used Tascam M2600mk2/3500/3700 v. new A/H GL2200
Derel
out for use by others), and after much reading of the RAP archives, as
well as thinking about my needs and budget, the above consoles seem to
continue to rise to the top of the list of possibilities. I have
looked at the 8-bus Mackies, and the dense layout of the controls
makes them hard on my eyes and clumsy for my fingers. I have read
about the Soundcraft Ghost, but I have a hard time justifying spending
$5K for a console I'm going to use for personal projects only and
probably for only 0-15 hours/week. I have looked at digital mixers
such as the Tascam DM24 and some of the Yamahas, and the software/menu
stuff annoys me. In general, I like to minimize the moments I spend
fussing over engineering stuff while recording. So things are
narrowed down a bit.
I have an Alesis HD24, so I need capability to monitor/mix 24 channels
simultaneously. The A/H does not have "tape returns," but I could use
a 32 channel version with up to 24 channels as monitor channels
(reconfigurable via patch bay) and still have 8 simultaneous input
channels, for a split setup. The Tascams are inline consoles w/tape
returns, so no issue there.
I record solo piano stuff, jazz ensembles, and synth/MIDI
orchestrations, sometimes with some acoustic instruments added in. I
have a hard time imagining a need for more than 12-16 simultaneous
inputs (if ever that many), as I am more likely to use spot/area
miking rather than instrument-by-instrument, drum-by-drum close miking
(ie, input intensive stuff).
So, the questions are: can anyone compare these consoles for me
(beyond the obvious used vs. new, tape return vs. no tape return,
inline vs. split issues), including the sound of them? And, do any
other consoles come to mind in this price range ($3K and under) that
meet the above criteria? If so, how do they compare to the ones I've
mentioned?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Derel
ScotFraser
a 32 channel version with up to 24 channels as monitor channels
(reconfigurable via patch bay) and still have 8 simultaneous input
channels, for a split setup. The Tascams are inline consoles w/tape
returns, so no issue there. >>
Well, actually there is an issue there because the Tascam tape return is so
poorly implemented that you will end up using the board in a PA desk
configuration anyway, i.e. half the desk as tape returns on the big faders &
the other channels as your inputs. The advantage of one of these Tascams is
being able to have mic & line inputs simultaneously plugged in, selected via
switch. On the A & H the 1/4" line input overides the XLR in, so you can't
leave both mic & line cables permanently connected.
Also, be aware there is a huge quality difference between the Tascam 3500/3700
& the 2600. It's not just a matter of more channels. Neither of them have
useable EQ, but the 2600 is much more limited in routing & built a lot cheesier
than the 3500/3700.
Scott Fraser
Michael Angel
deal in any board under $5K used. But, it is true that it's got it's flaws. It
isn't perfect eq (although in messing with it some I found some settings useful
and definitely beyond the Mackies).
The ability to plug in a mic, line, and return and route them anywhere in the
scheme is pretty awesome, and for me would alleviate the need for a patchbay to
any instruments. It sounds like it would do the same for you as well.
Being able to do several types of automation and use software to do so ain't a
bad addition either. Then there's the nice meter bridge and power supply, as
long as you like LED's.
I'm hearing a lot of good things about the A & H sonically, but it doesn't
excite me on the routing and overall features/price/value.
If I were in your shoes right now I'd feel stuck, because I think there is a
real need for a better console all together, in the under $10K range.
Plenty of channels, routing, aux sends, pre/post fader assignment, nice
professional meter bridge, really silent channel strips, clear pre's for extra
instrument mics in a mix, really nice eq that can be bypassed if wanted.
If a cheap small version of this can be done under $1000 and be passable
sonically, then a nice big brother that doesn't essentially sound the same
should exist for $5-10K. There are some good choices out there but for me, none
that hit the mark.
Michael Angel
Mange...@aol.com
Angel Lofte Studio, Atlanta
CD Mastering
Ted Spencer
useable EQ, but the 2600 is much more limited in routing & built a lot cheesier
than the 3500/3700.
Scott Fraser
I'd respectfully disagree about the M3500 or 3700 (they're the same except the
3700 has built-in VCA automation) having "unusable" EQ.
All three of my RAP 5 CD tracks were mixed on a stock M3500 (in 1992), and two
were recorded on it (the other was on a Neve VR). Almost all of the EQing was
done onboard. The negative reputation on the sound of these consoles is one of
the main reasons why I submitted these tracks to the set, in an attempt to
demonstrate otherwise. Of course you're entitled, if you do, to think the
tracks sound like shite.
