Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: SClassical on July 25, 2007, 03:01:18 PM
-
Has anyone heard about the NEW IMPROVED VERSION 2 MICROTRACK?
http://www.solidstatesound.co.uk/M-Audio%20MicroTrack.htm
I've read on line that it's suppose to better than the current microtrack. Anyone know what is the difference and what M-Audio did to improve it?
-
all it needs is the 2 gig seemless split.. maybe with the 2nd edition? if there even is a 2nd edition... ::Shrug::
-
interstin....... :hmmm:
-
Summer NAMM is July 27-29, so we'll find out
IF there is such a thing coming by then. My guess would be just a simple firmware
update, but who knows?
To improve? Lots!
1) Fix all the bugs of version 1
2) True 48v Phantom Power
3) User replaceable battery
4) XLR and/or neutrik combo inputs
5) Make it more rugged, ie metal
6) Better pre's that can handle higher SPL's and line level
7) And yes, seamless 2gb file splits
But m-audio is lame, if such a device is coming, they'll probably go for making it as
small and cheap as possible and eliminate features like spdif in and balanced inputs... Think
r-09 but at a much lower price...
-
5) Make it more rugged, ie metal
con: metal detectors
-
This is the reply I got from a M-Audio dealer:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All we know is that the Mark One is now discontinued and there are no more to be had anywhere in the world, and that a Mark Two version is out soon.
At present there is no further information coming out of M-Audio about it at all, so all we can do is ask you to watch our site and be assured we will let you know when we are in stock of the new ones.
Best regards...
Rodney Wayman
www.solidstatesound.co.uk
-
I'll settle for only two upgrades:
1. 48v PP
2. no 2GB split
Oh yeah, and accept our Version 1 MT's as trade-in's, like a car dealer. ;)
-
re: #2 - I'd be happy with a seamless split anywhere between 1.5GB and 2GB. The HD-P2 handles it very nicely.
I'm in total agreement on your other points. Especially the trade-in policy.
I'll settle for only two upgrades:
1. 48v PP
2. no 2GB split
Oh yeah, and accept our Version 1 MT's as trade-in's, like a car dealer. ;)
-
phantom up to 48v ?
useless. still sounds like shit.
2gb file split, I still can't believe that it didn't have that from the get go, like *every other deck*
-
I'll settle for only two upgrades:
1. 48v PP
2. no 2GB split
Oh yeah, and accept our Version 1 MT's as trade-in's, like a car dealer. ;)
phantom up to 48v ?
useless. still sounds like shit.
2gb file split, I still can't believe that it didn't have that from the get go, like *every other deck*
I agree with Nick about Phantom power. I don't care what it is. I'd only ever use the S/PDIF input anyway.
another improvement would be to get rid of the internal battery, and run it on recharchable AA's or external power.
and obviously, a seamless split at 2 gigs was issue #1 for me.
-
i already planned on asking for a trade in
-
From a taper/engineering viewpoint, most of the suggestions for improvements posted have good reason for implementation.
But what REALLY caught the engineer in me was the REALLY SUCKY printed circuit design that had ground signals from switching power and too close supply magnetics noises polluting the low level analog and A/D process sections. I had hoped for a redesign of at least the board to reduce if not get rid of the interfering noises. Without doing this, this deck is 'not so refined' sounding to many.
Hope the 'mark two' version pays more attention to 'engineering refinement' as I can do without all the other possible improvements posted if there's a choice from having a refined sounding deck verses a fuller featured deck having noticeable of switching power supply circuit noise pollution.
-
I'll settle for only two upgrades:
1. 48v PP
2. no 2GB split
Oh yeah, and accept our Version 1 MT's as trade-in's, like a car dealer. ;)
phantom up to 48v ?
useless. still sounds like shit.
2gb file split, I still can't believe that it didn't have that from the get go, like *every other deck*
I agree with Nick about Phantom power. I don't care what it is. I'd only ever use the S/PDIF input anyway.
another improvement would be to get rid of the internal battery, and run it on recharchable AA's or external power.and
obviously, a seamless split at 2 gigs was issue #1 for me.
Agreed on both counts. I just sent my unit back to m-audio and paid them $75 to install a new battery - I wish that I would have known that they were discontinuing that unit!!
Wouldn't you think that the SEAMLESS 2gb split would have to a feature incorporated into a version 2 unit based upon all of the complaints that m-audio heard about this?
I like the mt24/96 that i have now except for the flaws mentioned above. Those items would certainly have to be corrected before I would even think about going for round 2 with m-audio...
>:D
-
except for seamless splits and the battery, most of the requested improvements mentioned above could be addressed by simply buying a real piece of professional gear. If you want something this size and cost, you're going to get something like what it is. How much quality can one really expect from a $300 device?
-
Seamless autosplit oh baby I hope it gets that. If they drop SPDIF they can keep the junker. Trade up would be very nice.
-
You guys should send a link to this discussion to M-AUDIO... :) especially if you want these things to get implemented.
-
You guys should send a link to this discussion to M-AUDIO... :) especially if you want these things to get implemented.
If it's coming out next month, they won't get implemented right away. IIRC, people have talked to M Audio about the seamless split since day 1. Maybe M Audio could take these suggestions for future firmwares?
-
You guys should send a link to this discussion to M-AUDIO... :) especially if you want these things to get implemented.
If it's coming out next month, they won't get implemented right away. IIRC, people have talked to M Audio about the seamless split since day 1. Maybe M Audio could take these suggestions for future firmwares?
Sice M-Audio has said for quite a while that the seamless split was not possible with the current MT, it is logical (not that that means anything) to assume that the seamless split would be the main change in the unit. Next would probably be longer battery time. After that it is anybody's guess. With a little careful thought, they could rule the mini recorder world, but only time will tell. ;)
-
Looks like they delayed the microtrack II release date to Sept. :(
http://www.inquitaudio.co.uk/html/news.html
I'm sure M-Audio knows that their customers complained about the internal battery and the 6 sec breaks. Most of our complaints cannot be fixed with new firmwares. So I guess they know it's time for a new MT and during these few months rather than working on a new firmware they decided to work on a new MT II.
I remember they delayed the 1st MT because of problems.
-
I'm sure they will impliment some of the mojor gripes about the 2gb split and the battery. I still would not trust the thing to be road worthy for another year after it comes out. Remeber how long it took them to address all the minor problems through firmware updates. Seriously, it will probably have more issues than the original right out of the box.
It might be better to keep the original Microtrack for now and after all the kinks have been ironed out maybee then. Right now the original with all the firmware updates is pretty solid.
;D
-
IMO - I'd doubt they would redesign the extenernal packaging as they would make a bigger event of this change (i.e. a new product such as the R4 Pro or something). So my guess would be SPDIF stays, etc. I would think this release is to fix major complaints and new features of the current design (probably a redesign of the internals - i.e. SD 7xx V2)
-
UPDATE:
Just been told by a dealer the following news:
"The good news is that the Microtrack as you know it is no longer
available. We will have the Microtrack 2 in September, which will have
several important improvements including a replaceable
battery and 48V phantom power. Details have not yet been released."
Hope the above info helped ;D
Having the replaceable battery is definitely one step forward (don't think P48 helps much, unless someone like Doug does a MOD on the preamp or A/D converter - that will be one hell of an all in one recorder >:D)! Fingers cross on the 2GB split.
-
If Sony DAT recorder evolution history is any indication of refinement curve to expect of newer technology decks, it will take at least 3 generations of deck models before we are able to purchase decks with sufficient design/feature refinement not to need long wish lists like present models seem to require.
At least most of the current deck manufacturers seem to want to make it better for us tapers with reasonable and practical model improvements. So "steady as she goes" as we provide feedback on strength/shortcomings of each new deck model, waiting patiently for our wishes to be fulfilled by new portable deck models.
-
the MT is oooh so close as the "perfect bit bucket".
just one change really, and its 90% there.
-
If Sony DAT recorder evolution history is any indication of refinement curve to expect of newer technology decks, it will take at least 3 generations of deck models before we are able to purchase decks with sufficient design/feature refinement not to need long wish lists like present models seem to require.
At least most of the current deck manufacturers seem to want to make it better for us tapers with reasonable and practical model improvements. So "steady as she goes" as we provide feedback on strength/shortcomings of each new deck model, waiting patiently for our wishes to be fulfilled by new portable deck models.
it even took the 7xx about a full year to get the wrinkles out. i waited over a year at least to buy mine ;)
I still think this thing is USELESS unless they implement a 2GB seamless split :) I am WAY too involved and into the shows I go to to EVER have to worry about stopping/starting another track. fug that shit man. I wouldnt walk away with half the shows I go to without having a recorder that just KEEPS recording. especially in my drinking days ;) the old v3>jb3 and now the 722 have SAVED MY ASS many times because they just keep recording. I got kicked out of my hometown RAQ show in March and my rig was still in there recording :) and the show was on LMA the next night 8)
-
i emailed maudio today and asked about trade ins
others interested might want to too, if they see there are lots of people interested they might just let us do it
basically i said i have a mt and love it but i also know a new better one is coming out with things that users of the original version have asked for and thought they were getting from the start, ie 48v seemless file split
and was wondering if i can trade mine in towards a new version 2
-
i emailed maudio today and asked about trade ins
others interested might want to too, if they see there are lots of people interested they might just let us do it
basically i said i have a mt and love it but i also know a new better one is coming out with things that users of the original version have asked for and thought they were getting from the start, ie 48v seemless file split
and was wondering if i can trade mine in towards a new version 2
hmm, wonder if they'll do that? I doubt it HIGHLY tho, they wouldnt have any originals on the market anymore ;) EVERYONE would trade them in :)
-
they prob wouldn't do it
but it depends on the cost and if they want to keep people happy
if they have a mark up of x% and give you a trade in plus _ cash they could "break even" and have happy customers
vs
say no sorry and have people say how crappy the microtrack and maudio are
-
i emailed maudio today and asked about trade ins
Would you post the email address you sent the request to? We should all send to the same place.
Thanks!
-
i sent it to sales and info
sales@m-audio.com
info@m-audio.com
-
word I just dropped them a line too.
-
i really doubt the company would offer a trade in...it's not like they need to do a recall because the original was faulty...it just didn't have all the features that we as tapers (a pretty small demographic really) wanted. it would be a nice gesture, but think about it, what would m-audio do with all the 1st gen microtracks? what use would they be to them? they're still a pretty decent recording device for amateurs, even some pros who don't need 24-bit seamless recording. i would still use it at 16-bit anytime, especially in a stealth situation (if i ever stealthed, which i only have once, and used the MT and it was great).
i'm excited to see what they come out with next, but remember, don't expect them to bend over backwards for us tapers. they've done a really good job being receptive to our needs and making some changes in the firmware, and have probably even taken our advice for this next version, but we aren't their only market.
-
I also think they will not do a trade in...mainly because this will definitely burn them out. Just imagine how many MT1 they will receive if they said yes to us. Their production is not that fast and the rate of sale plus the rate of trade in will be so huge that all the MT2 will be back ordered for a few months. They have to make enough to please all new customers and old MT1 owners. Usually new high demand electrical items sell faster than their production (e.g. Wii console). Hope we won't be waiting for back orders. If we do demand a trade-in they might list the MT2 at a high price to keep the demand low and rate of production high (like the Sony PS3). I hope it will be cheaper than the original MT1 though, they have to compete with the new Zoom H2 and R09 prices, too. Trade-in is definitely good but it will also definitely increase the price.
-
A discount to registered owners would be a nice gesture. Not a bad company, IMO, they replaced my MT with a new for me. Just my 2c.
-
Hmmm...trade ins might cut the number that turn up second hand on ebay...and perhaps shorten M-Auds support cycle time for the product.
If they introduce a new version, they almost competing with themselves via the used product market...
i.e. USED Microtrack v1 vs. NEW Microtrack v2 - (assuming they are similarly priced...)
-
i figured it can't hurt to ask, so i did
-
i really doubt the company would offer a trade in...it's not like they need to do a recall because the original was faulty...it just didn't have all the features that we as tapers (a pretty small demographic really) wanted.
Disagree. Mine has a switch on the side that says "48V". It was marketed as having 48v phantom power.
F M-Audio!
-
mine says 'ph power', i think its pretty clear its 30v.
-
A trade in and replaceable batteries would be great. The seemless split is not that big a deal for me as it's very easy to find a stop/start point in between songs. Plus I don't sweat a few lost seconds of 'tweener' sounds ...
-
Well, it's time for me to come out of the closet so to speak. Up until this past Friday I was a remote employee of M-Audio. I worked in an office in Hudson Wisconsin. To increase efficientcy, this year it was decided to close this office and relocate those jobs to the Los Angeles area corporate office. I struggled with either moving or leaving and untimately deciced to stay in the Midwest (I live in Saint Paul, MN, a short 20 minute commute to Hudson).
Well, the reason this is relevant to you all, is that I was the primary firmware tester on the MicroTrack (among my other responibilities). I was the initial tester when new alpha and beta versions cames in and I would help de-bug them to get them ready for our main QA staff so they would have something to test that had at least a decent chance of getting through QA without racking up dozens of bugs.
I've tried to inject my help here wherever I could though I've never been officially sanctioned to do so but be sure that you guys were my first source whenever we released a new version. When someone posted a new problem here I was always scrambling to recreate it so we could fix it in the next revision. You guys have been a great source or help and info. I'm sure my successors will do a good job on whatever comes next and I'm sure a lot of you will be pleased and some disappointed with it.
Thanks for all your help and input on the MicroTrack. It was really appreciated.
Sincerely,
John Tessier
-
mine says 'ph power', i think its pretty clear its 30v.
Phantom power is the LAST thing I want in a unit this size...!
-
How about FLAC support!!! (particularly if we are stuck with the 2GB un-seemless split)
that might lessen the sting a bit - and make it more useful for 24 bit applications...?
-
Well, it's time for me to come out of the closet so to speak. Up until this past Friday I was a remote employee of M-Audio. I worked in an office in Hudson Wisconsin. To increase efficientcy, this year it was decided to close this office and relocate those jobs to the Los Angeles area corporate office. I struggled with either moving or leaving and untimately deciced to stay in the Midwest (I live in Saint Paul, MN, a short 20 minute commute to Hudson).
Well, the reason this is relevant to you all, is that I was the primary firmware tester on the MicroTrack (among my other responibilities). I was the initial tester when new alpha and beta versions cames in and I would help de-bug them to get them ready for our main QA staff so they would have something to test that had at least a decent chance of getting through QA without racking up dozens of bugs.
I've tried to inject my help here wherever I could though I've never been officially sanctioned to do so but be sure that you guys were my first source whenever we released a new version. When someone posted a new problem here I was always scrambling to recreate it so we could fix it in the next revision. You guys have been a great source or help and info. I'm sure my successors will do a good job on whatever comes next and I'm sure a lot of you will be pleased and some disappointed with it.
Thanks for all your help and input on the MicroTrack. It was really appreciated.
Sincerely,
John Tessier
Bummer about the job loss. Hopefully everything works out for the best. Good to see M-Audio was at least listening. Hopefully the new device fixes some of the issues with MT ver. 1
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Or the reasons given why some things wern't implemented in version 1, like the autosplit?
