Topic: New improved microtrack (MT II)

[dallman]

ive kinda been over m-audio since 2002, they never seem to deliver relaible solutions. i've used an MTI for backup, although flaky, it worked most of the time.,can anyone comment on whether the MTII works in the following regards:

1. not buggy, stays on and stays recording regardless of input dropping and restarting
2. boots up at least as quick as MT I , records and works 9% of the time on first try
3. Tested extensively with different AD's, is bit accurate, doesnt drop samples (I'm not talking about 'sounds good to me', but has anyone done serious testing on thsi unit?

If you have problem #1 on your MT1, you may not using the latest firmware. The issue of the recorder stopping if the input dropped out was long ago fixed and should not be a problem. I thought I should share this with you just in case you were not aware of the fix.

[snoknight]

ive kinda been over m-audio since 2002, they never seem to deliver relaible solutions. i've used an MTI for backup, although flaky, it worked most of the time.,can anyone comment on whether the MTII works in the following regards:

1. not buggy, stays on and stays recording regardless of input dropping and restarting
2. boots up at least as quick as MT I , records and works 9% of the time on first try
3. Tested extensively with different AD's, is bit accurate, doesnt drop samples (I'm not talking about 'sounds good to me', but has anyone done serious testing on this unit?

So i have recently outfitted my V3 with the new Firmware chip. >
> Uploaded the latest firmware on the MT2
made a low pro cable rig that includes a 75 ohm Coax, and a 110 ohm AES/EBU >
uploaded the latest firmware to my MOTU Traveler.
and have an itch to use it all...

jerry joseph on Saturday...?
i may be running the monitor board but i think i still could pull 2 digital recordings from the room and someone can determine accuracy...??
both cables are pro grade and terminated to spec.
and i will be usin the clock from the v3 to time the motu.
accurate enough to compare?

 

[dactylus]

I was experimenting with the 1/4 unbalanced noise thing and discovered that if the two wires from the unbalanced source are connected to the tip and ring with nothing on the sleeve it works great, no weird noise and very clean recording.[/color]

Can someone with a little technical expertise explain how this eliminates the "sprinkler noise" without compromising anything else?  Much appreciated.  I am VERY conflicted about this whole 1/4" TRS NOISE problem.  If the above works without any drawbacks that would be great.  Sounds too easy to be true...   

[guysonic]

I was experimenting with the 1/4 unbalanced noise thing and discovered that if the two wires from the unbalanced source are connected to the tip and ring with nothing on the sleeve it works great, no weird noise and very clean recording.[/color]

Can someone with a little technical expertise explain how this eliminates the "sprinkler noise" without compromising anything else?  Much appreciated.  I am VERY conflicted about this whole 1/4" TRS NOISE problem.  If the above works without any drawbacks that would be great.  Sounds too easy to be true...   

This wiring scheme ignores the deck's internal commons ground noise now unconnected to the balanced inputs of the deck.

[dactylus]

Just for the hell of it this week I sent my MT II in to DPA to be tested with my 4061 mics & dpa mma6000 just to see if DPA could come up with a fix for the "sprinkler noise".  What did I have to lose?  After hearing about the "sprinkler" noise problem I never even took the damn thing out of the box after receiving it 3 months ago.  Maybe I should have.

DPA tested:

dpa 4061 > dpa mma6000 > unbalanced 1/4" TRS > MT II


The DPA testing results were as follows:  Using the unbalanced 1/4" TRS inputs a "sprinkler noise free" recording could be produced when turning the gain all the way down on the MT and doing all of the gain adjustment with the dpa mma6000 amplifier..

That is great news and that is the procedure I followed with my old MT 24/96 anyway - I wish that I would have taken the MT II out of the box beforehand, but now I can't wait to try and duplicate DPA's results when my gear arrives back here!!  Thank you DPA! - Forget you M-Audio..