I still have the M3500 and use it daily, but it has been completely redesigned
at this point, which of course does point to my agreement with the idea that
the console needed to be improved upon. A Google search will explain most of
what was done and what the results were.
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
James Perrett
>
>
> I record solo piano stuff, jazz ensembles, and synth/MIDI
> orchestrations, sometimes with some acoustic instruments added in. I
> have a hard time imagining a need for more than 12-16 simultaneous
> inputs (if ever that many), as I am more likely to use spot/area
> miking rather than instrument-by-instrument, drum-by-drum close miking
> (ie, input intensive stuff).
>
> So, the questions are: can anyone compare these consoles for me
> (beyond the obvious used vs. new, tape return vs. no tape return,
> inline vs. split issues), including the sound of them? And, do any
> other consoles come to mind in this price range ($3K and under) that
> meet the above criteria? If so, how do they compare to the ones I've
> mentioned?
>
I would advise widening your search for used consoles. There are so many
choices and, in some places, you can buy a much more upmarket desk for
the sort of money you are talking about.
Cheers.
James.
Derel
> poorly implemented that you will end up using the board in a PA desk
> configuration anyway, i.e. half the desk as tape returns on the big faders &
> the other channels as your inputs.
Can you explain why you think the Tascam tape returns are unusable?
Is it a -10/+4 issue, or what?
>The advantage of one of these Tascams is
> being able to have mic & line inputs simultaneously plugged in, selected via
> switch. On the A & H the 1/4" line input overides the XLR in, so you can't
> leave both mic & line cables permanently connected.
Good point; I'd either have to move cables around or just leave the
first 24 channels as monitor channels (1/4" only), and use the
remaining 8 inputs (on the 32 channel version, of course) as input
channels.
> Also, be aware there is a huge quality difference between the Tascam 3500/3700
> & the 2600. It's not just a matter of more channels. Neither of them have
> useable EQ, but the 2600 is much more limited in routing & built a lot cheesier
> than the 3500/3700.
Is this also true of the 2600mk2? And why is the Tascam EQ unusable?
Please clarify, and thanks for your help.
Derel
ScotFraser
the
3700 has built-in VCA automation) having "unusable" EQ. >>
Everybody hears these things differently. I used a 3500 for about 10 years,
cutting well over a hundred album projects. During this time I always used
outboard EQ, only switching in the console EQ when I ran out of external units
for the money channels. From the very first day I turned that desk on I didn't
like the EQ. The upside is that it taught me a lot about mic selection &
placement as an alternative to EQing.
Scott Fraser
ScotFraser
It's on a tiny stiff little fader. The main fader on the 3500 is so smooth &
easy on the fingers it's amazing Tascam couldn't find a supplier who makes a
decent short one. It has no solo function, accesses only 2 of the auxes at a
time & has no EQ available. I like to build a sense of the real mix as I'm
tracking & overdubbing, so I never used the monitor section of the 3500. I set
it up like a PA board, with the tape returns on the big faders & outboard
preamps feeding tape.
<<Is it a -10/+4 issue, or what?>>
No, there are ways to get any level in or out.
> Also, be aware there is a huge quality difference between the Tascam
3500/3700
> & the 2600. It's not just a matter of more channels. Neither of them have
> useable EQ, but the 2600 is much more limited in routing & built a lot
cheesier
> than the 3500/3700.
<<Is this also true of the 2600mk2? >>
I don't know what they changed for the MKII.
<< And why is the Tascam EQ unusable?>>
Unuseable is overly strong a condemnation, but in my case I never chose to use
it. It's never been a strong point on any Tascam mixer, although the 500 series
I felt had better EQ than more recent desks. I don't like the shape of the
curves I guess. I've always used outboard EQs, mostly Ameks, Neves, Orbans,
TCs, etc & the Tascam EQ just fails to satisfy in that context.
Scott Fraser
Michael Angel
>first 24 channels as monitor channels (1/4" only), and use the
>remaining 8 inputs (on the 32 channel version, of course) as input
>channels.
...which really wouldn't be a half bad idea. Still a permanent set up and 8
non-monitor channels for modules, keys, extra aux returns, headphone mix? Still
lots of choices if you don't foresee expanding beyond the board.
Mike Rivers
> Can you explain why you think the Tascam tape returns are unusable?