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Or the reasons given why some things wern't implemented in version 1, like the autosplit?
the autosplit couldn't be done
something to do with the buffer i want to say
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Unfortunetaly I can't really say anything too specific. I'm still bound by a non disclosure agreement I signed when I was hired and M-Audio was nice enough to offer a fair severance package so I owe it even more to them not to pull back the curtain too far.
John
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Unfortunetaly I can't really say anything too specific. I'm still bound by a non disclosure agreement I signed when I was hired and M-Audio was nice enough to offer a fair severance package so I owe it even more to them not to pull back the curtain too far.
John
I'm really impressed that Maudio was following web forums like this. That's great. Companies could learn a lot from us tapers. If nothing else, we're good at torturing gear and finding bugs, lol. And it is free information, too :).
By the way, do you know anything about other Maudio gear? Are you allowed to disclose? In particular, I'm wondering which USB/Firewire interfaces have the INA series preamp chips in them. I bought an Maudio Duo and was happy to see +-15V and INA163 inside. How about the MobilePre or the Fast Track Pro or the Firewire interfaces? Any of those have INA chips in them?
Richard
-
To improve? Lots!
1) Fix all the bugs of version 1
2) True 48v Phantom Power
3) User replaceable battery
4) XLR and/or neutrik combo inputs
5) Make it more rugged, ie metal
6) Better pre's that can handle higher SPL's and line level
7) And yes, seamless 2gb file splits
Here is your new Microtrack V2, with all of the requested fixes:
(http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200613_sound_devices_722/images/722-main.jpg)
-
To improve? Lots!
1) Fix all the bugs of version 1
2) True 48v Phantom Power
3) User replaceable battery
4) XLR and/or neutrik combo inputs
5) Make it more rugged, ie metal
6) Better pre's that can handle higher SPL's and line level
7) And yes, seamless 2gb file splits
Here is your new Microtrack V2, with all of the requested fixes:
(http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200613_sound_devices_722/images/722-main.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Here is your new Microtrack V2, with all of the requested fixes:
(http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200613_sound_devices_722/images/722-main.jpg)
Wow! All that for $300! I hope they have a trade in option too!
:cheers:
-
honestly .... whats the point of finding out the cause of a discontinued decks short comings?
can't fix them.
-
honestly .... whats the point of finding out the cause of a discontinued decks short comings?
can't fix them.
huh?
-
honestly .... whats the point of finding out the cause of a discontinued decks short comings?
I think people like to have an understanding of the underlying design issues.
For instance, I would like to know why they claim that they can't support seamless 2G splits. In my estimation, the only reason is that they don't know how to properly queue preallocated files. It's non-trivial but it isn't rocket science. FWIW, I'm currently involved with an embedded FS port, it's like my fifth FS port, and the current project the FS supports high rate media stream RW with split file objects near 30GB in size. So I have a clear idea of how to use preallocation strategies to optimize file split operations with an extremely tight cycle and buffer budget. However, I might be missing something in my analysis of the MT issue so I'd really like to know what their explanation is.
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Or the reasons given why some things wern't implemented in version 1, like the autosplit?
Mostly horsepower of the processor compounded by the developmental firmware from the chip maker that the firmware was based on. The original firmware that M-Audio was given to work with was never intended by the chip maker to do wav files. The chip was designed with MP3 players/recorders in mind. M-Audio expanded that on their own because they saw it had the power to do so. But it was late in the game that the issue was discovered and going back and re-architecting the entire firmware on the 'hope' that they could make it work wasn't justifiable from a business perspective given that it was no guarantee that it could be made to be seemless.
John
-
jtessier - if you don't work for them anymore, are you at liberty to talk about what they have changed/added/removed in the new MT 2.0?
Unfortunetaly I can't really say anything too specific. I'm still bound by a non disclosure agreement I signed when I was hired and M-Audio was nice enough to offer a fair severance package so I owe it even more to them not to pull back the curtain too far.
John
I'm really impressed that Maudio was following web forums like this. That's great. Companies could learn a lot from us tapers. If nothing else, we're good at torturing gear and finding bugs, lol. And it is free information, too :).
By the way, do you know anything about other Maudio gear? Are you allowed to disclose? In particular, I'm wondering which USB/Firewire interfaces have the INA series preamp chips in them. I bought an Maudio Duo and was happy to see +-15V and INA163 inside. How about the MobilePre or the Fast Track Pro or the Firewire interfaces? Any of those have INA chips in them?
Richard
Boy, if I were still there I probably could find out but I never kept that kind of info in my head (too many other things rattling around in there already).
Sorry,
John
-
Mostly horsepower of the processor compounded by the developmental firmware from the chip maker that the firmware was based on. The original firmware that M-Audio was given to work with was never intended by the chip maker to do wav files. The chip was designed with MP3 players/recorders in mind. M-Audio expanded that on their own because they saw it had the power to do so. But it was late in the game that the issue was discovered and going back and re-architecting the entire firmware on the 'hope' that they could make it work wasn't justifiable from a business perspective given that it was no guarantee that it could be made to be seemless.
John
This is the kind of explanation that puzzles me. Raw WAV capture is less cycle intensive than MP3 encoding. Seamless splits should not require any sort of work that would be considered rearchitecting. It's simply a matter of preallocating a series of 2G cluster chains in anticipation of recording and then initializing the active wave header to indicate a 2G wave file. Those cycles can be spent during power on media initialization so that record latency is not incurred. When recording is stopped, the SW just clean ups the last active wave header to indicate proper length before preallocating a new chain. The overhead of a few additional file descriptors in memory is pretty small.
The business issues I can understand. They sold enough units with the flaw to not see a market justification for fixing it and I've debugged enough vendor code to understand that can be an expensive hassle.
Can you share what core the device uses? Is it an ASIC or commodity processor?
-
If the people who wrote the rockbox program can get an mp3 player to record perfectly, I imagine they could do some great stuff with a mt 24/96. That could mean a second life for the original microtrack.
You can help that to happen:
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/NewPort
Firstly: Take it apart and scan the PCBs.
Then go here:
http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?board=16.0
Do anybody here know anything about the inside of the MT yet?
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,50750.msg660192.html#msg660192
-
not 100% sure, but Rockbox does not do 24 bit recording,
so what would it do that the Micro' currently doesn't do (assuming the m-tracker does 16 bit solidly?)
-
not 100% sure, but Rockbox does not do 24 bit recording
True. Maybe it was just a wet dream.
But if there's no Rockbox:ed device with hardware that supports 24-bit recording there is probably very little interest in getting the software to do so...
so what would it do that the Micro' currently doesn't do (assuming the m-tracker does 16 bit solidly?)
Start a new file on a buttonpress?
Start a new file on a time basis - like every 10th minute, or whatever.
Record in wavpack format (once in a while).
Safety AGC mode: Only lower rec level when recording is peaking - not raising at low levels.
And when I get time for serious programming: A wav-edit plugin, and some other useful on-the-go audio tools... :-)
Can MT record mono? :-)
-
I can't believe no one has posted this wish...
:veryevil: I sure hope this version doesn't explode! :veryevil:
-
Mostly horsepower of the processor compounded by the developmental firmware from the chip maker that the firmware was based on. The original firmware that M-Audio was given to work with was never intended by the chip maker to do wav files. The chip was designed with MP3 players/recorders in mind. M-Audio expanded that on their own because they saw it had the power to do so. But it was late in the game that the issue was discovered and going back and re-architecting the entire firmware on the 'hope' that they could make it work wasn't justifiable from a business perspective given that it was no guarantee that it could be made to be seemless.
John
This is the kind of explanation that puzzles me. Raw WAV capture is less cycle intensive than MP3 encoding. Seamless splits should not require any sort of work that would be considered rearchitecting. It's simply a matter of preallocating a series of 2G cluster chains in anticipation of recording and then initializing the active wave header to indicate a 2G wave file. Those cycles can be spent during power on media initialization so that record latency is not incurred. When recording is stopped, the SW just clean ups the last active wave header to indicate proper length before preallocating a new chain. The overhead of a few additional file descriptors in memory is pretty small.
The business issues I can understand. They sold enough units with the flaw to not see a market justification for fixing it and I've debugged enough vendor code to understand that can be an expensive hassle.
Can you share what core the device uses? Is it an ASIC or commodity processor?
Sure, since it's been published previously elsewhere. The MicroTrack uses a PortalPlayer chip. Portalplayer maybe a year ago was purchased by Nvidia. The name portalplayer also appears in the 'about' screen of the MicroTrack. I can't recall the exact model number of the chip off the top of my head though. I think that info is public though too via one of the sites that took apart the MicroTrack to see what it was made of when it came out.
John
-
Most of the dealers that are out of stock are saying they will have more on September 10th so perhaps the version 2 is coming out then. I just ordered the original one before reading these posts but I need something in hand for ACL festival starting September 14th. I may use the 30 day return policy at my dealer to upgrade depending on the differences if a new model is announced.
-
Most of the dealers that are out of stock are saying they will have more on September 10th so perhaps the version 2 is coming out then. I just ordered the original one before reading these posts but I need something in hand for ACL festival starting September 14th. I may use the 30 day return policy at my dealer to upgrade depending on the differences if a new model is announced.
Remember, schedules are made to be broken ;-)
J.T.
-
Cannot find any new info online about what's different between the new and old MT. I guess they're keeping this a secret until it's out. Can't even find a dummy model image. There's so many info on the H2 and nothing on the new MT even though both are suppose to be released more or less the same time (about 3 weeks from now).
-
New info:
Not only they added 48V phantom power but they also gave us more recording formats WAV, BWF and MP3. Anyone know if there is any benefits for using BWF rather than WAV?
The picture below is what the new improved microtrack looks like (looks the same as MT to me)...I guess they have to make it the same in order for their new MT bag to be still usable
(BTW new stealth color BLACK! ;D )
Hope this info helps.
-
New info:
Not only they added 48V phantom power but they also gave us more recording formats WAV, BWF and MP3. Anyone know if there is any benefits for using BWF rather than WAV?
From what I understand, no quality benefit as it's still a .wav audio format, just more text type information about the file (time, date, source, notes, and more particulars) can get stored along with the audio.
-
This may be the same place scyue got the image he posted, but I found some details and images via google here:
http://ch.midifan.com/m_Hardware/Detail.aspx?id=3075
And 'translate this' gives:
MicroTrack II adds more professional features to be applied to the Film, professional audio occasions. Greater input gain adjust range, and input limiter, which can prevent signal overload, 48V phantom power, faster file transfer rate, and more improvements.
MicroTrack II HIGHLIGHTS :
-Through a balanced line input, a built then release [?]
-The CF card or micro-mobile hard disk record WAV, BWF and MP3 audio files
-USB 2.0 USB 2.0 PC connection
-
Interesting. Chinese sites always get the scoop on tech. One of my friends was talking to a distributer in Richmond and they claimed that it was switching to SD memory for the reason to make autosplit work. Wasn't sure about it.
Either way, black might look cool, but that shit gets hot in the sun.
-
Cool - thanks for the photo and info... +T
Hope that it DOES NOT switch to SD memory - how would that enable the seamless split? The seamless split works just fine using CF with the sd722... ;)
Aren't we supposed to get the ability with the MT-II to swap out the battery that powers the unit as well? IF NOT, I probably won't be checking into this unit. Just paid $75 to M-audio a month ago to change out my battery... >:D
-
I believe the .bwf will solve the 2 gig limit.
-
Interesting. Chinese sites always get the scoop on tech. One of my friends was talking to a distributer in Richmond and they claimed that it was switching to SD memory for the reason to make autosplit work. Wasn't sure about it.
Not true
J.T.
-
I believe the .bwf will solve the 2 gig limit.
Not in and off itself, no.
Also, notice the icons where the low mid high switch are?
J.T.
-
I noticed the different icons--at first glance I'd guess it was to control screen brightness level?
Your comment on the .bwf format and the autosplit feature is a bit cryptic . . . anyway to confirm seamless splits will be a feature? Really that's the main thing I'm looking for; since I only use it as a bit bucket, the increased gain range, true 48V phantom, and faster transfer time (I use a card reader, anyway) don't matter to me much at all. Seamless splits, though, would likely make me pony up for this.
-
I believe the .bwf will solve the 2 gig limit.
I know some folks think wikipedia entries are bunk but this one sums the bwf issue up better than I could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWF
WAV compatibility
Since the only difference between a BWF and a "normal" WAV is the extended information in the file header (Bext-Chunk, Coding-History, etc...), a BWF does not require a special player for playback.
Unfortunately, this compatibility also preserves the filesize limitation that WAV files have (4GB in theory, 2GB in practice because most implementations use signed integer). In order to be able to store audio which would exceed this limit, 2 different chunks exist allowing to spread the audio material across several files: cont & link (see list above)
Since there is no official naming convention for these subsequent files, but it is still desirable to see at a glance which ones belong to a continuous piece of audio, a lot of programs apply a numbering scheme to the file suffix: .wav, .w01, .w02, ..., .wNN.
Each of those segments is a regular Wave/BWF file, but players that are aware of the continue/link chunk will treat all segments as one single, long piece of audio when opening the first segment ".wav".
As an extension, RF64 is a BWF-compatible multichannel file format enabling file sizes to exceed 4 GB that has been specified in 2006.
edit: typo
-
Sounds interesting OFOTD.... Another important feature for me is user friendly replaceable batteries....MTII doesn't seem to have a lot of space to fit a few AA batteries to me (I guess it needs a few AAs to get enough juice to power 2 phantom power mics). I just sold my old MT for $297.43 ;D so I definitely need to get the MTII.
-
I noticed the different icons--at first glance I'd guess it was to control screen brightness level?
Your comment on the .bwf format and the autosplit feature is a bit cryptic . . . anyway to confirm seamless splits will be a feature? Really that's the main thing I'm looking for; since I only use it as a bit bucket, the increased gain range, true 48V phantom, and faster transfer time (I use a card reader, anyway) don't matter to me much at all. Seamless splits, though, would likely make me pony up for this.
-
I noticed the different icons--at first glance I'd guess it was to control screen brightness level?
Your comment on the .bwf format and the autosplit feature is a bit cryptic . . . anyway to confirm seamless splits will be a feature? Really that's the main thing I'm looking for; since I only use it as a bit bucket, the increased gain range, true 48V phantom, and faster transfer time (I use a card reader, anyway) don't matter to me much at all. Seamless splits, though, would likely make me pony up for this.
Hypothetically speaking would a less than 10ms gap be acceptable? How about 5 or 6ms?
J.T.
-
Hypothetically speaking would a less than 10ms gap be acceptable? How about 5 or 6ms?
I think there are three basic camps here:
<1> Only truly seamless will suffice, won't consider any other option
<2> I don't care if it's seamless as long as I can't hear it
<3> Split schmit...I'll make the break at an opportune time during the performance
So I think what you're really getting at with your question is the <2> group, and to satisfy them the split needs to be inaudible. However many ms that is...well...I don't know. It may depend in part on the source material. Obviously, <1> is ideal.
-
considering all the other recorders do it to the sample, anything else is basically a compromise.
youd need to go in there and edit out the 'pop', which is a waste of time. I noticed the different icons--at first glance I'd guess it was to control screen brightness level?
Your comment on the .bwf format and the autosplit feature is a bit cryptic . . . anyway to confirm seamless splits will be a feature? Really that's the main thing I'm looking for; since I only use it as a bit bucket, the increased gain range, true 48V phantom, and faster transfer time (I use a card reader, anyway) don't matter to me much at all. Seamless splits, though, would likely make me pony up for this.