 

[hydrobud]

hello everyone ..
so whats the bottom line on this one .i had the MTI until i lost it last night at The Bodeans show at The Fillmore.so needless to say i got to get a replacement. don't know if i should get the MTI or MTII. help out a bummed out brotha

[jerryfreak]

it was actually last summer with latest firmware. it worked most of the time, but still let me down in a few situations. not ready to be a primary recorder imo. it seemed sluggish, flaky, and non-responsive at times. pda was rock solid relative to it.

ive kinda been over m-audio since 2002, they never seem to deliver relaible solutions. i've used an MTI for backup, although flaky, it worked most of the time.,can anyone comment on whether the MTII works in the following regards:

1. not buggy, stays on and stays recording regardless of input dropping and restarting
2. boots up at least as quick as MT I , records and works 9% of the time on first try
3. Tested extensively with different AD's, is bit accurate, doesnt drop samples (I'm not talking about 'sounds good to me', but has anyone done serious testing on this unit?

If you have problem #1 on your MT1, you may not using the latest firmware. The issue of the recorder stopping if the input dropped out was long ago fixed and should not be a problem. I thought I should share this with you just in case you were not aware of the fix.

[jerryfreak]

im not sure what youre trying to compare with that setup, they should both record identical sounding digital streams off the v3. The only way to test a digital recorder is to compare input and output data to look for resampling or look for dropped samples in the recorded data.

I try not to experiment in the field too much, and i havent taken an interface or recorder into the field that i havent tested for at least 20+ hours, its fairly trivial, i figured out a simple method to do it efficiently when first testing the the vx pocket and jb3. fwiw , the jb3 when it came out was a horrible recorder, i did a bunch of beta testing with creative on wave recording, and was still attempting to get them to make it perfect when they gave up on it. imo that device was like 99% except for occasional dropped samples. vx is a rock. pdaudio can be a rock with the right pda. mt worked well in the home, but tended to let me down in the field.

ive kinda been over m-audio since 2002, they never seem to deliver relaible solutions. i've used an MTI for backup, although flaky, it worked most of the time.,can anyone comment on whether the MTII works in the following regards:

1. not buggy, stays on and stays recording regardless of input dropping and restarting
2. boots up at least as quick as MT I , records and works 9% of the time on first try
3. Tested extensively with different AD's, is bit accurate, doesnt drop samples (I'm not talking about 'sounds good to me', but has anyone done serious testing on this unit?

So i have recently outfitted my V3 with the new Firmware chip. >
> Uploaded the latest firmware on the MT2
made a low pro cable rig that includes a 75 ohm Coax, and a 110 ohm AES/EBU >
uploaded the latest firmware to my MOTU Traveler.
and have an itch to use it all...

jerry joseph on Saturday...?
i may be running the monitor board but i think i still could pull 2 digital recordings from the room and someone can determine accuracy...??
both cables are pro grade and terminated to spec.
and i will be usin the clock from the v3 to time the motu.
accurate enough to compare?

 

[hydrobud]

I found same noise on BOTH 1/4" input channels.  This issue is ONLY with analog inputs, so bit-bucket users have no problems with analog input related noise.

As mentioned in other posts about M-Audio MT1, engineering, production design, and final production quality assurance testing is split among different groups on different continents.  M-Audio is truly an international effort.

It would seem there is lack of engineering follow-through on various stages of product development. So when the product is finally shipped, there is a lack of refinement and quality check process typical of all-done-in-one place engineering/production like typical of a company like Sony who rarely ships out anything with avoidable shortcomings. 

This engineering-to-production process is fractured with M-Audio on MT1 and MT2 so performance/quality as pertains to what is finally shipped is often plagued with shortcomings.  Or so it seems , as we too often get a kinky, untested M-Audio product needing many fixes after we have purchased.

A short 0.5MEG 24bit/88.2K wav clip of the unbalanced 1/4" input noise at -35 dB reference input gain is here for download:
www.sonicstudios.com/mt2ub14i.wav

After 5 days with no response to the online request for service (with sent noise graphic) posting on their website, I resorted to calling technical service by phone to discuss my MT2  and what might be done.  So far, they've agreed to 'repair' the excessive noise and low-pass filtering at 88.2K problems I found within a 3-4 week time-frame. 

