Thanks for posting this series. I sold off my 520 around 6 years ago while converting my studio to a 32 channel hybrid digital-analog setup with both digital and analog multi-track equipment connected. As much as I loved the 520 I had to downsize and since 99% of my work was to ProTools it just made sense to focus all patchbays and connections to a StudioLive console that acts as both a console and an interface to the ProTools system.
This is awesome, thanks for posting! I just picked up an M-520, and have been trying to wrap my head around the original manual, but it's not very straight-forward.. These videos helped me a lot. Thanks again!
A friend of mine gave me a Tascam M520 plus the power supply minus the power umbilical lead, all for nothing, I need to source either new or second-hand metal channel strip panels for it cause the originals have rust and corrosion on them.
Hello SweetBeats, thanks for the answer, sorry for the bad English, I'm Brazilian. I have a question if you can help... I have a Tascam MX2424 and I would like to use it in conjunction with my M520. The MX24 has DB25 analog outputs and inputs, the question is... use the 8 master buss and enter the Mx 2424 (8 at a time to make 16 channels), and in this case the return from the MX24 could enter the microphone inputs ( canon balanced) or would it be more appropriate if it entered via TAPE In or line in? or even TAPE OUT AND TAPE IN for the MX24 via DB25? In this case, it would all be due to an unbalanced RCA...?I ask because I'm thinking about making my own DB25 cables, they tend to be very expensive... Thank you for your time in helping a beginner!!!
There are a couple challenges to interfacing the M-520 and MX-2424: the unbalanced/balanced mismatch, and the nominal level mismatch (-10dBv for the M-500 series, and +4dBu for the MX-2424). For the first issue I looked in the operation manual, thinking there would be instruction for how to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced sources and loads, but I was wrong…nothing. That doesn’t mean it can’t interface unbalanced equipment…I also didn’t see any instructions prohibiting interfacing unbalanced equipment. So I looked at the schematics and confirmed you won’t damage anything by connecting it to unbalanced equipment…then I found this forum thread that talks a little bit about the challenges and solutions needed to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced -10dBv standard equipment: homerecording.com/bbs/threads/a-few-tascam-mx2424-questions.338199/ So hopefully that is helpful. I agree it would be best to tie the “cold” signal conductors for each channel to the shield at the console end of the snake. I think the outputs of the M-520, like the direct outputs and PGM group 1-8 unbalanced outputs likely have enough drive to work with the +4dBu inputs of the MX-2424, but you would have to experiment…you might have issues with transients clipping…you want to try and match the level standard of the MX-2424 or you won’t be taking advantage of as much of the digital resolution capability at the inputs of the MX-2424. And I also think you may have to incorporate some kind of pad on the inputs of the M-520 if you’re using the TAPE or LINE inputs on the M-520 as described in the forum thread above. It would be much more simple to use the XLR MIC inputs and switch in the PAD circuit, though this is not ideal because that sends the signal through the mic amp which is a noisier path for a line level signal, and then use the 8-channel balanced +4dBu BALANCE AMP section on the M-520 to send signals to the MX-2424, although obviously these means no more than 8 channels at a time can be routed to the MX-2424. You can also use converter boxes like the Tascam LA-40 or LA-80/81 series to convert unbalanced -10dBv to balanced +4dBu and vice-versa. Big picture: the Tascam M-520 is not really an ideal console to interface the MX-2424 because of the level and balanced/unbalanced mismatch, but also because of the channel count…the M-520 was designed to support 16-track operations, not 24-track. I might use something like the M-520 in a pinch, but long term I’d be looking for a different solution.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you Sweetbeats for your time with me. I'm thinking about using just 16 channels of the MX2424 to record 8 simultaneously and then another 8 in another outlet coming out of the M520 balanced. My question was to do the returns, but as you said, I will have to try it and see the results, I will continue my research and do the tests. My MX24 also has ADAT converters 24 in and 24 out. I also have a Tascam DP32 recorder that records on SD cards, perhaps it would be easier to start with that and continue researching what to do with the MX24. Thanks again for your attention with me, any other thoughts on this are welcome, hugs!!!