Hypothetically speaking would a less than 10ms gap be acceptable? How about 5 or 6ms?
J.T.
-
I know a few of us proposed that they give a fix in the form of recording to two mono files. That should have bumped the split point up to 4GB total.
-
Seemless autosplit would be the only reason why I would upgrade. What other features really makes it worth while?
-
I agree with most everyone here - IMO for concert taping w/o seamless splits the upgraded version would make it no better as a bit-bucket than the original - Lets hope it has it.
-
Definite motivation for upgrade is for those using analog mic/line inputs.
Original Microtrack had way too much high frequency switching noise pollution into (especially left) channels. Using external preamp made this much less a problem.
Can't help but assume this issue has been more or less corrected for getting a more refined sounding A/D process at least through the line level if not also quieter mic level performance.
Time will tell after MT 2 version ships so I can do a technical review like one at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
-
::)
So...anyone think or know if they will continue to update the firmware for the first MT, and/or will the MT2 firmware be able to be loaded into the old MT1?
-
::)
So...anyone think or know if they will continue to update the firmware for the first MT, and/or will the MT2 firmware be able to be loaded into the old MT1?
I'm willing to make an uneducated guess that both are unlikely.
The MT1 seems dead and the MT2 seems like an attempt at an all-new product. The firmware is not likely to be backwards compatible.
-
That'd be my guess too. I hope I am wrong though.
-
::)
So...anyone think or know if they will continue to update the firmware for the first MT, and/or will the MT2 firmware be able to be loaded into the old MT1?
AFAIK there isn't really anything else left to fix on the original via firmware.
-
Being out of production (I think at this time) little support for older MT except repair or battery replacement service.
-
New info just came out - hope this helps ;D
The redesigned MicroTrack™ II brings even more professional features to the original high-fidelity mobile digital recorder that’s been embraced by audio and film professionals worldwide. With an extended input gain range, analog input limiter, 48V phantom power, faster file transfer rate and other enhancements, MicroTrack II delivers the highest quality mobile recording experience available today. Simply record WAV, BWF and MP3 files to CompactFlash or Microdrives through balanced line inputs or built-in microphone preamps—then drag and drop recordings to your computer via highspeed USB 2.0 for immediate editing or Web posting. MicroTrack II is perfect for a wide variety of applications including field recording, capturing live shows, songwriting, education and more.
Features
* 2-channel WAV, BWF and MP3 recording and playback > perfect for field recording, songwriting, training, education and worship
* New features include extended input gain range, analog input limiter and seamless recording of files beyond 2GB in size > enhanced performance
* Battery operated; storage via CompactFlash or microdrives > mobility and convenience
* Drag-and-drop file transfer to PC and Mac > upload and share your content in minutes
* Balanced ¼” TRS inputs with line inputs and 48V phantompowered mic preamps > professional-quality recording
* 2-channel WAV, BWF and MP3 recording and playback for pro recording, capturing live shows, songwriting, training, education, worship and more
* Immediate drag-and-drop file transfer to PC and Mac via high-speed USB 2.0
mini-connector
* Seamless recording of files greater than 2GB
* Easily add markers to BWF files
* Professional balanced ¼” TRS inputs capable of mic or line-level signals
* Extended input gain range
* Analog input limiter with bypass
* Separate left and right input level controls with signal and peak indicators
* Dual microphone preamps with 48V phantom power for studio microphones
* 1/8” TRS input with 5V power for use with stereo electret microphone (microphone included)
* S/PDIF coaxial input for digital transfers
* Monitoring via RCA line outputs or 1/8” stereo headphone output
* Monitor S/PDIF input via headphones while recording
* Customizable folders for organizing files
* Dedicated buttons for navigation, record, hold, pause, delete, menu, and power
* Storage via convenient CompactFlash or Microdrives (sold separately)
* Built-in CompactFlash speed test ensures optimal card performance
* Large LCD with backlight dimmer
* Output level control
* Hibernation mode
* Powered via USB, built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery or included power supply
* Includes electret t-shaped microphone, software for editing and file format conversion, carrying pouch, 1/8” stereo extension cable with lapel clip, power supply, and USB cable
Compatibility
* WAV
* BWF
* MP3
Minimum system requirements
* PC
o Windows XP (SP2)
o USB 1.1 or 2.0 port on the computer for connection and power charging
* Mac
o Mac OS X 10.3.9 or greater
o USB 1.1 or 2.0 port on the computer for connection and power charging
Specifications
* MP3 recording: 96 to 320kbps at 44.1 or 48kHz
* PCM recording: 16 or 24-bit at 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96kHz
* storage capacity: variable based on data rate and storage medium
Package Contents
* MicroTrack II mobile digital recorder
* Printed Quick Start Guide
* CD-ROM with documentation and editing software
* 1m USB cable (USB A to Mini B)
* 1m 1/8” headphone extension cable with lapel clip
* T-shaped electret microphone
* Earbuds
* Protective carrying case with mic pouch
* Power supply unit with USB connector
-
+T, thanks for posting that.
Three upgrades over MT I that I can see are a full 48v of phantom, seemless 2gb split and being able to monitor the recording(and presumably pass signal) while recording S/PDIF in.
Bummer that they kept the internal battery and I wonder how long it will run with phantom engaged, esp. with power hungry mics. As noted above, it will also be interesting to see if the pre-amp section is any less noisy than MT I.
-
Now we need MSRP. I would expect it to be around the same. also...
Hypothetically speaking would a less than 10ms gap be acceptable? How about 5 or 6ms?
that made me wary of market speak. it is perhaps a very fast split but still not perfect?
-
+T, thanks for posting that.
Three upgrades over MT I that I can see are a full 48v of phantom,
Wasn't 48v phantom power claimed on the first MT? ::) I'll but a new one if it's only $300.
-
+T, thanks for posting that.
Three upgrades over MT I that I can see are a full 48v of phantom,
Wasn't 48v phantom power claimed on the first MT? ::) I'll but a new one if it's only $300.
I don't recall ever seeing it in any written specs but those first images of the MT 1 clearly showed a 48v phantom power switch. I'm with you though, I'll believe it when I get it in my hands and it powers my mics.
-
Now we need MSRP. I would expect it to be around the same. also...
I think you're expecting too much. Since when does a 'new improved' version not carry a higher price tag?
Mark my words, it will retail for a price tag of something like $499, but sell for around $379 to $419 when it comes out, with $399 being the most popular price. Any more and people will object to too big of a price difference, any less and Microtrack would have no motivation to release the improvements, of course other than improving their product but since when does that motivate electronics manufacturers to action...never.
They can't go much higher and still be competitive with the R-09, but they absolutely won't price it at $300 because of the reasons I mentioned.
-
Wonder when edirol will release a digi version of the r09.. the r11.. (because the r10 just wouldn't have been enough)..
-
I know most folks around here use the MT with the digital input, but I think the "extended gain range" is a huge improvement. One of the main things that made the original MT unusable with the analog inputs was the fact that it overloaded very easily.
If only they had changed the battery requirement, it may have finally become the perfect bit-bucket.
-
+T, thanks for posting that.
Three upgrades over MT I that I can see are a full 48v of phantom,
Wasn't 48v phantom power claimed on the first MT? ::) I'll but a new one if it's only $300.
yes they did
so untill its out and tested i don't hold my breath on any of the improvements
-
Now tell me about trade-ins & I'm sold!
;D
-
TRADE IN??? I'll give you 50$ for your old one...
-
Wonder when edirol will release a digi version of the r09.. the r11.. (because the r10 just wouldn't have been enough)..
"Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven. "
+T for the Spinal Tap ref!
-
Now we need MSRP. I would expect it to be around the same. also...
I think you're expecting too much. Since when does a 'new improved' version not carry a higher price tag?
Mark my words, it will retail for a price tag of something like $499, but sell for around $379 to $419 when it comes out, with $399 being the most popular price. Any more and people will object to too big of a price difference, any less and Microtrack would have no motivation to release the improvements, of course other than improving their product but since when does that motivate electronics manufacturers to action...never.
They can't go much higher and still be competitive with the R-09, but they absolutely won't price it at $300 because of the reasons I mentioned.
An online store told me it will be cheaper than the R-09 and more than the H2 (retail price). So you'll find it listed as $300-400 on line soon. R-09 will be the most expensive one and I'm sure Edirol now got their thinking cap on for a new model.
-
Seamless splits at that price would make it a perfect bit bucket! Assuming, of course, that it is still "bit perfect."
-
$400 will buy you a nice pda that pretty much smokes the microtrack as a bit-bucket in almost every respect.
Seamless splits at that price would make it a perfect bit bucket! Assuming, of course, that it is still "bit perfect."
-
$400 will buy you a nice pda that pretty much smokes the microtrack as a bit-bucket in almost every respect.
Seamless splits at that price would make it a perfect bit bucket! Assuming, of course, that it is still "bit perfect."
Please elaborate. Are you talking about the coresound thing? That needs a PDA plus a plug in card, plus a disk or something to store the data. There are a lot of failure modes for such a setup. And it is not sold as a single product either -- you have to (find and) buy a PDA on your own. I like the "all in one" solutions a lot better.
Richard
-
If this thing (A) really has seemless splits (which I'm thinking it will) and (B) doesn't overload with mics, I'll be back on board. Otherwise, I'll keep waiting. I really need a small all in one unit for discreet taping situations. I wouldn't mind using it as a bit bucket for open taping as well (I'm sure my JB3's days are numbered).
-
Zzounds is showing an expected arrival date of Sept. 10 for more Microtracks. It does not specify that new version, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--MDOMICRO
-
Zzounds is showing an expected arrival date of Sept. 10 for more Microtracks. It does not specify that new version, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--MDOMICRO
Likely more of the Original MT model that have been factory refurbished as I would think no new MT1 production models are being produced at this time.
-
used pda = <$200
pdaudio card = $250 w/ activation of software
10x more reliable than the microtrack in my testing, you need to buy media for both the mt and the pda, and sd cards are pretty cheap right now.
6+ hours aon internal battery is huge.
its trivial to set up.
$400 will buy you a nice pda that pretty much smokes the microtrack as a bit-bucket in almost every respect.
Seamless splits at that price would make it a perfect bit bucket! Assuming, of course, that it is still "bit perfect."
Please elaborate. Are you talking about the coresound thing? That needs a PDA plus a plug in card, plus a disk or something to store the data. There are a lot of failure modes for such a setup. And it is not sold as a single product either -- you have to (find and) buy a PDA on your own. I like the "all in one" solutions a lot better.
Richard
-
UPDATED NEW INFO:
I emailed an authorized M-Audio seller the other day about MTII release date and this is his reply:
HI
Thank you for the e-mail. M-Audio is being tight lipped on this. I spoke to them yesterday and was told late october but that really is vague. My best guess is by winter NAMM in January.
Sincerely,
Steve Itule
AzProAudio
So it is very typical M-Audio postpone the release date (they did it for the MT before). M audio is trying to keep all this a secret.... (hope I'm not annoying them by exposing all their info well before their release date)
-
What a load of shit on not getting rid of the internal battery!! Will definitely make me think along the Korg lines now for my next low profile recorder...
:angry3: :angry2: :angry3: :angry2: :angry3:
Powered via USB, built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery or included power supply
:banging head:
-
What a load of shit on not getting rid of the internal battery!! Will definitely make me think along the Korg lines now for my next low profile recorder...
:angry3: :angry2: :angry3: :angry2: :angry3:
Powered via USB, built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery or included power supply
:banging head:
From what I understand, the Korg MR-1's internal battery doesn't power the device for very long either. Most, if not all, are using external power for that unit also.
-
What a load of shit on not getting rid of the internal battery!! Will definitely make me think along the Korg lines now for my next low profile recorder...
:angry3: :angry2: :angry3: :angry2: :angry3:
Powered via USB, built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery or included power supply
:banging head:
From what I understand, the Korg MR-1's internal battery doesn't power the device for very long either. Most, if not all, are using external power for that unit also.
I should have qualified my "not quite as low profile as an mt24/96" comment - I'd be looking at the bigger mr-1000 and I have been looking...
http://www.korg.com/mr/
Dimensions:
192(W) x 170(D) x 56(H) mm/7.56"(W) x 6.69"(D) x 2.20"(H)
Weight:
1.0 kg/2.20 lbs. (without batteries)
Power Supply:
Eight AA batteries (sold separately), Oxyride batteries, charged nickel metal-hydride batteries, or AC Adapter model – (adapter) 500405015300 & (3 prong cable) 600007300/KA310
12V 500mA Center Pin (+);
;D
-
M-Audio just give us a release date: Monday 22 Oct 2007 (knowing them they might postpone it again)
Here's a closer picture for everyone to see.
-
M-Audio just give us a release date: Monday 22 Oct 2007 (knowing them they might postpone it again)
Here's a closer picture for everyone to see.
Did they list a MSRP?
:)
-
Hi, nice to be here - this is my first post in this forum... sorry if it's not the appropriate forum to introduce myself, but I've been following this thread and I am very much looking forward to checking out the new Microtrack II when it finally comes out... Just wish they solved this battery issue; it would indeed make this unit the undisputed leader of its kind in its price range. Anybody that's going to get this unit got any ideas how they're going to do to overcome this?
-
Hi, nice to be here - this is my first post in this forum... sorry if it's not the appropriate forum to introduce myself, but I've been following this thread and I am very much looking forward to checking out the new Microtrack II when it finally comes out... Just wish they solved this battery issue; it would indeed make this unit the undisputed leader of its kind in its price range. Anybody that's going to get this unit got any ideas how they're going to do to overcome this?
Bienvenue (welcome). +T for your first post.
-
Hi, nice to be here - this is my first post in this forum... sorry if it's not the appropriate forum to introduce myself, but I've been following this thread and I am very much looking forward to checking out the new Microtrack II when it finally comes out... Just wish they solved this battery issue; it would indeed make this unit the undisputed leader of its kind in its price range. Anybody that's going to get this unit got any ideas how they're going to do to overcome this?
If past experience with powering MT1 is any indication of what to expect with MT2, then suggest considering information in this post/thread as likely to give some MT powering issue relief: http://taperssection.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=dc5cb19c3eae03a2a98a47d2a8b6b290&topic=85254.msg1154218#msg1154218 (http://taperssection.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=dc5cb19c3eae03a2a98a47d2a8b6b290&topic=85254.msg1154218#msg1154218)
-
Hi, nice to be here - this is my first post in this forum... sorry if it's not the appropriate forum to introduce myself, but I've been following this thread and I am very much looking forward to checking out the new Microtrack II when it finally comes out... Just wish they solved this battery issue; it would indeed make this unit the undisputed leader of its kind in its price range. Anybody that's going to get this unit got any ideas how they're going to do to overcome this?
welcome
i use a 4AA battery pack i got for $5
with the battery pack and the internal charged before each show i can get 4 shows easy
i never went over 4 shows just to be safe
other use a "iPod" external battery pack
others use a dvd battery with vr box (i do too when using my ua-5 at the same time)
there are lots of ways to run i, don;t let that be a issue to rather you buy one or not
-
Was searching around Markertek.com for some gadgets and look what pops up in one of my searches...
http://www.markertek.com/SearchProduct.asp?item=MICROTRACK%2
$299
I put one in my cart and it says "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally ship within 5 business days."