Stay tuned.

is this the sprinkler sound everyone is speaking of ?

[guysonic]

Got word yesterday from M-audio tech my sent-in-for-repair or refund is NOT repairable for known issues, and purchase price for MT2 is being refunded.

So for sure unbalanced input noise issue is now officially an MT2 'product feature' as explained by M-Audio.



However, although not mentioned, the 88.2K bandwidth shortcoming with MT2 applying wrong filter may still be firmware corrected, but I'll never know for not getting the unit back to bench test.

I hope for owners of MT2 using 88.2K mode at least this issue is not a 'standard feature' and will eventually be fixed with a firmware update.  So those using 88.2K sampling rate might still have a non-addressed problem with ~ 20,000 cycle bandwidth limitation until further notice.

So no MT2 technical review, and I will continue to use my MT1 as the better Microtrack model version for acceptable analog input performance reasons.
(See MT1 review at www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm

[Jamos]

So no MT2 technical review, and I will continue to use my MT1 as the better Microtrack model version for acceptable analog input performance reasons.

I haven't been following this really closely, but as a former owner of an original MT2496, seeing the above statement is really sad.  IMO, the analog input performance was the biggest failure of the original MT.
To now see that it is superior to the MT II has solidified my complete lack of confidence in any M-Audio product.

That said, I hope to see people have continued success using both units as bit-buckets, as I believe they are still the cheapest option out there for that purpose.

[dactylus]

Sorry for the cross posting but there is a solution to the "sprinker noise" problem of sorts.  Go DPA.

Amazing, this is the first time i see the second generation of a product being worse than the first one 

Is there any custom solution to solve the sprinkler noise "feature" ?

Best.

Just for the hell of it I sent my MT II in to DPA to be tested with my 4061 mics & dpa mma6000 just to see if DPA could come up with a fix for the "sprinkler noise".  What did I have to lose?


dpa 4061 > dpa mma6000 > unbalanced 1/4" TRS > MT II

The results were as follows:  Using the unbalanced 1/4" TRS inputs a "sprinkler noise free" recording could be produced when turning the gain all the way down on the MT and doing all of the gain adjustment with the dpa mma6000 amplifier..


That is great news and that is the procedure I followed with my MT I anyway- Can't wait to try and duplicate it when my gear arrives back here!!  Thank you DPA! - Forget you M-Audio..

[taperwheeler]

I haven't read anything about how well the unit handles high level spl's when recording through the 1/8" input and am curious if anyone has had any experience with it. I know M-Audio claims that the new unit has more headroom but that's not saying much. Would love to use my sp-cmc-8 mics straight in for stealth recording.

[guysonic]

I haven't read anything about how well the unit handles high level spl's when recording through the 1/8" input and am curious if anyone has had any experience with it. I know M-Audio claims that the new unit has more headroom but that's not saying much. Would love to use my sp-cmc-8 mics straight in for stealth recording.

Measured: MT2 TRS inputs ~+4dBu Maximum (with REC adjust level set at minimum), and this ~+0.8dBu more than max on MT1; not much difference.   

MT2 minijack mic maximum ~ -2.4dBu (the ZOOM H2 maximum LINE input!) compared to MT1 -13.3dBu, so MT2 has slightly over 10dBu MORE headroom than MT1; this is a significant improvement.

[jtessier]

Hey everyone,

Been awhile since I've poked my nose around these parts.  I just ran into a tutorial on using the MicroTrack II. It might be a good resource to point any MicroTrack II newbies too. It's broken up into several short sections that can be watched individually. At the end he even has some recorded samples embedded inside the tutorials to listen to.  Not sure how old this is but I just ran across it today.

http://www.howaudio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=251

See you around,

J.T.
(Former M-Audio employee)