Hello Sweetbeats, thank you for sharing your experiences with the M520. I purchased one of these in perfect, fully functional condition. I looked at the answer you gave to sebwarren and I was still confused... I thought that by routing the input channel I could send my signal (1 to 8) to any master buss and from there I could connect my monitors or send a balanced signal to my Tascam recorder DP32. Well, when rotating my channel and sending it to any master bus, no sound comes out. how to do it? I'm a beginner, any help is welcome. thank you very much !!!
How can I hook this up for using the preamp on the M-520 then send a pre eq/pre fader line to an interface, record in the daw, then output the channel to the eq/fader section, mix to a master bus and send the balanced stereo mix to another 2 channels for final recording?
No worries…I was going to reply with some detail and just hadn’t gotten to it yet. Yeah the twist with the M-50/M-500 series is the path from input to STEREO A/STEREO B outputs is relatively unconventional because there is no direct path from input to those outputs. The input signal has to be assigned to one or more of the 8 PGM groups, then those groups must be selected as a source in the monitor mixer above the PGM group faders, and then the STEREO A/B busses have to monitor the monitor mixer (by selecting “MON” as the source in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack). Everything goes through the monitor mixer. It sounds like you’ve got it, but feel free to post any follow up questions.
I'm considering picking up one of these to track and run individual channels to an interface via the direct outs. Given the direct outs are unbalanced, would they be problematic/noisy with that configuration?
Hard to say without more detail. How long are your cable runs? What type or brand of cables are you using? What is the greater environment like as far as UHF and RF noise? Is it just general residential or do you live next to a radio broadcast tower? If your environment is typical and your cable runs are less than 25’ or so, and you’re using cables with decent shielding, it absolutely should be a problem.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Considering having some RCA > D Sub connections fabricated, likely no more than 3-5'. The space is around more of a warehouse district, so not an RF/UHF-dense are from what I can tell, never had a problem but I've mostly had a balanced cabling setup. Appreciate the response!
You should be totally fine then. Usually custom snakes or cables use good quality bulk cable, and truly anything up to about 25’ is usually not a problem, and then anything over that just depends on the environment. I had some issues with unbalanced connections and RFI years ago, but I was three blocks away from the second highest power AM radio station transmitter in my state, and had a console with a poorly designed ground scheme. Correcting the ground scheme issues resolved my problems even in that unusually harsh environment. The M-520 ground scheme is okay. There are things that can be improved but it’s really at the threshold of diminishing returns as it is, especially when it’s setup in a typical environment as far as RF/UHF noise. You should be in good shape.
Yeah they are both fixed Q 3-band swept peaking type EQ sections, but the mid band has a slightly different range 100Hz to 5kHz on the M-500 series and 500Hz to 5kHz on 388), and I’m not sure if the Q is the same. The circuits are not identical but similar.
I have a chance to get a M-520, was reading some of your old posts on homerecording. At the end of the day, would you recommend getting one? This one comes with the power supply :P
What is the Seller asking for the M-520 you are looking at, what condition is it in, and what are you hoping to get out of owning one? There’s a lot more to consider before I’d recommend anything to anybody you know? What is your experience working with, maintaining and using vintage analog sound equipment?
@@SweetbeatsTechStop oop I cross posted that comment with another youtuber who owned a M-520. I ended up getting it. Definitely a little different than the Neve and API’s I’ve used. I really appreciated your vids about it!
What did you end up paying for it? Yes it’s a completely different echelon compared to anything made by Neve or API…I wouldn’t even compare the them. Not that the M-520 isn’t a good console, and it has some uniqueness to the sound quality and the control topology…some very unique facets to its feature set, but it was value engineered in its design to hit a certain price bracket and nothing Neve or API was designed with that same goal in mind, at least not to the same intensity at all. The M-520 definitely takes a little getting used to as far as the signal path and routing, but it’s a really flexible console. Let me know if you have questions or need spares.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop I got it for $450, one of the previous owner built a cool wooden cover around the sides and top. yea if I could shoot you an email, the signal path was confusing me a bit. I was trained on consoles in Hollywood and got my Audio Engineering certificate but once I started producing I was way more in the box and songwriting.