-
I put one in my cart and it says "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally ship within 5 business days."
Why does mine say "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally explode within 5 business days."
-
According to this link BWF files have a 4gb limitation. http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_274-chalmers.pdf
That would be one way to get around the 2gb limit. I am just curious about what settings people are recording to go over 2gb files. That is almost 2 hours at 24/48. are you doing 24/96 or just bands that play really long sets?
Not sure if that BWF file type upgrade is hardware related or something they could include in a firmware package for the version 1.
The solution to the brickwalling issue is a good upgrade.
The internal battery problem is easily defeated by the myriad of external power packs available. I ran into an old Nak 550 taper friend at a show the other night and he could not believe something this size has 1/4" jacks.
-
I put one in my cart and it says "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally ship within 5 business days."
Why does mine say "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally explode within 5 business days."
A lone incident when the MT in question was powering an external microdrive if memory serves me... YOUR MT WILL NOT EXPLODE...
:sick:
-
Was searching around Markertek.com for some gadgets and look what pops up in one of my searches...
http://www.markertek.com/SearchProduct.asp?item=MICROTRACK%2
$299
I put one in my cart and it says "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally ship within 5 business days."
The box in which You clicked 'add to my cart' also said 'arriving soon'. Just so you don't hold your breath too long. hehe
-
what is the largest CF card people have used with the MT's? Someone on another board had mentioned they had used 8GB. Is that possible?
-
what is the largest CF card people have used with the MT's? Someone on another board had mentioned they had used 8GB. Is that possible?
Yes - trust me... Haven't tried a 16 GB card yet but I'll bet that it will work too.
:headphones:
-
what is the largest CF card people have used with the MT's? Someone on another board had mentioned they had used 8GB. Is that possible?
Yes - trust me... Haven't tried a 16 GB card yet but I'll bet that it will work too.
:headphones:
Do you have to hit the record button everytime you hit the 2GB mark?
-
$300!!!
I'm getting one!
The FR-2 is just too big sometimes.
Has anyone tried running the MT2 48-phantom with the built-in pre?
Must here this...
-
what is the largest CF card people have used with the MT's? Someone on another board had mentioned they had used 8GB. Is that possible?
Yes - trust me... Haven't tried a 16 GB card yet but I'll bet that it will work too.
:headphones:
Do you have to hit the record button everytime you hit the 2GB mark?
The old MT had an autosplit but was not seamless, the MT-II should be seamless. I don't believe the old one is even available new anymore.
$300!!!
I'm getting one!
The FR-2 is just too big sometimes.
Has anyone tried running the MT2 48-phantom with the built-in pre?
Must here this...
It won't be out until sometime in Oct, so I gather no-one has tried that out yet ;).
-
The internal battery problem is easily defeated by the myriad of external power packs available.
What is the voltage that the battery pack needs to be?
-
what is the largest CF card people have used with the MT's? Someone on another board had mentioned they had used 8GB. Is that possible?
Yes - trust me... Haven't tried a 16 GB card yet but I'll bet that it will work too.
:headphones:
Do you have to hit the record button everytime you hit the 2GB mark?
Autosplit or you manually had to start a new file before you hit the 2 GB mark on the "old" MT - BUT IT WAS NOT A SEAMLESS SPLIT It took 6-7 seconds to start recording a new file- You could manually do the split and not lose any music if you chose a lull in the action to do the split - I did not like that - As advertised the new MT II will not require you to do this.
The Full Compass price on the new MT II is:
$262.50 + shipping - M-Audio MicroTrack II Portable CompactFlash / Microdrive Recorder (Usually ships in 2-3 weeks)
Could be delayed it M-Audio does not release on schedule.
-
I am going to wait until people have confirmed the seamless split. What do you power it with? What is the voltage that it runs off of? Does anyone know what the power consumption is?
-
The internal battery problem is easily defeated by the myriad of external power packs available.
What is the voltage that the battery pack needs to be?
I have one of these and it works great:
Macally External Li-ion Battery
Output Voltage: DC 5V
Output Current: 1000mA max.
Dimension: 2.4" x 4" x 0.6"
Net Weight: 11.3 oz.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16855998033&ATT=55-998-033&CMP=KNC-overturesmx&ATT=product
-
External MT Battery Solutions:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,89912.msg1198004.html#msg1198004
-
External MT Battery Solutions:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,89912.msg1198004.html#msg1198004
+T for all your answers. You have helped me tremendously.
-
External MT Battery Solutions:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,89912.msg1198004.html#msg1198004
+T for all your answers. You have helped me tremendously.
You're very welcome.
:)
-
Yesterday the sweetwater site said "shipping in October" Today the site says "shipping in November"?
-
Yesterday the sweetwater site said "shipping in October" Today the site says "shipping in November"?
Whatever time it takes M-audio to ship, my main concern is it's well worth the wait ::)
-
Yesterday the sweetwater site said "shipping in October" Today the site says "shipping in November"?
Whatever time it takes M-audio to ship, my main concern is it's well worth the wait ::)
You'll be blown away.
-
Yesterday the sweetwater site said "shipping in October" Today the site says "shipping in November"?
Whatever time it takes M-audio to ship, my main concern is it's well worth the wait ::)
You'll be blown away.
Why? I'd be happy with satisfactory. I can't see how they could blow me away...hopefully I'm wrong. I'd really like to go with the MT II because of the digi-in and use of CF cards (so I can use the same thing in my camera and recorder). But it absolutely needs a better mic in, for those extra stealthy situations.
-
I think it was a subtle reference to the exploding MT incident ;)
-
I think it was a subtle reference to the exploding MT incident ;)
Oh, yeah... :yack:
I'll add that to my requirements. No BOOM.
-
I think it was a subtle reference to the exploding MT incident ;)
Oh, yeah... :yack:
I'll add that to my requirements. No BOOM.
With millions of products using these lithium secondary type batteries, and the 'incidents' we've had or heard about in the past two years (I remember it started making news with after-market cell phone batteries), the manufacturers and the those using them have had a serious awakening to the real associated dangers/issues of making and using lithium batteries.
While it remains a 'MURPHY' situation with anything that can happen, will at sometimes happen given time, I feel we can safely assume 'incidents' are going to be happening far less frequently.
-
Still, the stakes are mighty high and it kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term 'crotch rocket'...
-
Still, the stakes are mighty high and it kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term 'crotch rocket'...
I have NEVER had a HEAT problem with my MT - do you have one and any personal EXPLOSION experiences or actually know anyone that has ever had a MT "explode"? Every time I see someone make this "explosion" comment concerning MT's I wonder about what experience they have had to make this comment...
btw -I have a non-exploding sd722 too
???
-
Still, the stakes are mighty high and it kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term 'crotch rocket'...
I have NEVER had a HEAT problem with my MT - do you have one and any personal EXPLOSION experiences or actually know anyone that has ever had a MT "explode"? Every time I see someone make this "explosion" comment concerning MT's I wonder about what experience they have had to make this comment...
btw -I have a non-exploding sd722 too
???
Though it looks like the pictures are now gone, a MT did, in fact, explode:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,64648.0.html
-
Still, the stakes are mighty high and it kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term 'crotch rocket'...
I have NEVER had a HEAT problem with my MT - do you have one and any personal EXPLOSION experiences or actually know anyone that has ever had a MT "explode"? Every time I see someone make this "explosion" comment concerning MT's I wonder about what experience they have had to make this comment...
btw -I have a non-exploding sd722 too
???
Though it looks like the pictures are now gone, a MT did, in fact, explode:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,64648.0.html
I know about the SOLITARY incident - Has it happened more than once, not that I am aware of...
;)
Read the entire thread that you referenced and you'll see comments such as these about this incident:
Quote from: Brian Skalinder on August 18, 2006, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Freelunch on August 18, 2006, 12:37:00 PM
One exploding microtrack in this tiny taping community is statistically VERY significant.
But the fact that it happened within our tiny taping community isn't really relevant, except as kind of a shocker to those who use the device. It could have happened within any community. Far more meaningful and useful stats might include the much broader user base: how many exploding MTs out of how many total sold worldwide? sold in the US? How do the MTs stats around exploding batteries compare to other devices and batteries of its kind, and the quality standards of M-Audio and/or its battery manufacturers and generally accepted rates of failure within the industry? Etc.
Good points for sure... this very well could have been an unfortunate fluke, relatively speaking.
Dell recalls 4.1 million batteries:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/laptops--desktops/flaming-laptops-prompt-massive-recall/2006/08/15/1155407776670.html
-
Although it is a little scary...
I carry a li-ion battery around with me everyday...inside my cell phone. Also have probably 4 or 5 other lion batteries around too.
M-Audio was certainly aware of this incident. I never heard of any other incident like this, which is strange actually. I mean, if it happened to a TS.com member, you'd think it would have happened to atleast a few others around the world.
I'd have to hope that after a year of tech advances, that they would have a new battery for the MT 2496. Although it's the same shape/size, I bet it's a higher capacity. If not, that's just poor business on their part as this is an easy upgrade to motivate people to purchase the new MT.
-
my MT gets HOTTTTTT everytime i use it
hot enough that i leave the lid on my bag open and you don't want to hold it in your hand after a show for a long time
-
my MT gets HOTTTTTT everytime i use it
hot enough that i leave the lid on my bag open and you don't want to hold it in your hand after a show for a long time
for "low pro" my MT resides in a t-shirt pocket and it gets warm but not HOT - I run line in from dpa mma6000 > compact flash in the recorder- NO SWEAT!!
YMMV
^-^
-
i'd never put a MT in a pocket. jeez if my nipples burnt off or my nutsac!!!!!
shame they didnt add the removable battery option as i was almost going to get one if it did.
-
i'd never put a MT in a pocket. jeez if my nipples burnt off or my nutsac!!!!!
shame they didnt add the removable battery option as i was almost going to get one if it did.
ABSOLUTELY NOT A PROBLEM in my t-shirt pocket!!! EVER...
::)
-
I put one in my cart and it says "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally ship within 5 business days."
Why does mine say "# Item MICROTRACK-II will generally explode within 5 business days."
A lone incident when the MT in question was powering an external microdrive if memory serves me... YOUR MT WILL NOT EXPLODE...
:sick:
It was not powering an external microdrive. the drive was internal and, in use per the specs of the MT. Actually, the device was simply being powered on after a normal charging cycle.
Isolated incident? Perhaps.
But I don't keep any Li-Ion batts nears my balls.
I would buy this product if the battery were user-removable.
-
I'd have to hope that after a year of tech advances, that they would have a new battery for the MT 2496. Although it's the same shape/size, I bet it's a higher capacity.
not likely. The charge density of li-ion approached its peak several years ago, with no major advancements since then.
The best they could do is reduce power consumption of that hog.
My pda can record for 6 hours on a 2200 mah battery, while running a full OS! no excuse for a dedicated device like the microtrack to get any less than 4 hours when using only digi in
-
Sluggish ? Never really noticed, YMMV of course ...
-
Sluggish ? Never really noticed, YMMV of course ...
Hell yes it's SLOW! Push a button on the older MT, and remember to take a breath waiting up to a few seconds for getting any response, or so it seems. I've gotten used to this, but a deck like the R-09 can spoil you for being very responsive in comparison.
-
My pda can record for 6 hours on a 2200 mah battery, while running a full OS! no excuse for a dedicated device like the microtrack to get any less than 4 hours when using only digi in
On the topic of odd behavior from dedicated devices there's also no excuse for how sluggish the mt is when you navigate the menu items (even while not recording).. Wtf is it doing that makes it so unresponsive to user input? What is broken in their input event loop? Other devices like the jb3, r09 & archos all respond instantly.
If anything, this is one complaint I have with the MT.. the feedback from a buttonpush is slow to the point where your not really sure if you actually pressed it..
-
has anyone else find the MT to be on the 'flaky' side. In other wods, sometimes it just hangs or freaks out in an unreproduceable manner?
-
there is little question now that it has been a few years and a 2nd revision of the product...
the MT sucks.
it can work...but even when it does...it sucks.
-
Sucks ? I think the early firmwares sucked, but I've been running rock solid for awhile now, again YMMV.
I think my only complaint right now is the internal battery...
Oh and I got the tyedyes Nick, pretty sweet stuff 8)
-
yea, sucks.
- no battery life to speak of, and USB power is a PITA
- no room around the jacks on the bottom
- TRS jacks suck
- buttons are unresponsive (slow OS)
- never lived up to their claims
- sucks.
:-)
glad you liked the dyes.
-
Nothing like a good ole tracker bash thread, oh wait, no.
Please go bash the MT elsewhere in your jb3, r09, archos, 722, etc threads. The limitations have been covered earlier.
-
yes sir
-
Nothing like a good ole tracker bash thread, oh wait, no.
And M-Audio deserves every bit of the critique.
Anyone else recall how M-Audio published and represented the raw specs of the audio chipset as the audio specs of the microtracker? Those fantasy specs were really, really good - comparable to the best hardware available (v3/722/etc). Tell me that M-Audio didn't know better. "Lie" and "deception" are words that come to mind.
As M-Audio tries to hype their replacement product it is important for new potential users to know that a lot of folks who bought the original mt in good faith were very disappointed. Not only in the product but in the way m-audio over-hyped and over-sold and then didn't really fix many of the greatest flaws. Their communication with customers during that time was TERRIBLE. The product Q/A was hugely pathetic ("note to self - actually use new product for at least 5 minutes before release").
Even with the mt as it was, M-audio could have done a much better job with customers. They would have a lot more credibility if they'd been more honest about the product. But since they went the hype route instead, they really lost a lot of credibility as a company and brand.
So.. of course M-audio would like to forget how they handled the situation with the original MT and the customers who bought it.
Nick, a couple missing from your list:
noisy analog section
hangs if digi signal lost before file save
-
On the other hand, the MT2496 is the only 24-bit bit-bucket at a very low price point and quite obviously a purely consumer-level unit, so to expect top-notch features, performance, tech support, and on-going product improvement isn't exactly realistic, despite the hype. Oh, and it works very well as a bit-bucket for a lot of people.
-
small bit bucket was all I was looking for. Every problem I have had, only a couple, were my fault. The biggest thing the new one does for me is the 2gb split.
-
Like I've posted before, the MT started out as a good to excellent choice of circuit components and adequate software (with the upgrades) to get the job done very well for low cost.
But the big bites out of the analog performance (the real sucky part for me) was the circuit board design (layout/trace paths/shielding) that polluted the product with more than a reasonable amount of toxic high frequency switching noise from the power supply sections.
I fault M-audio by not tossing out the many thousands of PCB already purchased for the estimated life of the first series of production runs and re-engineer (refine) the finalized product to reduce if not eliminate this one shortcoming.
Hoping the MT2 is just that refinement coming at maybe a bit too late a date for some ???
-
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MicroTrackII-main.html
-
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MicroTrackII-main.html
Aweee shit, it's for real now.
-
any word on seamless breaks?
-
any word on seamless breaks?
"new features include extended input gain range, analog input limiter and seamless recording of files beyond 2GB in size"
Taken from: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MicroTrackII-main.html
-
why the fuck can they not make the MT -v1 do seamless recordings?