> Is it a -10/+4 issue, or what?
I don't know how many models they used this input circuit on, but on
the 1600, if the inputs weren't fed from a differential source (not
just balanced), both the gain and headroom were low. I managed to make
it work on a friend's console by feeding the low side of the
differential input from a single ended output and letting the high
side float. When I asked, TASCAM said "yeah, that one had a funny
input."
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
EggHd
input." >>
Something to consider if you do comedy records....
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Rob Adelman
Derel wrote:
>>Also, be aware there is a huge quality difference between the Tascam 3500/3700
>>& the 2600. It's not just a matter of more channels. Neither of them have
>>useable EQ, but the 2600 is much more limited in routing & built a lot cheesier
>>than the 3500/3700.
>
>
> Is this also true of the 2600mk2? And why is the Tascam EQ unusable?
>
> Please clarify, and thanks for your help.
I do not think the M2600 is cheezy. And the EQ is very usable.
-Rob
Derel
> I would advise widening your search for used consoles. There are so many
> choices and, in some places, you can buy a much more upmarket desk for
> the sort of money you are talking about.
>
Do you have any specific suggestions? I notice you're e-mail address
is in the UK; do you know of any reputable console brokers in the US
that might have product in this price range?
Thanks for your help.
Derel
Ted Spencer
cutting well over a hundred album projects. During this time I always used
outboard EQ, only switching in the console EQ when I ran out of external units
for the money channels. From the very first day I turned that desk on I didn't
like the EQ. The upside is that it taught me a lot about mic selection &
placement as an alternative to EQing.
Scott Fraser
>><BR><BR>
I didn't have the luxury of more than one or two decent outboard EQ channels
for the first several years I used my M3500 so I had to make the best of it.
One of the key things was that the HF and LF shelving bands are *very* wide. So
for example if you wanted to boost the HF shelf more than moderately, cutting
some upper mids was usually necessary to counteract excess buildup in that
area. It was unfortunate that it had to be that way, but good results could
still be obtained with that approach.
Part of Jim Williams' standard mod for the console is to move the HF and LF
shelving bands further away from the midrange (break points become 12K and 80Hz
instead of 10K and 100). It fixes the problem quite nicely.
Lorin David Schultz
group. Opinions vary widely.
I used to have a 3500 myself. There were lots of things I really liked
about it, the EQ being one of them. At the time I bought mine, it came
down to the 3500 or a Mackie 8-Buss. The EQ was a significant factor in
my decision making process. I liked it.
I liked the routing too (although the procedure for using the groups as
subs was a little weird). Extra Control Room outputs, dedicated studio
feed, separate level controls for speakers and cans, on-board multi-tone
oscillator, talkback and slate -- nice little touches that made
day-to-day life simpler and easier.
Mostly what really sold me was the "feel" of the board. It was
comfortable and natural to work at, with what seemed like "correct"
control spacing. I also really liked the way it looked, and the
reaction it got from clients. Being a bottom feeder, my clients don't
usually know much about brand names, but they know what LOOKS cool! <g>
Two factors eventually led me to part with it. One was the size. Most
of my work is done in Pro Tools, and a large portion of it is done at
home. I got tired of dedicating so much real estate to something I used
only for monitoring. That's the trade off you make to have comfortable
control spacing.
The other was the noise floor. The thing sounds fine, but it's not
quiet. If you want to make transparent, pristine recordings over a
background of silence, a stock 3500 or 3700 will disappoint you. The
good news is that they can be upgraded, even a channel at a time, so you
can turn it into a much nicer board if you have the time, money and
patience. Ted Spencer did. I probably would have too if I hadn't
chosen to downsize, since there's not much available in the $5000-10,000
range, so spending a few grand upgrading a 3500 is probably a better
idea than buying something else.
--
"I got into audio because I like pushing buttons...
...never figured on all this freakin' wire!"
- Lorin David Schultz
"Derel" <jdm...@justice.com> wrote in message
news:1d7d327e.03061...@posting.google.com...
ScotFraser
quiet. If you want to make transparent, pristine recordings over a
background of silence, a stock 3500 or 3700 will disappoint you. >>
OK, you like the EQ & I hated it, you thought it was unacceptably noisy, yet I
made scores of (ahem) arguably audiophile pristine acoustic music records on
that desk. Just goes to show YMMV.