$450 is not a bad price for a functioning M-520 with PS-520 and power umbilical in today’s market. The wood side and top trim may actually be the rare factory CS-521 “Top Board” option. If that’s what it is you did good at $450 for the whole package. I wish RUclips had a direct message option. I prefer not to post my email address publicly. You can always register at homerecording.com and PM me on the forum there and I can connect with you there and share email addy etc. My forum handle is sweetbeats. sorry for the roundabout.
Thank you very much!! Great info! I just bought one for $100 that was very beat up and I just got done taking out all the cards and cleaning every pot, switch and button. Then I resoldered all those connections! Do you have any extra parts? I need only 3 of the faceplates for the channels and I'll be done.
Glad the video was helpful! I think I have three complete 4-channel modules and the master section from an M-520 on-hand here. When you say “panels” are you talking about the tan control surface dress panels? If so, which ones are you needing? Not all of them are the same. There are three different kinds (with different markings on them).
Wow you are right! Thank you for reminding me. I need channels 1-12 and maybe 13-16(slight scratches). So yes 3 of the control surface panels. I have been reading a lot of your forum posts on this board too. Thank you so much!!
I just hooked up the board to my Tascam 38 and tracked 3 tracks, God does it sound good! Nice and warm and compressed. Exactly what you want! I don't understand people dogging this board. They must not know what great analog sound sounds like!
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you. Im trying to understand the manual as best as I can! Question? So I have an interface set up. Im going direct out of the console and into the inputs of my interface. Then I am going out of the mic lines of my interface into the line ins on the console. That should give me the ability to record and mix correct? As for the metering, I know they are for the BUS. I have assigned a track to a bus channel. and I see no metering.
What interface are you using? And you are going *out* of your “mic lines” of the interface back to the console? Those would be inputs on the interface. You need to connect the outputs of the interface to inputs on the console.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Right! Sorry I’m on a different account now. I’m using the Scarlett 18i20 interface. So I’m going directly OUT of the console and then IN to the inputs of my interface so I can have ability to record. Then I’m going OUT of the mic lines on the interface and then IN to the mic lines of the console.
Your first problem is if you are trying to use the mic inputs on the Scarlett as outputs that won’t work. Second issue is why are you using the mic inputs on the console? You should be using line inputs.
So why are there 2 RCA outs for each buss channel out? Is it for having a balance signal, like the XLR outs? (My XLR buss master outs don't seem to be working so I'm trying to find another way of getting some output.
So let’s get to your XLR outputs in a moment. The dual RCA outs for each PGM group first... No, the pairs of RCA outs for each PGM group do not make a balanced output. Each pair is a parallel unbalance -10dBV output, and they are in phase. Think of it like a built ‘Y’ cable. The reason they built that feature in was so you could connect the 8 PGM group outputs to a 16 channel multitrack tape machine. Each PGM group out would feed two tape machine track inputs, and by using the record arming controls on the tape machine you would control which of the two tape tracks the 1 PGM group output would actually feed at any given point in time...if you use only the 8 PGM group outs to feed 16 tracks, then you have the ability there to track 8 distinct tracks at a time with that setup. If you need to track more tracks simultaneously then you can use the direct outs on any input channel strip on the mixer. I hope that makes sense. Again, it’s like an internal ‘Y’ cable...a convenience feature. There are other things you can do with them too. Now, the XLR outputs...this is actually a cool feature of the M-512/M-520...you’re assuming the XLR outputs are balanced group outs. They’re not. Look at how they are labeled...”BALANCE AMP OUT” right? And right next to each is an unbalanced RCA “BALANCE AMP IN” jack, right? I’m assuming your balanced outs aren’t working because you have nothing connected to their inputs. You have 8 channels of unbalanced -10dBV RCA to balanced +4dBu XLR converters. You can connect those 8 “BALANCE AMP” RCA inputs to ANY of the RCA outputs on your console, up to 8 at a time and bump/balance those RCA outs depending on your needs and configuration. You could bump/balance a pair of direct outs, PGM groups 1 & 2, the STEREO A outs and monitor outs if you wanted. Or you could even not use the BALANCE AMP for anything on the console itself and instead bump/balance 8 unbalanced external gear outs. Patch them in wherever/however you want to suit your needs, including connecting them to the 8 unbalanced PGM group outs. Hope that helps.