-
Because then you wouldn't buy the v2.
-
Because then you wouldn't buy the v2.
Well shit, I would buy the V2 just cuz its black y'all... Cant they see that?
-
why the fuck can they not make the MT -v1 do seamless recordings?
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,88437.msg1186406.html#msg1186406
-
The MT II specifications say MIC-IN provides 5V plugin-power.
If this is true, battery-boxes would no longer be needed as 5V are sufficient also for high SPL regarding distortion capability as Chris Church measured...no distortion-difference between 5V and 9V powering.
My DPA 4061 would be glad too and for stealthers 1 part less to worry about where to hide all the stuff ;).
-
The MT II specifications say MIC-IN provides 5V plugin-power.
If this is true, battery-boxes would no longer be needed as 5V are sufficient also for high SPL regarding distortion capability as Chris Church measured...no distortion-difference between 5V and 9V powering.
My DPA 4061 would be glad too and for stealthers 1 part less to worry about where to hide all the stuff ;).
depends on how it sounds though
i know some people who go 1/4 in from their 1/8 battery box because the 1/8 jack sucks ass compaired to the 1/4
but you are right, it would be sweet not to need a extra piece of gear
-
The MT II specifications say MIC-IN provides 5V plugin-power.
If this is true, battery-boxes would no longer be needed as 5V are sufficient also for high SPL regarding distortion capability as Chris Church measured...no distortion-difference between 5V and 9V powering.
My DPA 4061 would be glad too and for stealthers 1 part less to worry about where to hide all the stuff ;).
depends on how it sounds though
i know some people who go 1/4 in from their 1/8 battery box because the 1/8 jack sucks ass compaired to the 1/4
but you are right, it would be sweet not to need a extra piece of gear
That is the main thing, not having another piece of gear to carry, and with a battery box, not worrying about that battery. It will last forever, but you always worry when it will run out of juice.
I've been running a lot of my mics directly off plug in power on the Edirol R09. That has only 2.5v of power, so you have to be careful about the circuit, but 5v of power is great. That would work with any mic, including DPA 406x.
Richard
-
some dimerecordings were made with dpa406x and r09 plugin-power only and they sound crap for dpa recordings. you can here the mics suffered severely from underpowering.
-
The MT II specifications say MIC-IN provides 5V plugin-power.
If this is true, battery-boxes would no longer be needed as 5V are sufficient also for high SPL regarding distortion capability as Chris Church measured...no distortion-difference between 5V and 9V powering.
My DPA 4061 would be glad too and for stealthers 1 part less to worry about where to hide all the stuff ;).
NOTHING NEW HERE (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif)
As mentioned in my MT1 review, the deck has always had 5 volts likely good for 4060 series mic powering at the minijack input.
See review at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
Got a MT2 on pre-order for updating the MT1 review with MT2 comparisons of noise, input ability, and other cool stuff. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a050.gif)
-
The MT II specifications say MIC-IN provides 5V plugin-power.
If this is true, battery-boxes would no longer be needed as 5V are sufficient also for high SPL regarding distortion capability as Chris Church measured...no distortion-difference between 5V and 9V powering.
My DPA 4061 would be glad too and for stealthers 1 part less to worry about where to hide all the stuff ;).
NOTHING NEW HERE (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif)
As mentioned in my MT1 review, the deck has always had 5 volts likely good for 4060 series mic powering at the minijack input.
See review at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
Got a MT2 on pre-order for updating the MT1 review with MT2 comparisons of noise, input ability, and other cool stuff. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a050.gif)
Good to know. Please check the autosplit first.
-
NOTHING NEW HERE (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif)
As mentioned in my MT1 review, the deck has always had 5 volts likely good for 4060 series mic powering at the minijack input.
See review at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
Got a MT2 on pre-order for updating the MT1 review with MT2 comparisons of noise, input ability, and other cool stuff. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a050.gif)
Good to know. Please check the autosplit first.
And second, check with a 16GB card. Two or three of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211170) are almost cheaper than on OTG drive for storage.
-
NOTHING NEW HERE (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif)
As mentioned in my MT1 review, the deck has always had 5 volts likely good for 4060 series mic powering at the minijack input.
See review at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
Got a MT2 on pre-order for updating the MT1 review with MT2 comparisons of noise, input ability, and other cool stuff. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a050.gif)
Good to know. Please check the autosplit first.
And second, check with a 16GB card. Two or three of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211170) are almost cheaper than on OTG drive for storage.
While I do have Sandisk Ultra II 8 GIG, really wasn't thinking of buying 16 GIG.
Maybe assume seamless split, if working at all on MT2, should work consistently on any card >4 GIG? :hmmm:
-
NOTHING NEW HERE (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a045.gif)
As mentioned in my MT1 review, the deck has always had 5 volts likely good for 4060 series mic powering at the minijack input.
See review at: www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
Got a MT2 on pre-order for updating the MT1 review with MT2 comparisons of noise, input ability, and other cool stuff. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/figuren/a050.gif)
Good to know. Please check the autosplit first.
And second, check with a 16GB card. Two or three of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211170) are almost cheaper than on OTG drive for storage.
While I do have Sandisk Ultra II 8 GIG, really wasn't thinking of buying 16 GIG.
Maybe assume seamless split, if working at all on MT2, should work consistently on any card >4 GIG? :hmmm:
you are prob right that if the split works correctly it will on all cards
however not all cards might work or work correctly in the MT, like now for example
some cards do not read or read the correct amount of space and or read full when empty
-
Quote from CliveStaples
[/quote]
And second, check with a 16GB card. Two or three of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211170) are almost cheaper than on OTG drive for storage.
[/quote]
No way.
Three of them add up to $330 for 48 GB of storage. I bought a Hyperdrive and put in a 160GB drive in it for $300.
-
Quote from CliveStaples
And second, check with a 16GB card. Two or three of these (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211170) are almost cheaper than on OTG drive for storage.
[/quote]
No way.
Three of them add up to $330 for 48 GB of storage. I bought a Hyperdrive and put in a 160GB drive in it for $300.
[/quote]
True, but I'd trust the storage space of the CF Cards 100x more than I would any ole HD. Those hyperdrives are nice and all, I was going to buy one awhile back actually, but the added safety and no moving parts of the cf cards, not to mention how much smaller cf cards are taking up space compared to a hyperdrive or a similar OTG drive, has them as the clear winner in my book. I mean, how much space do we really need storage space-wise ??? I would imagine (2) 16GB CF Cards or (4) 8 GB CF Cards for the non-7xx users would be PLENTY for almost w hole 3-day festival(RUNNING 24/48 tho), that is unless you're archiving the festival professionally, or you plan on archiving for yourself and record EVER band, and then you'd prolly only need another 8GB card, that would get youn up to 40GB, because I caqnt see ANYONE recording more than 40GB, unless youre doing 24/96, which I think is useless recording PA systems IMO. Since the 7xx units now record in FLAC Format, I see(personally) NO NEED to have more than (2) 8GB CF Cards. Thats just about 32GB of storage. I ONLY record in 24/48 anyway, so this is PLENTY for me. I would occasionally record in 24/96 for unamped stuff or bluegreass or similar music, because recording in 24/96 for loud PA music is pointless IMO and not worth DOUBLE the space in the end :) Just my opinion of course! That should take care of just about ANY festival I can handle. Thats almost PLENTY for a 3-day festival like All Good or Moedown :) If I need any more recording space, I can switch recording from the cf card to the INHDD :) Another HUGE benefit of recording to cf cards is the battery power it saves as well. On a 6000mah 722 battery, while recording to the INHDD or BOTH the cf card+INHDD(while recording to the INHDD in any way/shape/form) I can get about 6 hrs if I'm pushing it, safely 5 hrs tho. However, if I switch to JUST writing to the cf card and shutting down the INHDD completely, I can get about 8hrs pushing it on that same 6000mah 722 battery, 7hrs safely tho. So saving a whole 2 hours just about on a single 6000mah battery is HUGE for me :)
So for someone who has a 7xx box, all I would need is (2) 8GB CF Cards which would equal out to around 32GB of storage space since the 7xx boxes now write to FLAC format in just one of the 3 recording drive options(CF Card/INHDD/EXHDD). Normally the 7xx units can write to ALL 3 recording platforms while writing WAVS. I usually write to BOTH the INHDD+CF Card for maximum redundancy and since I havents ent it back to SD for the Hardware 2.0 upgrade yet. But anyway, for festivals, the FLAC FORMAT recording option is a LIFESAVER :) I can write to FLAC on the CF Card for festivals and save battery power writing to the CF Card (compared to writing to the INHDD) and save storage space while writing in FLAC. Thats a great combo IMO ;D
Anyway, damnit, I get sidetracked SOOO EASILY and start talking about my own gear thoughts and shit like that and ALWAYS highjack the thread when I dont mean to. Anyway, about the MTII, this baby looks PROMISING. So how was the ADC in the MT I ??? Would it be a decent sounding rig if I ran a pair of my mics>Preamp>MT II ya think ??? Or is teh ADC crappy and Id be better off getting an R-9 ??? I would LOVE to get a small 24-bit recorder along the lines of either the MT II or the R-9. I kind of trust the R-9 more right off the bat just because of the MT I's failures when it was initially released. I know from ts.com that most of the big bugs were wrinkled out over time and newer firmwares tho, and in the end, the MT I was running very smoothly except for the sealmess split thing :) o that does lead me to believe the MT II should be just fine right out of the box unlike the MT I was when it was released. So, the MT II is DEFINITELY a contender, and I like it better simply because it records to CF Cards rather than what the R-9 records to(I forget what the R-9 records to at the moment. Something like SDHC cards or something like that, right?) Anyway, whats different with the MT II compared to the MT I ??? Any hardware differences? Like does the MT II still have TRS_1/4" combo Inputs? Does it still have a USB Powering jack and a Digi Coax Input? Are there ANY hardware changes? I know it is SUPPOSEDLY able to do SEAMLESS SPLITS on cards bigger than 2GB, so HOPEFULLY that works perfectly and that will be a DREAM come true for ALOT of tapers in this world :) The R-9 is TINY tho, and the ADC of teh R-9 was preferred over the V3's in a blind test comp :) So that has me leaning towards the R-9 simply because of its good ADC since I'll be using this just to plug out of SBD's when the opportunity arises. I will be getting another all-in-one to run with my second pair of mics so this is JUST for SBD patches and the VERY RARE times I patch from another taper(which happens about once every 5 years :) I manily just did that on Phish tour to have 2 sources for ever show ).
Anyway, Id love to hear some of your opinions on the MT I's ADC and functionality after the newer firmwares have made it pretty damn stable :) I bet alot of you wish you could just trade in your MT I's and pay like an extra $50 bucks and get an MT II, huh? ;D
Damn, that link to that A-Data 16GB CF Card is DIRT CHEAP ;D I should get one of those for my 722 FO SURE. The 7xx units aren't picky AT ALL with what cf cards they like, so I'm almost 100% certain that card would work in my 722 :) Damn, I remember when a 4GB CF Card was like $400.00. When I was getting ready to move away from my JB3 and move to something more reliable and something that wrote to CF Cards back in February 2006, a decent Sandisk or RiData 4GB CF Card was a WHOPPING $400.00 dollars :) Thats CRAZY how much theyve come down in price. Heck, I got a USED MINT condition 8GB RiData Pro 150x CF Card back in September 2006 and it was only $150.00/Shipped from the seller on ts.com, so they had already fallen THAT MUCH since the 6 months earlier when I was researching CF Card prices back in February 2006. I would imagine that even the Sandisk/RiData/Kingston 16GB Cards will be almost as that A-Data is before the end of the year. If not by the beginning of 2008, I bet by summer 2008 that even the more reputable card makers like Kingston/Sandisk/RiData will eb MUCHO CHEAPER than they are now. AS SOON as the 32GB Cards come out, its all over :) The (4GB), (8GB), (16GB) Cards will be DIRT CHEAP by then. It will definitely be a tapers dream come true :) I will wait until the 32GB cards come out so I can buy either another 8GB or my first 16GB cf card dirt cheap. 100 for 16gb of data on a cf card with no moving parts and saves me battery life, is a CLEAR winner in my book. Thanks for that link bro!
-
The A/D in the Microtrack is not very good, but it is the godawful preamp in the damn thing that really limits it for anything more than a bit bucket. I would be interested to hear if M-Audio has made any improvements in this regard with a new chip or anything like that. SBD > MT does not sound good at all, IMHO.
I am currently sans recorder and waiting to hear how things shake out. If the MT II has the same limitations as the MT I, I am going to get a Tascam HD-P2, even as a bit bucket, simply because it will have the functionality of a "real" recorder when getting SBD patches and such.
-
The A/D in the Microtrack is not very good, but it is the godawful preamp in the damn thing that really limits it for anything more than a bit bucket. I would be interested to hear if M-Audio has made any improvements in this regard with a new chip or anything like that. SBD > MT does not sound good at all, IMHO.
Because of the switching noise and lousy PCB layout design insid MT1, very difficult to say the designers choice of "A/D" inside was a shortcoming as it was NEVER allowed full clean performance with all that interference going on. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/muede/o045.gif)
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/muede/o060.gif) Of course using an external preamplifier, especially one with very low output impedance (high drive current ability) did help squash at least the majority of this internal noise to sound very good to me, the internal A/D was still not free of switching noise pollution effects to more or less audible degree.
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/a015.gif) Let's wait to see, as most of us hope, the MT2 is more fully engineered this time around to be a bit less quirky slow, and be finally free of high frequency power supply noises. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/d015.gif)
-
The A/D in the Microtrack is not very good, but it is the godawful preamp in the damn thing that really limits it for anything more than a bit bucket. I would be interested to hear if M-Audio has made any improvements in this regard with a new chip or anything like that. SBD > MT does not sound good at all, IMHO.
Because of the switching noise and lousy PCB layout design insid MT1, very difficult to say the designers choice of "A/D" inside was a shortcoming as it was NEVER allowed full clean performance with all that interference going on. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/muede/o045.gif)
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/muede/o060.gif) Of course using an external preamplifier, especially one with very low output impedance (high drive current ability) did help squash at least the majority of this internal noise to sound very good to me, the internal A/D was still not free of switching noise pollution effects to more or less audible degree.
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/a015.gif) Let's wait to see, as most of us hope, the MT2 is more fully engineered this time around to be a bit less quirky slow, and be finally free of high frequency power supply noises. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/d015.gif)
What is the latest word on the shipping date for the MT2?
::)
-
that link to that A-Data 16GB CF Card is DIRT CHEAP ;D I should get one of those for my 722 FO SURE.
Hey Bean, one of the reviews posted on newegg specifically mentions using it in the SD 702, so your 722 will probably take it.
Also, to expand on your other comments, I attend an annual 5-day festival and recorded 25 hours of music (15 GB+ at 16/44.1) last time. At 24/48, that would be over 30 GB; at 24/88.2, more than 60 GB. If the MT2 pans out and uses all 16 GB of a CF card without incident, 48 GB would probably be enough to record a mix of different bit/sample rates depending on the artist or better sounding stages.
As for cost, a 60 GB HyperDrive SPACE (http://www.hypershop.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27) is $240. Two cards do cost less, and I don't need 60 GB of storage. Could 16 GB cards drop to $80 by next summer? I think so.
-
that link to that A-Data 16GB CF Card is DIRT CHEAP ;D I should get one of those for my 722 FO SURE.
Hey Bean, one of the reviews posted on newegg specifically mentions using it in the SD 702, so your 722 will probably take it.
This card will work fine with the 722. I've been using one for about two months with mine, for a redundant back up of my recordings. No problems at all.
-
that link to that A-Data 16GB CF Card is DIRT CHEAP ;D I should get one of those for my 722 FO SURE.
Hey Bean, one of the reviews posted on newegg specifically mentions using it in the SD 702, so your 722 will probably take it.
Also, to expand on your other comments, I attend an annual 5-day festival and recorded 25 hours of music (15 GB+ at 16/44.1) last time. At 24/48, that would be over 30 GB; at 24/88.2, more than 60 GB. If the MT2 pans out and uses all 16 GB of a CF card without incident, 48 GB would probably be enough to record a mix of different bit/sample rates depending on the artist or better sounding stages.
As for cost, a 60 GB HyperDrive SPACE (http://www.hypershop.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27) is $240. Two cards do cost less, and I don't need 60 GB of storage. Could 16 GB cards drop to $80 by next summer? I think so.
OR you could record @24-Bit/48kHz and if recording about 30hrs of music, youd need ONLY 30GB of space since 24/48 yields about 1GB/HR. I routinely record about 30-35 hrs at the 2 big festivals I do every summer(All Good and moedown) and I record at 24/48. And that is TAPING MY ASS OFF. That is QUITE the workout recording that much and thats not even recording EVERYTHING at the festival. I usually record that much just Friday/Saturday to be 100% honest. Without archiving the WHOLE festival, I would say that 95% of tapers would be just fine with 40GB of space if recording at 24/48 or lower :) Well, the 722 has a stock 40GB INHDD in it, and I ALWAYS have at least SOME(3-4GB) of space left over, if that much. If you still want to record in 24/88.2, then thats totally YOUR preference, but unless recording bluegrass/acoustic/unamplified music, I personally see NO NEED to record at any sample rate higher than 48k. I personally record at 24-Bit/48kHz because I ONLY record amplified, loud PA music, and see no benefit to recording at any higher sample rate. The extra(DOUBLE@24/96) space and time and effort that it takes in post production that recording at 24/88.2 or 24/96, is simply not worth it for me. Nor do I hear ANY difference at 24/48 versus 24/96 :) I think 24-Bit/44.1kHz is just fine for recording loud, PA-driven music to be 100% honest, because after all, as we all know, the REAL quality difference is jumping from 16-Bits to 24-Bits :) BUT, recording at 24/44.1k means that you HAVE TO make a DVD-Video disc to enjoy 24-Bit in the DVD-Player world. 24/48 can be made into DVD-Audio discs as well as DVD-Video discs. I *BELIEVE* that 24/48 and 24/96 are ONLY for DVD-Audio discs. I do believe that 24/44.1k and 24/48 and 24/88.2 and 24/96 can ALL be done with DVD-Video discs tho. If that isnt the way it goes then I have it backwards :)
Anyway, I was just running some tests with recording to FLAC with the 722 onto my 8GB CF Card. Well, my tests were somewhat disappointing to say the least. When my 8GB card is freshly formatted and there is 100% complete empty space on my cf card, the 722 shows that the 8GB card can record 16hrs of audio on that same 8GB CF Card because its recording to FLAC(which SHOULD save about 50% of space) on the card. Well, realistically, that would be GRAND. BUT, REALISTICALLY, the card only records about 9-10hrs MAX instead of the 16hrs the card initially reads when 100% empty. I dont really care, because an extra couple hrs on the 8GB card is better than nothing, but its not worth it recording to FLAC with the 7xx series JUST YET. It wouldn't be such a huge deal if the counter telling you how much time is left for available recording on the CF Card/INHDD/EXHDD actually told you the CORRECT time available when recording to FLAC. Like I said, the counter reads that 16hrs is available for recording to FLAC on my 8GB CF Card, and I MIGHT have gotten 9-10hrs MAX on the 8GB Card at 24/48 :( The extra battery drain from writing and encoding FLAC on-the-fly is REALLY not worth it. My 6000mah 722 battery only recorded about 2hrs 30mins onto my 8GB CF Card while writing to FLAC. That is HORRIBLE. Normally, I can get about 7 hrs safely writing WAV to my 8GB CF Card with that same 6000mah battery. So writing to WAV is the CLEAR WINNER until SD works the bugs out when writing to FLAC.
And FWIW, I know you all have mentioned that the A-Data 16GB CF Card works well in the 7xx units. Well, not to sound too arrogant, but expected nothing less. EVERY CF Card seems to work GREAT in the 7xx units. NO matter what size or manufacturer or whatever. The 7xx units are not picky AT ALL in regards to what type of CF Cards they'll use. Thats just ANOTHER kickass thing that the 7xx units have over the other CF Recorders that are priced lower than the 7xx are. Hell, the Tascam HD-P2 wont even accept 16GB CF Cards. Thats a HUGE downfall for the HDP2 IMO. If it cant record to any cards bigger than 8GB, then its def something Tascam needs to try and fix IMMEDIATELY. Because CF Cards are only going to get BIGGER and BIGGER, and if Tascam and the HDP2 cant keep up, then they'll eventually get left behind and considered obsolete and its WAYYY TOOO early in the CF Card game for that....Hopefully, Tascam can just have a firmware update to fix the 16GB CF Card issue QUICKLY. Supposedly, the HDP2 can record to the 16GB CF Cards, but they can ONLY record up to 8GB on them, which is pretty useless if you ask me. So your only options are to buy 8GB or smaller CF Cards, which isnt a huge deal AT ALL IMO, but they def need to address and FIX the issue so that the HDP2 can write to 16GB or larger CF Cards in the near future :) So what Im getting at is this: The SD 7xx units are TOTALLY KICKASS and rule yinz faces. they arent picky with ANY CF Card media, and I doubt they will be anytime soon. I actually cant recall ANYONE mentioning that ANY CF Card hasnt worked in their 702/722/744T. I just cant wait for the 16GB Cards to drop below $100, which is already happening. Then I will pick up (2) 16GB CF Cards and I'll be set for any festival I choose to record at. I was hoping to just pick up (1) 16GB card and that would set me straight since the whole 7xx recording to FLAC thing came out, but obviously after the tests I just ran recording to FLAC, I will be stickling with WAV recording from here on out, no matter if SD fixes the FLAC recording bugs or not. Besides, WAV recording with the 7xx is SOLID AS A ROCK and reliable as hell anyway, so if it aint broke and you dont need more recording space, then why fix it and record to FLAC? I will eventually have (2) 16GB + (1) 8GB CF Cards for next summer and I would imagine that 40GB of CF Cards will get me thru ANYTHING, especially since 40GB of Harddrive space has gotten me along just fine so far :) I just prefer recording to cf cards because there are no moving parts and I tend to trust cf cards more than a spinning HD(Harddrives just FAIL for no given reason), and also, I save on average 2hrs of battery record time on my 6000mah batts recording to JUST the cf card compared to recording to the INHDD of the 722. 2hrs per battery that Im saving recording to JUST the cf card is HUGE for festivals. I normally record to BOTH the 8GB CF Card+INHDD for shows when battery consumption isnt an issue tho for total redundancy.
*****RAMBLING AND THREAD HIGHJACK ARE NOW OVER FOR THIS THREAD*****
-
*****RAMBLING AND THREAD HIGHJACK ARE NOW starting FOR THIS THREAD*****
You should prolly put this notice at the beginning of your pposts ...
Now back to the MTII discussion, any word on a shipping date from anyone ?
-
BUT, recording at 24/44.1k means that you HAVE TO make a DVD-Video disc to enjoy 24-Bit in the DVD-Player world. 24/48 can be made into DVD-Audio discs as well as DVD-Video discs. I *BELIEVE* that 24/48 and 24/96 are ONLY for DVD-Audio discs. I do believe that 24/44.1k and 24/48 and 24/88.2 and 24/96 can ALL be done with DVD-Video discs tho. If that isnt the way it goes then I have it backwards :)
you got that backwards. just for clarification, the DVD-Video format only supports 48 kHz or 96 kHz for PCM recordings. the DVD-Audio format allows for almost any "typical" sample rate, 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, or 192 kHz.
and regarding the 16 GB CF card capability of the MTII, the original MT can record to 16 gig cards, right? I think I read that in one of these posts. Assuming that's true, I really doubt that M-Audio would go backwards in that record, so I'd assume that it would be able to write the full card...
-
According to this http://www.solidstatesound.co.uk/M-Audio%20MicroTrack%20II.htm
it is expected in November in the UK, so I would expect those of you in the US should expect it sooner.
Keeping a close eye on this.
Dave.
-
So who is offering the best price for the MTII?
-
Ordered mine through Full Compass for $262.00
-
so what is the largest size CF card that it will accept? +T for the price.
-
I can't see that it would not take any card that the MT1 took. I have used and 8gb in it with no problem. Hopefully if I need it, a 16gb card would be OK. Until we have the little unit in our hands, who knows.
-
I can't see that it would not take any card that the MT1 took. I have used and 8gb in it with no problem. Hopefully if I need it, a 16gb card would be OK. Until we have the little unit in our hands, who knows.
so you run SDIF out to your MT II. Does that mean the signal is balanced and that you do not have to adjust the levels on the MT II? so all you have to do is set the bit rate at which is records and then press record? The problem I have is that I do not have a 24 bit sound card. I guess I need to upgrade so that I could actually listen to 24 bit recordings. how long does it take to dither down to 16 bit? Since it is a seamless 2GB split, there should be much less post editing work that you have to do.
-
Am I missing something or this looks like a great unity for $260, compared with Zoom H2 that goes for $200?
-
Nobody has a MTII yet. I use the spdif input on my MT1. I do all my adjustment levels on my V3 since it is a digi in. I record 24/48 right now. The length of the recording, computer CPU power will determine how long it takes. I use Wavelab and have it do many things, M/S decode, dither, sample rate change, and any other sound fixing that I might do and it take about 20 minutes to do a 2 hour show. I don't listen in 24 bit but, that way I have the master at 24 bit for the future. Aslo, I have been told that it is better to have a 24 bit recording to work on in Wavelab than a 16 bit.
-
Seems great but, until one of us has one in hand you never know.
-
Seems great but, until one of us has one in hand you never know.
Yeah, you're right.
Hopefully some 'real' reviews soon ;D
-
so you run SDIF out to your MT II. Does that mean the signal is balanced and that you do not have to adjust the levels on the MT II? so all you have to do is set the bit rate at which is records and then press record? The problem I have is that I do not have a 24 bit sound card. I guess I need to upgrade so that I could actually listen to 24 bit recordings. how long does it take to dither down to 16 bit? Since it is a seamless 2GB split, there should be much less post editing work that you have to do.
<thread hijack>
I recently got a PC-link 24bit external USB soundcard:
http://www.cryo-parts.com/pclink.html
It works great for me, and you can get them for about $50 shipped from ebay.
While I'm at it, I guess I'll continue the fluffing: I paired the pclink with a SuperDAC Pro 24-bit DAC and a Trends Audio TA-10 digital amp, both of which I'd recommend depending on your application (the Trends amp is great for powering a desktop listening system):
http://www.obadimports.com/catalog/item/4377800/4703856.htm
The SuperDAC if you get it by itself is $70, and it is a good 24-bit DAC. From my perspective, the $250 system of the pclink 24-bit soundcard, the SuperDAC, and the Trends TA-10.1 makes for an excellent desktop listening system -- just pair it with your favorite bookshelf speakers/monitors.
More info on the Trends TA-10:
http://www.stereotimes.com/amp031407.shtml
http://6moons.com/audioreviews/trends/ta10.html
</hijack> </fluffing>
-
Seems great but, until one of us has one in hand you never know.
You let me know how you like it once you get one in.
-
Ordered mine through Full Compass for $262.00
I called Full Compass and they gave me a "backordered until DECEMBER 30" date on the MT II - who knows how much longer it will drag on past the end of the year before M-Audio really releases the MT II...
-
I called Full Compass and they gave me a "backordered until DECEMBER 30" date on the MT II - who knows how much longer it will drag on past the end of the year before M-Audio really releases the MT II...
Here we go again... ::)
-
Yes, it will be released in 2008, most certainly.
And then 7 seconds later, it will be released again.
-
Here we go again... ::)
No way.. I don't believe it. This is M-Audio.. They'd never... oh nevermind ;)
-
I used a MT twice this last weekend. If they have really fixed the 2 gig file issue then I think this would make a great little bit bucket. Reminded me of carrying my trusty D8 8)
-
I used a MT twice this last weekend. If they have really fixed the 2 gig file issue then I think this would make a great little bit bucket. Reminded me of carrying my trusty D8 8)
I am not so sure about that, to be honest. Recording off a SBD is not the greatest because the internal A/D is so poor. The metering also pissed me off a bit because of the slight delayed reaction on the display. Even if they fix the 2GB limit, I will bet money that the A/D and software will remain the exact same. My guess for why they are even coming out with a II is to fix the 2GB limit and have full 48v power, which they should have had in the first place.
-
sounds like this the equivalent of blue balls to tapers
-
I am not so sure about that, to be honest. Recording off a SBD is not the greatest because the internal A/D is so poor. The metering also pissed me off a bit because of the slight delayed reaction on the display. Even if they fix the 2GB limit, I will bet money that the A/D and software will remain the exact same. My guess for why they are even coming out with a II is to fix the 2GB limit and have full 48v power, which they should have had in the first place.
that's why I said "bit bucket"
so long as you have a decent pre or a/d and are just using this as a recorder I think it is fine.
-
I am not so sure about that, to be honest. Recording off a SBD is not the greatest because the internal A/D is so poor. The metering also pissed me off a bit because of the slight delayed reaction on the display. Even if they fix the 2GB limit, I will bet money that the A/D and software will remain the exact same. My guess for why they are even coming out with a II is to fix the 2GB limit and have full 48v power, which they should have had in the first place.
that's why I said "bit bucket"
so long as you have a decent pre or a/d and are just using this as a recorder I think it is fine.
Agreed 100%
:)
-
so did they ever release a definitive product launch date?
-
so did they ever release a definitive product launch date?
Won't ever happen. I shit you not but some random day folks will start getting emails that their orders are on the way. Happened with the first gen unit and I suspect this one will be no different.
-
Let us hope its soon. I want to use my new V3 ;D
-
Has there been an official SPEC list released yet?
-
official specifications here:
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MicroTrackII-main.html
Flintstone
-
Sorry, guess what I really meant was a side by side comparison of the 2 models
-
I wonder if they have improved the internal battery at all :hmmm:
-
Sorry, guess what I really meant was a side by side comparison of the 2 models
M-audio published totally bogus specs on the first mt. The noise floor specs were comparable to the sound devices 722 and v3 (both among the quietest available) but the actual performance wasn't anywhere close. Same for the 48volt phantom claims. Then they tried to deny they had ever specified the phantom as 48volts. As one of the first purchasers, it was a fraud in my opinion.
So in the case of M-Audio, I wouldn't believe anything but independent testing.
-
The original audio specs are what I personally tested on the pre-production units verified on the first units off the line (using a AP2700 series Audio Precision analyzer). I'm not saying that all units for sure met these specs but I am saying that there was certainly no fraud. As for the whole 48 volt thing the intent at the time was to make it produce 48 volts but late in the design we found that we couldn't do it as not jeopardize the reliability of the unit (it would have done 48 volts but we weren't sure how long it would last) so we reduced the voltage to give us some breathing room instead of running components right at the edges of their specs. At this point we changed all marketing materials that had been made that said 48 volts. This was well before anything had shipped.
I can't really say too much about the MTII. I did work on testing the early alpha versions of the unit before the site I was located at was closed and I do think it will be an improvement over the MT 1.
P.S. While I was there I tried several times to suggest they make a dedicated SPDIF to CF bit bucket (no analog) but they just wouldn't go for it. I'd email them to let them know if you'd buy one.
John
-
The original audio specs are what I personally tested on the pre-production units verified on the first units off the line (using a AP2700 series Audio Precision analyzer). I'm not saying that all units for sure met these specs but I am saying that there was certainly no fraud. As for the whole 48 volt thing the intent at the time was to make it produce 48 volts but late in the design we found that we couldn't do it as not jeopardize the reliability of the unit (it would have done 48 volts but we weren't sure how long it would last) so we reduced the voltage to give us some breathing room instead of running components right at the edges of their specs. At this point we changed all marketing materials that had been made that said 48 volts. This was well before anything had shipped.
I can't really say too much about the MTII. I did work on testing the early alpha versions of the unit before the site I was located at was closed and I do think it will be an improvement over the MT 1.
P.S. While I was there I tried several times to suggest they make a dedicated SPDIF to CF bit bucket (no analog) but they just wouldn't go for it. I'd email them to let them know if you'd buy one.
John
Thanks for the comments John. Do you know if the internal battery will be the same battery in the MT II as in the original MT?
-
My latest e-mail update on delivery says 12/21
Looking around the shops on the net, they are putting on-street dates from 12/7 to 12/27 :P
I hope the wait is worth it...
-
The original audio specs are what I personally tested on the pre-production units verified on the first units off the line (using a AP2700 series Audio Precision analyzer). I'm not saying that all units for sure met these specs but I am saying that there was certainly no fraud. As for the whole 48 volt thing the intent at the time was to make it produce 48 volts but late in the design we found that we couldn't do it as not jeopardize the reliability of the unit (it would have done 48 volts but we weren't sure how long it would last) so we reduced the voltage to give us some breathing room instead of running components right at the edges of their specs. At this point we changed all marketing materials that had been made that said 48 volts. This was well before anything had shipped.
I can't really say too much about the MTII. I did work on testing the early alpha versions of the unit before the site I was located at was closed and I do think it will be an improvement over the MT 1.
P.S. While I was there I tried several times to suggest they make a dedicated SPDIF to CF bit bucket (no analog) but they just wouldn't go for it. I'd email them to let them know if you'd buy one.
John
Thanks for the comments John. Do you know if the internal battery will be the same battery in the MT II as in the original MT?
As far as I know the battery is the same. But some components have been changed and the power management reworked a bt to try and get more life out of it. But as the specs say it's got 48v phantom power now, and so on and so on. So who knows if there will be any more useful battery life from it (and though myself and the project manager lobbied hard for removable batteries, one of the design requirements handed down by management was that we re-use the MicroTrack 1 tooling).
John
-
The original audio specs are what I personally tested on the pre-production units verified on the first units off the line (using a AP2700 series Audio Precision analyzer). I'm not saying that all units for sure met these specs but I am saying that there was certainly no fraud. As for the whole 48 volt thing the intent at the time was to make it produce 48 volts but late in the design we found that we couldn't do it as not jeopardize the reliability of the unit (it would have done 48 volts but we weren't sure how long it would last) so we reduced the voltage to give us some breathing room instead of running components right at the edges of their specs. At this point we changed all marketing materials that had been made that said 48 volts. This was well before anything had shipped.
I can't really say too much about the MTII. I did work on testing the early alpha versions of the unit before the site I was located at was closed and I do think it will be an improvement over the MT 1.
P.S. While I was there I tried several times to suggest they make a dedicated SPDIF to CF bit bucket (no analog) but they just wouldn't go for it. I'd email them to let them know if you'd buy one.
John
Thanks for the comments John. Do you know if the internal battery will be the same battery in the MT II as in the original MT?
As far as I know the battery is the same. But some components have been changed and the power management reworked a bt to try and get more life out of it. But as the specs say it's got 48v phantom power now, and so on and so on. So who knows if there will be any more useful battery life from it (and though myself and the project manager lobbied hard for removable batteries, one of the design requirements handed down by management was that we re-use the MicroTrack 1 tooling).
John
That stinks. I wouldn't think it would be much harder to put in a higher capacity battery. I would imagine since the microtracker originally came out, batteries have gotten better.
-
I would imagine since the microtracker originally came out, batteries have gotten better.
Nope. The battery tech hasn't changed and probably won't anytime soon. But the problem isn't the battery tech, it is devices that don't allow the battery to be replaced.
-
One of M-Audio's reps confirmed to me in person that the battery in the Microtrack II is replaceable.
-
One of M-Audio's reps confirmed to me in person that the battery in the Microtrack II is replaceable.
Hasn't it always been replaceable? You just needed to send it in to M-Audio to replace it for $75.
-
I do think user-replacable (on the spot, in the field) batteries are key.
-
damn'd straight.
but anything that can at least take external power is good for us. a single internal that would last as long as MD decks or the JB3 (with both battery bays full) would be super. but M-Audio lost me as a customer years ago.
-
damn'd straight.
but anything that can at least take external power is good for us. a single internal that would last as long as MD decks or the JB3 (with both battery bays full) would be super. but M-Audio lost me as a customer years ago.
As long as it works as a bit bucket I'll be happy. It seems pretty easy to power externally.
-
It is very easy to power externally. There are a number of option available. I use a Microtrack I as nothing more than a bit bucket. If it had seemless splits, which the new one will, it will answer all my needs.
-
It is very easy to power externally. There are a number of option available. I use a Microtrack I as nothing more than a bit bucket. If it had seemless splits, which the new one will, it will answer all my needs.
I second that.
-
It is very easy to power externally. There are a number of option available. I use a Microtrack I as nothing more than a bit bucket. If it had seemless splits, which the new one will, it will answer all my needs.
I second that.
Me too. I'm not an early adopter but a true 24/96 bit bucket under $300 has me on the pre-order list. I love my JB3 but have 24 bit playback screaming to be used.
-
But as the specs say it's got 48v phantom power now, and so on and so on. So who knows if there will be any more useful battery life from it (and though myself and the project manager lobbied hard for removable batteries, one of the design requirements handed down by management was that we re-use the MicroTrack 1 tooling).
While true 48v is important, so is the current draw. Some mics (my beloved Earthworks for example) are very power hungry and want the full 10 mA that the Phantom Power spec allows for.... I wonder if it really will be able to supply the current (of course would I really want to power a pair of mics like that with the MT2 is an entirely different question).
Wayne
-
Has anyone used a Sandisk Ultra II 4GB card with their MT I? I was thinking about selling mine, but if it works with the MT with no problems, then I will keep it.
-
I have used an 8gb SanDisk Ultra II with no problem
-
Just an fyi (this might be old news) but i just ordered my MT II and Sweetwater told me they were getting 80 units on 12/28 and 40 units two weeks later. To bad I'm on shipment two :-\
-
Just an fyi (this might be old news) but i just ordered my MT II and Sweetwater told me they were getting 80 units on 12/28 and 40 units two weeks later. To bad I'm on shipment two :-\
Excellent! Now there is an actual ship date. Can't wait to get some reviews. How much did you pay for it there?
-
Heh, shipping dates and M-Audio are not perfect together ...
-
I'll believe it when the retailers say they have it in their hands.
-
Just an fyi (this might be old news) but i just ordered my MT II and Sweetwater told me they were getting 80 units on 12/28 and 40 units two weeks later. To bad I'm on shipment two :-\
Excellent! Now there is an actual ship date. Can't wait to get some reviews. How much did you pay for it there?
$275 Shipped
-
Full Compass for 269.76 total.
As of today they are saying The latest information I have indicates that we will expect to receive them * 12/7/07*. Typically units will ship out to customers on the same day we receive them, so I estimate delivery to you 3-4 days from this ETA. This date may change, so I will watch this ETA and update you as I receive any new information.
-
Found this on Engadget which forwards you to the electronista article. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/29/m-audio-rolls-out-microtrack-ii-digital-audio-recorder/
Full story here:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/11/28/m.audio.microtrack.ii/
M-Audio's new handheld digital audio recorder
M-Audio today unveiled the MicroTrack II, a handheld 24/96 digital audio recorder. The device records to CompactFlash cards and Microdrives, providing 48V of phantom power to condenser microphones so that musicians can make use of the device while writing songs, playing practice sessions, and gigs. The MicroTrack II records in 24-bit/96KHz format, and can take signals from the quarter-inch TRS inputs, or the S/PDIF input, with sound monitoring available through the RCA or eighth-inch headphone jack. M-Audio is selling the MicroTrack II for $400, which includes an electret T-shaped microphone, software, a carrying pouch, an eighth-inch stereo extension cable with lapel clip, a power supply and USB cable.
The MicroTrack II can be powered through a variety of methods: an internal battery, USB, or the included power supply. It can record in WAV and MP3 formats (MP3 has a peak sampling rate of 48KHz), and is capable of creating files larger than 2GB in size. The unit can also add markers to WAV files, and can organize files into a series of customizable folders.
M-Audio also extended the input gain range from the product's first incarnation, and implemented an analogue input limiter with a built-in bypass. The device uses USB 2.0 to connect to computers, and can perform speed tests on CompactFlash media. In terms of power saving features, the MicroTrack II features a backlight dimmer and hibernation mode.
-
i am trying to figure out if i should sell my mt1 and get a 2
or wait till it is actually out and see how it works but then prob lose a bunch of money on the 1
i really only care about the 2gb split
-
Yeah I'm really looking at the MT II. I'd like to start recording at 24bit but need something that is in the $300 range (and takes digi-in) if I'm going to be purchasing expensive-ish media on top of the recorder. Might end up selling one of the h120s and keeping the other for SBD patches.
-
Yeah I'm really looking at the MT II. I'd like to start recording at 24bit but need something that is in the $300 range (and takes digi-in) if I'm going to be purchasing expensive-ish media on top of the recorder. Might end up selling one of the h120s and keeping the other for SBD patches.
a 8GB card can be had for $60.00 and a 16GB card can be had for around $100... media keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
-
I got a message from mojan (parker) at sonic sense.
apparently my mt 2 has been shipped to me.
good news.
-
I got a message from mojan (parker) at sonic sense.
apparently my mt 2 has been shipped to me.
good news.
Great news. Being how crappy the firmware was for the MT initally, I would take a backup recorder to test with.
-
I got a message from mojan (parker) at sonic sense.
apparently my mt 2 has been shipped to me.
good news.
Great news, ED
-
Great news. Being how crappy the firmware was for the MT initally, I would take a backup recorder to test with.
it is my backup deck. mr-1000 is my lead deck.
i have gone to 1 bit, so i figure a 24 bit backup should work ok.
-
I, too, have a UPS tracking number for my MT II. If all the stars align, it will arrive tomorrow & I'll get to use it to record Dino JR on 12/13. I'll be sure to post anything significant I find good/bad here.
--Michael
-
if anyone needs spdif cables for their mt 2's let me know.
-
if anyone needs spdif cables for their mt 2's let me know.
They any better then any other spdif cables? I've already got a Hosa spdif cable... I just hope it will fit with a USB cable attached.
-
That is the whole thing. Will it fit with the usb cord.
-
That is the whole thing. Will it fit with the usb cord.
I found that the Radio Shack S/PDIF cables that they sell for like $10 worked great with the MT when it was being powered through the USB.
-
Ed's cable worked with no problem.
-
it's snug but it does fit.
-
I have one of Ed's SPDIF cables that was made for my V3. Now I just need to get a MTII. Waiting for you guys to give me some input. I wonder if they will come out with a fix for the 2GB split on the old one.
-
I wonder if they will come out with a fix for the 2GB split on the old one.
I doubt it. Its one of the main improvements and I'm sure M-Audio wants people to make the "upgrade"
-
mine got here today!
formated a transend 120x 8gb compact flash no problem.
i like the switch on the side to control the back light, they changed that from the l/m/h button on the mt 1.
i like the new dark gray color as well.
-
mine got here today!
formated a transend 120x 8gb compact flash no problem.
i like the switch on the side to control the back light, they changed that from the l/m/h button on the mt 1.
i like the new dark gray color as well.
Is there a confirmed 2gb gapless break?
-
i haven't had time to do a test tonight.
i have the all 4 jobs at once thing going on so i am real busy.
will have a real world test next tuesday.
hopefully someone will get there and do some testing before then.
-
shipped as well....MTII left Chicago...waiting at the door for UPS... Midwest frozen solid....High Anxiety! ;D
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:BTNyTzS9KEJqgM:http://www.impawards.com/1977/posters/high_anxiety.jpg)
What are you doing for external power?
I need about 4 hours solid and something small would do nicely.
The Pre wants 9v, if I need it at all.
Which begs the question of PIP.
If I don't use the P48, what do I get from the MTII to power electrets, like DPA4060s or AT853s? Something like 2 volts? or is that not an option?
-
I have one of Ed's SPDIF cables that was made for my V3. Now I just need to get a MTII. Waiting for you guys to give me some input. I wonder if they will come out with a fix for the 2GB split on the old one.
I don't think that will ever happen...
:(
-
There is not enough memory to buffer the stream while it writes one file and starts another... Its not just a matter of writing code but rather a hardware limitation. No, it'll never be seamless on the old unit. I've found there is always 5 seconds to flip the file.
-
Mine has left Wisconsin and is on its way to St Louis.
-
Got it this morning. Charging the battery right now. During the set up I noticed that when you put the unit on hold, the light turns off. I can not find a way to have the light on while on hold. It has a test media to see if you CF card works. Will not have time to play with it until tomorrow.
-
Mine has Secaucus, NJ in it's sights :o
Hoping for tomorrow, but expecting Monday.
I'm almost glad that I'm not planning to tape this weekend.
-
I successfully recorded Dinosaur JR with the MT II last night (12/13/07) with no problems. A couple of notes:
1. I charged the battery overnight and took the thing straight to the show. I do not have an external battery for it yet. I noticed that the battery indicator went down 1 "tick" in just the few minutes I was scrolling around the menu and formatting a 4 GB CF card. I thought it should still be showing a full charge after 10mins of use, but I guess I expect rechargeable batteries to be better after a few charges. It went another 1 1/2 hours and the battery meter was at half.
2. I didn't fully trust the device, so I just fed it the s/pdif from my D8. There was a V3 in front of the D8. It recorded the 16/44.1 *.wav with no probs.
3. I plugged it into my PC this morning, WinXP recogized it, and I transferred the *.wav over with no problems.
4. I used a SanDisk Ultra II 4GB CF card purchased from Costco.
Next time, I'll remove the D8 from the equation.
--Michael
-
2. I didn't fully trust the device, so I just fed it the s/pdif from my D8. There was a V3 in front of the D8. It recorded the 16/44.1 *.wav with no probs.
Next time, I'll remove the D8 from the equation.