Scott Fraser
mr c deckard
every day. i plan on doing the B-B upgrade/mod that ted did.
i think it's one of the most straight forward boards ever, although
the monitor section take a little bit to get used to (the freelance
engineers here are having a little bit of a tough time with it)
here's a few things i would like to change if i could (who knows, i
may one day):
16 buss -- hell, why not 24, right? this actually isn't too much of a
problem.
to be able to unasign that little fader from L-R would be cool, and i
think ted actually modded his in this way somehow. . .
polarity inversion on each channel would be nice (again, not too big
of a problem, i built mic cables that invert polarity, and will
probably build inverting unity gain op-amp circuit that can be
inserted into the a channel if i need it (the inserts on this board,
as are almost all the connections, are unbalanced).
oh well, i picked mine up for $1000 and got a ps for $500. this thing
has seen, and still sees, a lot of use, and i've never had to do a
repair to it in the last 4-5 years.
cd /..
Lorin David Schultz
news:20030614213825...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> OK, you like the EQ & I hated it, you thought it was unacceptably
> noisy, yet I made scores of (ahem) arguably audiophile pristine
> acoustic music records on that desk. Just goes to show YMMV.
You know, the fact that you and I agree on most other subjects, yet have
such different opinions of the 3500, makes me wonder if mine sounded
different than yours. I don't know how I'd account for such a
difference, but it just seems odd that our mileage would vary that much.
Lorin David Schultz
I still have the factory-issue stand for a 24 channel Tascam M3500 or
M3700. It's the one in the brochure photo that matches the side panels
and gives it that flowing appearance.
They seem to be rare as hen's teeth, so I'd like to see it wind up under
a Tascam console where it belongs. If anyone needs it, send me a note
and make me an offer for it.
ScotFraser
such different opinions of the 3500, makes me wonder if mine sounded
different than yours. I don't know how I'd account for such a
difference, but it just seems odd that our mileage would vary that much.
>>
I was spoiled for EQ pretty early on by having some nice outboard units, but
the 3500 was a replacement for a Tascam 512, which I thought at the time had
better sounding EQ. I'm also not into relying on EQ too heavily. If I don't
like the sound of something, I change out the mic. I generally print flat &
only EQ to make things sit in the mix. Thus my opinion of the 3500 EQ may be
different since it's not a tool I would normally use unless a real balance
problem demanded it.
As to the noise I have found other people's 3500s seeming noisier to me than
mine did. I put my studio on an Equi-Tech balanced power system long ago & it
(and some Jensen balancing transformers) did clear up some of the 3500's stereo
buss noise, which was mostly mains related
Scott Fraser
ScotFraser
You have to admit the subgroup to stereo buss assignment is just plain bad
design, like design by people who don't use audio mixers for a living.
<<here's a few things i would like to change if i could (who knows, i
may one day):
16 buss -- hell, why not 24, right? this actually isn't too much of a
problem.>>
Design-wise I don't see any way to mod an 8 buss board into a 16 buss
configuration unless you plan to redo the sheet metal. You'd be better off
tracking through direct outs on that board anyway, & avoiding the summing
busses as much as possible.
<<to be able to unasign that little fader from L-R would be cool, and i
think ted actually modded his in this way somehow. . .>>
You can mute them with the existing switch, but I've been told that doesn't
really take them off of the mix buss. This may account for some of the buss
noise.
<<polarity inversion on each channel would be nice >>
Boy, howdy, & how much would it have cost Tascam in parts & front panel space
to have built that in? OTOH, using outboard preamps quickly dealt with that
shortcoming in my use of the 3500.
Biggest problem I see with the existing design & something you can easily fix
when you dig inside yours, is that the group & stereo inserts are post fader.
Again I contend the designers are not people who actually use these things,
else it would be obvious why this is not a useable feature.
Scott Fraser
Mike Rivers
> You know, the fact that you and I agree on most other subjects, yet have
> such different opinions of the 3500, makes me wonder if mine sounded
> different than yours.
That could be true. Most of the channels of my TASCAM Model 5 sounded
different from each other. Or maybe he was just recording different
things than you were.
mr c deckard
> << i think it's one of the most straight forward boards ever, >>
>
> You have to admit the subgroup to stereo buss assignment is just plain bad
> design, like design by people who don't use audio mixers for a living.
>
it's never been an issue with me, but it does seem like it was an
afterthought, doesn't it?
> Design-wise I don't see any way to mod an 8 buss board into a 16 buss
> configuration unless you plan to redo the sheet metal. You'd be better off
> tracking through direct outs on that board anyway, & avoiding the summing
> busses as much as possible.
this has occurred to me as well, and i think setting DI / Pre outs to
tape to be a easier and better alternative anyway.
> You can mute them with the existing switch, but I've been told that doesn't
> really take them off of the mix buss. This may account for some of the buss
> noise.
yeah, i was thinking being able to send it somewhere (an aux) without
sending it to LR -- i think ted did a mod something like this . . .
>
> Boy, howdy, & how much would it have cost Tascam in parts & front panel space
> to have built that in? OTOH, using outboard preamps quickly dealt with that
> shortcoming in my use of the 3500.
yeah, but it wouldn't be TOO hard, either -- just a flip switch in
front of the buffer amp on the insert return. oh well, i guess they
had to shave off $50.00 of the manufacture cost. . .
>
> Biggest problem I see with the existing design & something you can easily fix
> when you dig inside yours, is that the group & stereo inserts are post fader.
> Again I contend the designers are not people who actually use these things,
> else it would be obvious why this is not a useable feature.
> Scott Fraser
that is rather cockeyed -- i just tape the faders down when i get my
compressor/gates set. . .
best,
chris d.
ScotFraser
front of the buffer amp on the insert return. >>
Or easier yet, a DPDT switch right at the XLR pinout?
<<-- i just tape the faders down when i get my
compressor/gates set. . .>>
Which means you have to pull a fade in mastering. Also means not necessarily
getting an optimal gain structure when strapping an EQ across the buss, & any
noise in the EQ or compressor is always there, i.e. doesn't ride down with the
fade. For that matter, why not just stick the processor in line from the buss
out XLRs to the mixdown deck? Why did Tascam think there was any point in
having inserts at that location in the circuit?
Scott Fraser
James Perrett
I'm afraid I don't know of any brokers in the US but I'd watch out for
Soundcraft, A&H, Soundtracs - maybe even a DDA D series. For the best
value for money you should be looking at the kind of consoles that are
too large for a bedroom studio and too out of fashion for a pro studio
(Mike Rivers' Soundcraft is a good example if he has still got it).
Cheers.
James.
Ted Spencer
(copied from a post I wrote on this subject 3 years ago):
"Regarding my hotrodded M3500 I mentioned a few days ago here's the deal:
shortly after buying it in 1990 I modified the small faders to be switchable as
aux sends. The stock board only allows the small faders to be returns to the
stereo buss. So I rewired the 3/4 switches (below aux 2) to select small fader
out to either aux 3/4 or to stereo buss. Auxes 1/2 (originally switchable to
3/4) became permanently 1/2 and no longer switchable to 3/4. I wired the
channel fader to the inp/pre buttons on the small fader so that when they're
both up (you have to gently press both buttons to do this since they're
self-cancelling) they see post channel fader output. Press pre and they see pre
channel fader output (nice for cue mix). Switch the 3/4 button (now 3/st buss)
to return small fader to either aux 3/4 or stereo buss (for use as returns to
mixdown as the stock board does). This vastly improves the flexibility of the
board"
mr c deckard
think about it since i mix to DAW, and do my fades there (it's easier
to use markers/undo capabilities with the client) -- but if the
situation ever arises, i'll be better for it. i learn something
everyday on this ng.
the board definitely has its shortcomings (as was pointed out, the
noise floor, the chunky little faders . . . the weird buss monitoring,
the buss inserts. . .) -- i guess i'm so pleased with it for $1500,
that it's easy for me to overlook them. . .
-chris
Nathan Eldred
>
> Is this also true of the 2600mk2? And why is the Tascam EQ unusable?
>
> Please clarify, and thanks for your help.
>
No it's not the same on the 2600 MkII. The MkII is the last analog
console Tascam made, and it's pretty reliable and works the way it's
supposed to. I had one for four years and only had to replace two
opamps. It's musical too, and I had done some really good work on it
(with a really great front end and using the board for monitoring
only). I still have my 2600 II 32x8 in storage, I think it's fuller
sounding than the A&H, and just smoked the Mackies. There is a local
guy near me who used to have a similar format A&H, and everything
sounding a little scratchier than on the Tascam. If you want more
headroom, get a much larger higher quality PSU. It seems that's where
corners are often cut on these boards, if Tascam put a proper PSU on
it, the console probably would have run a lot more. But if you find
the right guy you could get a huge PSU for $350-$500.
Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com