@@sebwarren7918 You can find that information in your manual in the operations section (see page 20) or on the Block Diagram. The channel direct outputs are post fade.
I can’t really answer that...can you be more specific? Like, what kind of “mojo” are you looking for? What are you using now or have used in the past and what sound are you wanting to achieve?
So, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I can’t really say if you’ll experience color and “squish”. Like, those are super subjective terms, and I have no idea what you’re used to using. So I’ll ask again what are you using now or what have you used in the past path either provided color and squish, or *didn’t* provide color and squish? Like if somebody told me they’d only used older small format Behringer consoles and they were looking for something with more color and didn’t choke the dynamics and did at least a little something usable when pushed, I’d say the M-500 series might could do that for them. I’m not trying to hate on little Behringer mixers…it’s just I’ve used a couple and they get the job done, but for me that was about it. If another person came to me and said they were used to using some all discrete transformer coupled vintage piece of gear, I might say I’m not sure the M-500 is going to do it for you. The M-500 is all solid state, opamp-based, electronically balanced mic pres…I think it has more to offer in the area of “interesting” than many newer solid state transformerless consoles…I think it’s a decent sounding console, but you have to give me something else to go on here as far as what defines audio relativity to you. Maybe what I’ve said is even helpful in some way, but it’s not really possible for me to say if it’ll do what you want it to do for sure.
Thanks for posting this series. I sold off my 520 around 6 years ago while converting my studio to a 32 channel hybrid digital-analog setup with both digital and analog multi-track equipment connected. As much as I loved the 520 I had to downsize and since 99% of my work was to ProTools it just made sense to focus all patchbays and connections to a StudioLive console that acts as both a console and an interface to the ProTools system.
This is awesome, thanks for posting! I just picked up an M-520, and have been trying to wrap my head around the original manual, but it's not very straight-forward.. These videos helped me a lot. Thanks again!
A friend of mine gave me a Tascam M520 plus the power supply minus the power umbilical lead, all for nothing, I need to source either new or second-hand metal channel strip panels for it cause the originals have rust and corrosion on them.
Hello SweetBeats, thanks for the answer, sorry for the bad English, I'm Brazilian. I have a question if you can help... I have a Tascam MX2424 and I would like to use it in conjunction with my M520. The MX24 has DB25 analog outputs and inputs, the question is... use the 8 master buss and enter the Mx 2424 (8 at a time to make 16 channels), and in this case the return from the MX24 could enter the microphone inputs ( canon balanced) or would it be more appropriate if it entered via TAPE In or line in? or even TAPE OUT AND TAPE IN for the MX24 via DB25? In this case, it would all be due to an unbalanced RCA...?I ask because I'm thinking about making my own DB25 cables, they tend to be very expensive... Thank you for your time in helping a beginner!!!
