amps, 1.5V give or take, for full output. Point being, nothing is going to get damaged either way.
 
vinyldavid said:
I have a hardbound M50 service manual...and I have a PDF of the M-512/520 manual.
Click to expand...

I may beg you for a scan of certain pages in that service manual some day- I remember my sub outputs 1 & 2 being flaky. In fact, you can see in the picture I posted that the faders weren't even up when I was last testing it.

Is the 520 .pdf similar enough to the M-50 to be useful?

Thanks,

je
 
Fred Sanford said:
I may beg you for a scan of certain pages in that service manual some day- I remember my sub outputs 1 & 2 being flaky. In fact, you can see in the picture I posted that the faders weren't even up when I was last testing it.

Is the 520 .pdf similar enough to the M-50 to be useful?

Thanks,

je
Click to expand...

Nope, I just have the OM for those.

I'd be more than happy to scan the pages for you. At some point, I might do the whole thing. It has a LOT of fold-out schematics, though.

My friend and I that have been working on this had a lot of success with cleaning everything in the mixer, and that fixed a lot of issues that we had, especially with the M-512 that he now has (it was severely abused when we got it). Same with reseating the connections inside the board. There are also a couple broken solder joints that we needed to fix....
 
If anyone is interested, I have a nice M-30 "almost for the taking". Can't discuss price here, so IM me is interested. I'm in Orange Co., CA.

Moderator, if this is out of line, feel free to delete it.
 
toddalin said:
If anyone is interested, I have a nice M-30 "almost for the taking". Can't discuss price here, so IM me is interested. I'm in Orange Co., CA.

Moderator, if this is out of line, feel free to delete it.
Click to expand...

I have an M30, too...decent board, cool sounding mic pres....I wonder what I could do with a second...probably paid too much for mine, but it's nice to have around. Using it in the current system as a video source audio mixer, also I will be shortly using a panasonic VITC video switch box for video control.
 
When I get the chance, I'll scan the hardcopy of the M50 manual and upload it for all to share.

I love the setup and layout of the M50, I have been doing lots of interesting tape transfers lately, and this board has made my life so much easier.

It also is as transparent as I have heard any component, and I can actually calibrate this one.

There are a few major differences between the 512/520 and the M-50:
1) the monitor mixer section in the M-50 is active, the M520 is passive
2) the M520/M512 has on lights for channels, the M50 has off lights
3) the EQ's have on lights in the M-512, the M50 has bypass lights
4) The Aux sends on the M-512 uses (on the channel strip) concentric pots for leveling between the 4 aux sends whereas the M-50 (on the channel strip) uses a single level pot and then a pan control for two stereo aux sends. Then, in the master section the M-50 has two stereo faders, the M512/520 has 4 mono faders.
 
Last edited:
vinyldavid said:
When I get the chance, I'll scan the hardcopy of the M50 manual and upload it for all to share.

I love the setup and layout of the M50, I have been doing lots of interesting tape transfers lately, and this board has made my life so much easier.

It also is as transparent as I have heard any component, and I can actually calibrate this one.

There are a few major differences between the 512/520 and the M-50:
1) the monitor mixer section in the M-50 is active, the M520 is passive
2) the M520/M512 has on lights for channels, the M50 has off lights
3) the EQ's have on lights in the M-512, the M50 has bypass lights
4) The Aux sends on the M-512 uses (on the channel strip) concentric pots for leveling between the 4 aux sends whereas the M-50 (on the channel strip) uses a single level pot and then a pan control for two stereo aux sends. Then, in the master section the M-50 has two stereo faders, the M512/520 has 4 mono faders.
Click to expand...

Got the e-mail, thanks for the manual! I don't think you'd need to scan all of the usual Tascam how-to and theory pages, you could get away with fewer pages to scan if you ignore those.

I've caught most of the 512/50 differences so far, except I haven't yet looked at the Monitor section at all.

The only issues I've found with mine so far have been a silent/no meters Sub 1 output (gotta be something simple, right?) and dirty trim pots on the line inputs. Haven't tested the phono or instrument inputs yet. Not bad for free so far...

Would have been nice if one of those RCA patch bays with the normalled jack pairs had come with it...kind of a pain right now that EVERY CHANNEL needs to be jumped out in order to pass signal. :dunno: At least I did get a PB-64 and tons of RCA 16-channel snakes.

je
 
Mine's fully working except some meter lamps and the tape input of channel 7 (bad solder joint).

I need to get some 16 channel RCA snakes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom