Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I'm using a Tascam 216 feeding a Tascam 38 8 track.  I really wanted
    a 320 (20 into 8 into 2) but couldn't afford it.  The 216 (16 into
    4 into 2) is a reasonable compromise.  It has two sets of outputs
    from the 4 main busses so you can run buss 1 to tracks 1 and 5,
    buss 2 to tracks 2 and 6, etc..  This limits you to recording no
    more than 4 tracks at a time, which I have found not to be a problem,
    and requires that you think about what you're doing (getting a specific
    input to a specific track requires that the input's buss pair select
    switch (1 and 2 vs. 3 and 4) and pan (1 and 3 vs. 2 and 4) be set
    correctly, that the master gain for the buss be up, and the track
    select switch on the 38 be set correctly).  If you try to work too
    fast, you can get surprised.  My main disappointments with the 216
    are few - I wish the "FLD" send (a foldback for monitor use) were
    a bona fide effects send, post fader rather than pre, or were
    switchable between pre and post.  I wish each input had a switch
    to select the mic or line input, rather than have to plug and unplug
    cables on the back (if you leave a mic plugged in, wierd things
    happen to the line input, especially if the mic's got a switch;
    most such switches short the mic's output, shorting the line input
    as well; if you leave the switch on, the mic "contributes" to the
    line input).  I wish the stereo effect returns were sendable to
    the 4 mixing busses rather than the stereo busses.  The 216 also
    builds up noise as a function of the number of inputs switched onto
    the mixing busses.
    
    Somebody's got a MIDI controlled mixer in the works - I just read
    about it in the latest Keyboard (see Jim Cooper's column and the NAMM
    review).  MIDI control would be icing on the cake for me, more a
    convenience than a real need.  I could take advantage of MIDI
    controlled panning and gain riding for pans and fades (in and out),
    but the bulk of the interest in MIDI-controlled mixers seems to
    be with respect to setup (snapshots) rather than dynamic control.

    The step from 4 tracks to 8 tracks is a big one in terms of increased
    capability, and the cost increment is manageable (going from my 244
    with 4 tracks on cassette and a builtin 4 input mixer to the 38/216
    combo with 8 tracks on 1/2" tape and an outboard 16 channel mixer
    cost me about $3K after tradeins); the step from 8 to 16 is much
    larger financially and not as big functionally.  I think 8 tracks
    is a pretty sensible compromise for home-based studios.
    
    len.
    

    Len - 
    
    What about the EQ on the 216? 
    
    Also, do you use any noise reduction with the 38? 
    
    If not how do you find the background noise affects you?
    
    Dennis

    The 216 has 3 section eq - a fixed low band shelving (at 100 Hz I think),
    a sweepable midrange peaking (range ?) and a fixed high band shelving
    (at 10 KHz, I think).  If the exact frequencies and the boost/cut
    extremes are important to you, I can look them up tonight.
    
    I use 8 tracks worth of dbx on the 38, (two Tascam DX-4Ds).  The
    38/dbx combination is silent.  I mean SILENT!, nominally 96 db S/N.
    
    Incidentally, I rather like the 216, which may not be apparent from
    the way I talked about it earlier.
    
    len.
    

    I have a Tascam 312, which I really like.  It is a 12 X 4 X 2 board
    and it's great for 8-track recording.  I use it with a Tascam 38.
    It has 3 aux sends on each channel and 2 aux sends on the tape returns.
    EQ is 3 band parametric.  Each channel can accept line or mic inputs
    (XLR or phone jacks).  It also has channel insert jacks so you can
    put an effect on an individual channel.  I really like the foldback
    system so you can isolate a channel or group buss from the rest
    of the mix.  The back of the board has alot of patch points for
    all kinds of gear.  I found this to be the most versatile board
    of all the ones I looked at for the price. 
    
    Dave
    

	I'm going to be looking for a mixer upgrade and saw this topic.  It says
"dated" in the title, but it seems like the mixers spoken of here are still 
being sold.  

	What I'll want is either 8 or twelve input channels, at least stereo 
outs (4 outs would be wunnaful), hi and lo shelving EQ with sweepable mid band,
PFL (or do some mixers call it "solo"), channel inserts and two effects sends.  
It should have headphone monitoring (for the PFL), an adaptor for those 
gooseneck lights, and at least one monitor send (preferably with reverb to 
monitor ability).

	I'll probably be looking to buy used (as usual) to save money.  This 
will be used for both studio and stage (although I don't do all that many live 
performances any more).  It should be reasonably quiet, too.

	Len, do you still like your 216?  Dave (you out there?), how has your 
312 held up?

	Dan

    From your requirements, I doubt that a 216 or a 312 (Tascam boards)
    will do the trick, since they don't have gooseneck adapters (unless I'm
    thinking of other boards). 

    The one board that comes to mind is a Peavey Mark III (the one with the
    built-in case).  They are 16x4x2, and go around here used for anywhere
    from $700-850, depending on the condition.  I used one of these for
    several months a few years ago, and thought it was a very functional
    unit.  No sweep on the EQ, but it was 4 band, had separate PFL and SOLO
    circuits (no, they ain't the same), a sum, headphones, FX sends, and
    even a boingy internal spring reverb.  Also provided phantom power mic
    ins. 

    The one I used was relatively quiet - certainly not as quiet as a Seck
    or a Soundcraft (or even the M160), but certainly better than the Kawai
    M8R. 

    Another alternative might be the new Yamaha boards (the name escapes me
    at the moment).  The 8x4x2 unit goes new for around $950-$1000, and is
    supposed to be *very* nice.  The mutli-buss Seck boards are *extremely*
    expensive ($1800 for the 8x4, if I remember right). 

    The quality needed will likely depend on the type of tape deck you wish
    to use - that's where you'll need the performance. 

-b

RE < Note 279.6 by DYO780::SCHAFER "Brad - boycott hell." >

	I just found one in a Yamaha catalog that has everything I'd want -
the MC1202 or the MC802.  Well, it doesn't have 4 outs, but its pretty complete
otherwise.  Is that the one you were thinking of?

	So, what's the difference between solo, cue, and PFL?

	Dan

    The 216's a reasonably functional board, but the noise floor is a bit
    high, especially with all inputs up.  If you are noise sensitive,
    I would not recommend it.
    
    len
    .
     

    Dan, the MC series is not the one I was talking about ... I thought it
    was called the MX series, but I can't remember now.  I do know that it
    is definitely a 4 buss series of boards.
    
    As for the difference between cue, Solo and PFL ...
    
    PFL is an acronym for Pre-Fader Listen.  If I understand correctly, all
    this does is route the input signal directly to the outs (muting all
    other non-PFl'd inputs), bypassing EQ, trim and whatever else might be
    there.  This is primarily to allow quick comparison/check of the actual
    input signal with what you think is there.
    
    SOLO is similiar only in that it also mutes other channels (that are
    non-SOLO'd).  Depending on the mixer, this usually sends a post-fader &
    post-EQ signal to the monitor section - it may or may not affect the
    boards outs (depending on the type of board).  It allows you to monitor
    specific input channels.
    
    The only CUE I'm familiar with is associated with a monitor section,
    and sends a summed signal to a specified signal route (usually
    headphones or a cue line out).
    
    Again, this is how I understand it; I'm not convinced that I know what
    I'm talking about, so take it for what it's worth.  8-)
    
-b