There are a couple challenges to interfacing the M-520 and MX-2424: the unbalanced/balanced mismatch, and the nominal level mismatch (-10dBv for the M-500 series, and +4dBu for the MX-2424). For the first issue I looked in the operation manual, thinking there would be instruction for how to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced sources and loads, but I was wrong…nothing. That doesn’t mean it can’t interface unbalanced equipment…I also didn’t see any instructions prohibiting interfacing unbalanced equipment. So I looked at the schematics and confirmed you won’t damage anything by connecting it to unbalanced equipment…then I found this forum thread that talks a little bit about the challenges and solutions needed to interface the MX-2424 with unbalanced -10dBv standard equipment: homerecording.com/bbs/threads/a-few-tascam-mx2424-questions.338199/ So hopefully that is helpful. I agree it would be best to tie the “cold” signal conductors for each channel to the shield at the console end of the snake. I think the outputs of the M-520, like the direct outputs and PGM group 1-8 unbalanced outputs likely have enough drive to work with the +4dBu inputs of the MX-2424, but you would have to experiment…you might have issues with transients clipping…you want to try and match the level standard of the MX-2424 or you won’t be taking advantage of as much of the digital resolution capability at the inputs of the MX-2424. And I also think you may have to incorporate some kind of pad on the inputs of the M-520 if you’re using the TAPE or LINE inputs on the M-520 as described in the forum thread above. It would be much more simple to use the XLR MIC inputs and switch in the PAD circuit, though this is not ideal because that sends the signal through the mic amp which is a noisier path for a line level signal, and then use the 8-channel balanced +4dBu BALANCE AMP section on the M-520 to send signals to the MX-2424, although obviously these means no more than 8 channels at a time can be routed to the MX-2424. You can also use converter boxes like the Tascam LA-40 or LA-80/81 series to convert unbalanced -10dBv to balanced +4dBu and vice-versa. Big picture: the Tascam M-520 is not really an ideal console to interface the MX-2424 because of the level and balanced/unbalanced mismatch, but also because of the channel count…the M-520 was designed to support 16-track operations, not 24-track. I might use something like the M-520 in a pinch, but long term I’d be looking for a different solution.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you Sweetbeats for your time with me. I'm thinking about using just 16 channels of the MX2424 to record 8 simultaneously and then another 8 in another outlet coming out of the M520 balanced. My question was to do the returns, but as you said, I will have to try it and see the results, I will continue my research and do the tests. My MX24 also has ADAT converters 24 in and 24 out. I also have a Tascam DP32 recorder that records on SD cards, perhaps it would be easier to start with that and continue researching what to do with the MX24. Thanks again for your attention with me, any other thoughts on this are welcome, hugs!!!
Hello Sweetbeats, thank you for sharing your experiences with the M520. I purchased one of these in perfect, fully functional condition. I looked at the answer you gave to sebwarren and I was still confused... I thought that by routing the input channel I could send my signal (1 to 8) to any master buss and from there I could connect my monitors or send a balanced signal to my Tascam recorder DP32. Well, when rotating my channel and sending it to any master bus, no sound comes out. how to do it? I'm a beginner, any help is welcome. thank you very much !!!
How can I hook this up for using the preamp on the M-520 then send a pre eq/pre fader line to an interface, record in the daw, then output the channel to the eq/fader section, mix to a master bus and send the balanced stereo mix to another 2 channels for final recording?
👍 Tks!! Great Demo
YOU ~ ROCK ! ! 🤛
Hello Sweetbeats, I think I discovered it here, I reread the messages and now it works, sorry for the inconvenience
No worries…I was going to reply with some detail and just hadn’t gotten to it yet. Yeah the twist with the M-50/M-500 series is the path from input to STEREO A/STEREO B outputs is relatively unconventional because there is no direct path from input to those outputs. The input signal has to be assigned to one or more of the 8 PGM groups, then those groups must be selected as a source in the monitor mixer above the PGM group faders, and then the STEREO A/B busses have to monitor the monitor mixer (by selecting “MON” as the source in the MONITOR SELECT switchrack). Everything goes through the monitor mixer. It sounds like you’ve got it, but feel free to post any follow up questions.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop thanks for that
ops...Do you have the complete manual to send me? I found it on a website but it only got to page 60. Thanks for that too!!!
Send me an email at sweetbeatstechstop at gmail.
I'm considering picking up one of these to track and run individual channels to an interface via the direct outs. Given the direct outs are unbalanced, would they be problematic/noisy with that configuration?
Hard to say without more detail. How long are your cable runs? What type or brand of cables are you using? What is the greater environment like as far as UHF and RF noise? Is it just general residential or do you live next to a radio broadcast tower? If your environment is typical and your cable runs are less than 25’ or so, and you’re using cables with decent shielding, it absolutely should be a problem.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Considering having some RCA > D Sub connections fabricated, likely no more than 3-5'. The space is around more of a warehouse district, so not an RF/UHF-dense are from what I can tell, never had a problem but I've mostly had a balanced cabling setup. Appreciate the response!
You should be totally fine then. Usually custom snakes or cables use good quality bulk cable, and truly anything up to about 25’ is usually not a problem, and then anything over that just depends on the environment. I had some issues with unbalanced connections and RFI years ago, but I was three blocks away from the second highest power AM radio station transmitter in my state, and had a console with a poorly designed ground scheme. Correcting the ground scheme issues resolved my problems even in that unusually harsh environment. The M-520 ground scheme is okay. There are things that can be improved but it’s really at the threshold of diminishing returns as it is, especially when it’s setup in a typical environment as far as RF/UHF noise. You should be in good shape.
Thanks! Looks like an awesome mixer. I assume the EQ is the same as the Tascam 388 right?
Yeah they are both fixed Q 3-band swept peaking type EQ sections, but the mid band has a slightly different range 100Hz to 5kHz on the M-500 series and 500Hz to 5kHz on 388), and I’m not sure if the Q is the same. The circuits are not identical but similar.
I have a chance to get a M-520, was reading some of your old posts on homerecording. At the end of the day, would you recommend getting one? This one comes with the power supply :P
What is the Seller asking for the M-520 you are looking at, what condition is it in, and what are you hoping to get out of owning one? There’s a lot more to consider before I’d recommend anything to anybody you know? What is your experience working with, maintaining and using vintage analog sound equipment?
@@SweetbeatsTechStop oop I cross posted that comment with another youtuber who owned a M-520. I ended up getting it. Definitely a little different than the Neve and API’s I’ve used. I really appreciated your vids about it!
What did you end up paying for it? Yes it’s a completely different echelon compared to anything made by Neve or API…I wouldn’t even compare the them. Not that the M-520 isn’t a good console, and it has some uniqueness to the sound quality and the control topology…some very unique facets to its feature set, but it was value engineered in its design to hit a certain price bracket and nothing Neve or API was designed with that same goal in mind, at least not to the same intensity at all. The M-520 definitely takes a little getting used to as far as the signal path and routing, but it’s a really flexible console. Let me know if you have questions or need spares.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop I got it for $450, one of the previous owner built a cool wooden cover around the sides and top. yea if I could shoot you an email, the signal path was confusing me a bit. I was trained on consoles in Hollywood and got my Audio Engineering certificate but once I started producing I was way more in the box and songwriting.
$450 is not a bad price for a functioning M-520 with PS-520 and power umbilical in today’s market. The wood side and top trim may actually be the rare factory CS-521 “Top Board” option. If that’s what it is you did good at $450 for the whole package. I wish RUclips had a direct message option. I prefer not to post my email address publicly. You can always register at homerecording.com and PM me on the forum there and I can connect with you there and share email addy etc. My forum handle is sweetbeats. sorry for the roundabout.
Cool. you put these up. :)
Thank you very much!! Great info! I just bought one for $100 that was very beat up and I just got done taking out all the cards and cleaning every pot, switch and button. Then I resoldered all those connections! Do you have any extra parts? I need only 3 of the faceplates for the channels and I'll be done.
Glad the video was helpful! I think I have three complete 4-channel modules and the master section from an M-520 on-hand here. When you say “panels” are you talking about the tan control surface dress panels? If so, which ones are you needing? Not all of them are the same. There are three different kinds (with different markings on them).
Wow you are right! Thank you for reminding me. I need channels 1-12 and maybe 13-16(slight scratches). So yes 3 of the control surface panels. I have been reading a lot of your forum posts on this board too. Thank you so much!!
I just hooked up the board to my Tascam 38 and tracked 3 tracks, God does it sound good! Nice and warm and compressed. Exactly what you want! I don't understand people dogging this board. They must not know what great analog sound sounds like!
Hey I just got this baby recently! Where would you connect your speakers to hear when your mixing/recording?
STEREO MASTER A OUT jacks. See page 33 of the manual for more detail.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Thank you. Im trying to understand the manual as best as I can! Question? So I have an interface set up. Im going direct out of the console and into the inputs of my interface. Then I am going out of the mic lines of my interface into the line ins on the console. That should give me the ability to record and mix correct? As for the metering, I know they are for the BUS. I have assigned a track to a bus channel. and I see no metering.
What interface are you using?
And you are going *out* of your “mic lines” of the interface back to the console? Those would be inputs on the interface. You need to connect the outputs of the interface to inputs on the console.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop Right! Sorry I’m on a different account now. I’m using the Scarlett 18i20 interface. So I’m going directly OUT of the console and then IN to the inputs of my interface so I can have ability to record. Then I’m going OUT of the mic lines on the interface and then IN to the mic lines of the console.
Your first problem is if you are trying to use the mic inputs on the Scarlett as outputs that won’t work. Second issue is why are you using the mic inputs on the console? You should be using line inputs.
So why are there 2 RCA outs for each buss channel out? Is it for having a balance signal, like the XLR outs? (My XLR buss master outs don't seem to be working so I'm trying to find another way of getting some output.
So let’s get to your XLR outputs in a moment. The dual RCA outs for each PGM group first...
No, the pairs of RCA outs for each PGM group do not make a balanced output. Each pair is a parallel unbalance -10dBV output, and they are in phase. Think of it like a built ‘Y’ cable. The reason they built that feature in was so you could connect the 8 PGM group outputs to a 16 channel multitrack tape machine. Each PGM group out would feed two tape machine track inputs, and by using the record arming controls on the tape machine you would control which of the two tape tracks the 1 PGM group output would actually feed at any given point in time...if you use only the 8 PGM group outs to feed 16 tracks, then you have the ability there to track 8 distinct tracks at a time with that setup. If you need to track more tracks simultaneously then you can use the direct outs on any input channel strip on the mixer. I hope that makes sense. Again, it’s like an internal ‘Y’ cable...a convenience feature. There are other things you can do with them too.
Now, the XLR outputs...this is actually a cool feature of the M-512/M-520...you’re assuming the XLR outputs are balanced group outs. They’re not. Look at how they are labeled...”BALANCE AMP OUT” right? And right next to each is an unbalanced RCA “BALANCE AMP IN” jack, right? I’m assuming your balanced outs aren’t working because you have nothing connected to their inputs. You have 8 channels of unbalanced -10dBV RCA to balanced +4dBu XLR converters. You can connect those 8 “BALANCE AMP” RCA inputs to ANY of the RCA outputs on your console, up to 8 at a time and bump/balance those RCA outs depending on your needs and configuration. You could bump/balance a pair of direct outs, PGM groups 1 & 2, the STEREO A outs and monitor outs if you wanted. Or you could even not use the BALANCE AMP for anything on the console itself and instead bump/balance 8 unbalanced external gear outs. Patch them in wherever/however you want to suit your needs, including connecting them to the 8 unbalanced PGM group outs.
Hope that helps.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop thanks! I've got it working now.
@@SweetbeatsTechStop The direct out RCAs on each channel - are they post fader? Or what is there signal path? Thanks!:)
@@sebwarren7918 You can find that information in your manual in the operations section (see page 20) or on the Block Diagram. The channel direct outputs are post fade.
Do the pres have much mojo?
I can’t really answer that...can you be more specific? Like, what kind of “mojo” are you looking for? What are you using now or have used in the past and what sound are you wanting to achieve?
@@SweetbeatsTechStop I’m after some colour and ‘squish’ do these have any of that? Good for drums?
So, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I can’t really say if you’ll experience color and “squish”. Like, those are super subjective terms, and I have no idea what you’re used to using. So I’ll ask again what are you using now or what have you used in the past path either provided color and squish, or *didn’t* provide color and squish? Like if somebody told me they’d only used older small format Behringer consoles and they were looking for something with more color and didn’t choke the dynamics and did at least a little something usable when pushed, I’d say the M-500 series might could do that for them. I’m not trying to hate on little Behringer mixers…it’s just I’ve used a couple and they get the job done, but for me that was about it. If another person came to me and said they were used to using some all discrete transformer coupled vintage piece of gear, I might say I’m not sure the M-500 is going to do it for you. The M-500 is all solid state, opamp-based, electronically balanced mic pres…I think it has more to offer in the area of “interesting” than many newer solid state transformerless consoles…I think it’s a decent sounding console, but you have to give me something else to go on here as far as what defines audio relativity to you. Maybe what I’ve said is even helpful in some way, but it’s not really possible for me to say if it’ll do what you want it to do for sure.
Bisakah penjelasan dgn bahasa indonesia....?
No, I don’t think I can. Sorry.