--Michael
Can you try just recording something at home using the V3? anhisr reported having troubles recording 24bit/96 with his unit and a V3.
-
Can you try just recording something at home using the V3? anhisr reported having troubles recording 24bit/96 with his unit and a V3.
Absolutely...I just saw that other thread. I'll try to do that tonight, and post my results there.
--Michael
-
:(
-
Mine has Secaucus, NJ in it's sights :o
Hoping for tomorrow, but expecting Monday.
I'm almost glad that I'm not planning to tape this weekend.
Changed my mind when the MTII landed on the doorstep this afternoon ;D
Taping t'mrw, will test 24/96 around the shop ASAP
Currently charging the battries... waiting ... waiting...
(http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/alexel1024/WaitingForARaise.jpg)
-
Could you please do a seamless autosplit test too? That would be most excellent.
-
Could you please do a seamless autosplit test too? That would be most excellent.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,95661.msg1274472.html#msg1274472
-
Hi,
I've been taping for about 10 years but new to this forum. I've always recorded to DAT but with the constant troubles with my Sony digi cable, and higher cost of tapes, have ordered the MT II. These forums have been great and I've gotten a lot of useful info. I do however have a question regarding CF cards. I just ordered a 2 gig Sandisk. I've noticed that most people have indicated using the Sandisk Ultra II cards. Am I going to have compatability issues?
Wheeler
-
The MT II has a function to check your card and see if it is ok.
-
Just read this in the online manual
If you are recording a WAV file, and your recording exceeds the 2GB file size limit of CF or Microdrive media, an additional file will
automatically be created with virtually no time lost between files.
I'm sure someone has tested this? Virtually and Seamless seem different to me.
-
I read that too, but believe it has an asterisk and indicates that when recording mp3 files there may be some loss. Someone piosted earlier in the thread and said that their wav file was seemless. I'll have my mt2 by the weekend and will be testing. Will post my finds.
Wheeler
-
Someone piosted earlier in the thread and said that their wav file was seemless.
Don't have time to go back and find it, but I believe the post indicated it was audibly seamless, not necessarily truly seamless from a data loss perspective (the latter was untested, if I recall correctly).
-
How would you go about testing the MTII to see if it is truly seamless from a data loss perspective
-
i ran a small test today with a microtrack ONE
adata 16gb speedy card
formated fine, worked fine
line in via 1/4 at 24/48
so i would assume it will work fine in the mt2 as well
$80 at newegg
-
i ran a small test today with a microtrack ONE
adata 16gb speedy card
formated fine, worked fine
line in via 1/4 at 24/48
so i would assume it will work fine in the mt2 as well
$80 at newegg
Thanks for doing the research on that card b/c the description listed it as being able to handle 8-bit and 16-bit transfers. I will be buying one since I just bought an MTII. Should have it in my hands early part of next week. Will be running it behind the V3. As long as 24/48 works just fine, then I will be very happy. Once the firmware upgrade comes out I guess I will try 24/96.
-
Did a battery check. Using the MT as a bit bucket, light off, no output for headphones, managed to get 5 hours 45 minutes ! When it ran out of power, it wrote the file before shutting down.
-
Did a battery check. Using the MT as a bit bucket, light off, no output for headphones, managed to get 5 hours 45 minutes ! When it ran out of power, it wrote the file before shutting down.
wow that's great.
-
remember, that is with no back light or anything else that would drain power.
-
Some preliminary bench tests showed UN-balanced 1/4" plagued with extreme noise, so this mode is useless, and likely NOT firmware fixable. I held off releasing the graphic showing unbalanced mode noise as I thought maybe just a defective deck, but NOT, as a customer emailed with same result so this is a definite production design fault of the MT2.
Also 88.2K mode has wrong filter setting as the frequency bandwidth rolls off at 21.5K Hz. 96K mode seems to work with bandwidth out to 44.5K Hz.
Also others including myself have experienced deck lockup. My experience is with first turn on all buttons were non functional, until reboot cleared the trouble and the deck operated as expected.
(http://www.sonicstudios.com/-35dBu_SnagIt.gif)
UN-balanced 1/4" input with external preamplifier has ~3 dB higher noise, but otherwise identical to balanced noise graphic.
I have yet to update to latest firmware, that might fix the 88.2K mode and lockup problems, but seems destined to NOT fix the input noise issues with this deck.
It does seem M-audio has shipped us another UNTESTED deck with a multitude of shortcomings that should never have made it to production and shipped out to customers.
WAY TO GO M-AUDIO! I am a half step away from returning MT2 as fatally defective.
OK, I updated the to 1.0.1 firmware with NO CHANGE in faulty 88.2K bandwidth, or unbalanced input noise issues. Filed a customer report with the noise graph attached to M-audio on-line support, and now waiting for a reply before I return for refund the MT2 deck.
While the MT2 has faster bootup/button response, and easier input gain control with continuous rather than 'stepped' gain settings over MT1 version, at least for what I feel is important for analog input uses, I'm definitely holding on more tightly to my 'trusty' MT1 for the time being as I can see NO significant MT2 recording quality refinements or performance gains worth keeping over MT1 version, especially considering the MT2's input noise.
-
is it just me, the noise doesnt look to bad from a graphical perspective (excluding the 1/4" unbalanced) for our purposes. Most audiences and microphones have a noise floor well above -90db
-
Guysonic - can you characterize the noise?
I just got a new MicroTrack II and the noise is extremely nasty whenever 1/4-inch input is selected. The noise is sort of machinelike ratcheting at approximately 10Hz, with a periodic beeping. The noise is there whether anything is plugged into the 1/4 inch input or not... and of course, it'as level is proportional to the gain applied.
Is your noise similar?
The 1/8 input has no such issues, my old MT has no such issues. As you say, this makes using the MT II with 1/4 ins useless. I hope they fix it soon!
-
It is incredible that a company can sell such a defective product.
I mean, if you bought a washing machine and it didn't work, you would take it back, right?
Is it really that hard to design a piece of audio gear? Mechanical things, like minidisc, I can imagine are crazy hard. But a digital recorder???
Richard
-
ullanta, I have the same noise out of the right track also. Sounds like a lawn sprinkler.
-
Interesting - just on the right track? That actually gives me some hope that they can get this fixed fairly easily.
Yes, a ratcheting lawn-sprinkler sound... do you hear beeping, too? The beeping seems less pronounced when in RECORD PAUSE, clearer in RECORD!
-
It is incredible that a company can sell such a defective product.
I mean, if you bought a washing machine and it didn't work, you would take it back, right?
Is it really that hard to design a piece of audio gear? Mechanical things, like minidisc, I can imagine are crazy hard. But a digital recorder???
Richard
What seems even more incredible is to revise a product - only to make it worse!?
-
confused
was the 1/4 ins better before the firmware update???
-
ullanta, I have the same noise out of the right track also. Sounds like a lawn sprinkler.
Is that only with the 1/4 in? or were you getting that with the SPDIF?
-
1/4
-
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 (http://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.
-
1/4
Doesn't sound like a sprinkler, it sounds like a helicopter. Good thing I only use the SPDIF in. I wonder how it will sound running my CA cards>9100 pre> MIC input? Might have to give it a try.
-
Has anybody checked to see if this thing really gives 48v?
-
Did anyone get any response on the problem with the 1/4 inputs?
-
As an early MT 1 owner, watching this thread unfold is a big deja vu......
-
Heh, I'm with ya on that, prolly a big reason why I opted out of the beta testing this go around 8)
-
M-Audio's first response was: never heard of the problem; exchange your unit at the retailer.
I did so, got another unit with the same problem.
M-Audio's response to this: use only balanced inputs to the 1/4" jacks.
Which means, the unit is not capable of recording from unbalanced line-level inputs. The old MicroTrack 24/96 worked fine with unbalanced sources...
We'll see what happens next...
-
I'm still waiting for mine which I preordered though Sweetwater and they received their initial batch over a month ago now. I wonder if M-Audio is quietly fixing the 1/4 problem.
-
Until they come up with a fix, I am happy. Just use the SPDIF line. Also, when you are recording in 24bit, how long does 2GB last, and if it is a seamless split, does that mean that it pulls up in one wav. file. Or do you have to merge the two files together?
-
2gb will last just short of 1 hour. After that it starts a new file. You have to merge the files in post. In Wavelab it is easy as they have an option to add another file to the end of the file you have open at the time.
-
2gb will last just short of 1 hour. After that it starts a new file. You have to merge the files in post. In Wavelab it is easy as they have an option to add another file to the end of the file you have open at the time.
If you do 24/44 or 24/48 2GB will last 2 hours. I tend to use 24/44 most of time since I can't tell the difference between 44 and 96 and it saves a step in post.
-
Until they come up with a fix, I am happy. Just use the SPDIF line. Also, when you are recording in 24bit, how long does 2GB last, and if it is a seamless split, does that mean that it pulls up in one wav. file. Or do you have to merge the two files together?
24/48 will give you 1:55
-
Thinking about picking one of these up so I can retire my laptop. I'd use it primarily as a bit-bucket, so it seems I'd avoid most of the issues being discussed, but occasionally I'd use it for stealthing or for perhaps a sbd patch while I record Aud.
How's the A/D compare to a JB3? What little stealthing I do is currently done with a JB3 at line-in which is not that great, IMO (though certainly better than a JB3 at mic-in), so if this was comparable it'd be worth it to me. Thanks
-
2gb will last just short of 1 hour. After that it starts a new file. You have to merge the files in post. In Wavelab it is easy as they have an option to add another file to the end of the file you have open at the time.
Thanks. Anyone use Sony Soundforge 8.0 to merge the two tracks?
-
2gb will last just short of 1 hour. After that it starts a new file. You have to merge the files in post. In Wavelab it is easy as they have an option to add another file to the end of the file you have open at the time.
Thanks. Anyone use Sony Soundforge 8.0 to merge the two tracks?
I use soundforge, but I don't know which version. Luckily, Seamless splits are no brainers. Since they are seamless you can just cut and paste the second file to the end of the first file. It will match up perfectly, or... ;D seamlessly. It will work with ease in any wave editor.
-
I got this e-mail from sweetwater regarding my pre-order
We have another ETA of the 29, another in Feb, another in March
Stay tuned. I heard there were intial issues with the first release, be careful buying one that is in stock now, it may have issues with it...
:hmmm:
-
I wonder if that is their way of not losing a customer.
-
I wonder if that is their way of not losing a customer.
I thought the same thing. Hopefully they are fixing the noise problem though ;)
-
I wonder if that is their way of not losing a customer.
I thought the same thing. Hopefully they are fixing the noise problem though ;)
Sure sounds like they are working on it. Guess we will be sending our's back for exchange somewhere down the road.
-
2gb will last just short of 1 hour. After that it starts a new file. You have to merge the files in post. In Wavelab it is easy as they have an option to add another file to the end of the file you have open at the time.
Thanks. Anyone use Sony Soundforge 8.0 to merge the two tracks?
I use soundforge, but I don't know which version. Luckily, Seamless splits are no brainers. Since they are seamless you can just cut and paste the second file to the end of the first file. It will match up perfectly, or... ;D seamlessly. It will work with ease in any wave editor.
What Cliff said - No problem merging the tracks using SF8 or SF9...
"...you can just cut and paste the second file to the end of the first file..."
-
M-Audio's response to this: use only balanced inputs to the 1/4" jacks.
Which means, the unit is not capable of recording from unbalanced line-level inputs.
Might it be possible to make up a lead such that the recorder thinks it's seeing a balanced line at the input ??
I'm not too hot on this stuff, but over on the naturerecordists group, Rob Danielson suggests trying a cable with 1/4" TRS jacks and a jumper between the shield and ring connectors.
-
M-Audio's response to this: use only balanced inputs to the 1/4" jacks.
Which means, the unit is not capable of recording from unbalanced line-level inputs.
Might it be possible to make up a lead such that the recorder thinks it's seeing a balanced line at the input ??
I'm not too hot on this stuff, but over on the naturerecordists group, Rob Danielson suggests trying a cable with 1/4" TRS jacks and a jumper between the shield and ring connectors.
I think if the shield is connected to common ground reference, like usual, then the noise presently riding on that ground will get coupled into the -minus (ring) input as your suggesting. Result is this noise source will be part of an unbalanced input. This is exactly as I've done when making the unbalanced input noise graphs posted earlier in this thread, with also shorting the -minus ring terminal to common shield ground.
Only chance is using unbalanced input without this noise source is using a floating cable wiring, NOT connected to anything except the ring/tip connections on the external preamp end.
Do this by leaving the shield cable disconnected at the external preamp end of the connecting cable, but leave cable shield connected to common on the Microtrack 'sleeve.'
So unbalanced preamp output now a balanced type floating input signal.
It may be prudent to place two 10K precision film resistors from +/- terminals to shield best at the Microtrack end of the cable. This resistive network is still balanced for (input) noise rejection, and forms a sometimes needed DC path required by some balanced inputs.
TIP: If never using the 48 volt phantom power, suggest taping over the mic power slide switch with tape patch. Might avoid grief of external preamp/other devices getting accidental and damaging voltage surges.
-
Hi,
I just found this forum and thread by searching google for information on the noise problem I noticed in my recently purchased Microtrack II. I get the same "water sprinkler" noise that you are reporting here, tested with balanced and unbalanced through the 1/4 (with unbalanced sources is quite severe, specially with a contact mic). It's interesting that I spent three days looking for one where I live (Toronto) and nobody had it in stock and just kept telling me that they are expecting a shipment anytime soon... but I finally I found one at another store and probably from an older shipment. The fact that nobody else has it seems to fit with the idea that maybe that first batch was really defective and they are working on a new one. Anyway, I will return mine tomorrow. Does anyone have any recent news about this problem? I would like to use the Microtrack because it seems to be the only portable recorder in that price range that has digital inputs. which I need.
Thanks!
Hector
-
I got this e-mail from sweetwater regarding my pre-order
We have another ETA of the 29, another in Feb, another in March
Stay tuned. I heard there were intial issues with the first release, be careful buying one that is in stock now, it may have issues with it...
:hmmm:
Very telling - since obviously - "it's out there!"
Maybe still a bad taste in some retailers mouths from the last unit...
Especially when M-Audio took out a full page ad in the Sweetwater catalog that proclaims:
"Meet the only recorder that sounds better than the MicroTrack"
-
MicroTrack II BETA 01/25/2008 1.0.4 BETA MicroTrackII Firmware v1.0.4 BETA.zip
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.drivers&f=861
icroTrack II
Version: 1.0.4 BETA (BETA)
Release Date: January 25, 2008
Applies to:
MicroTrack II
Operating System(s):
Windows XP, Windows Vista 32-Bit
Release Notes:
This readme covers MicroTrack II Firmware v1.0.4 BETA.
Several issues reported from the field have been fixed - THANK YOU to those who cooperated on uncovering these issues. Users should be aware that this is a BETA release and it is therefore possible that bugs may still be present in this release. Please continue to check back at the M-Audio website (www.m-audio.com) for upcoming firmware releases.
============================================================
Release Notes:
- Resolved media test and media lock-up issues during record
- Fixed issue to turn off outputs when input monitoring was disabled
- Fixed bug of battery icon meter displaying strange animation when Nav wheel was pressed
- Improved behavior during fast-forwarding through long files
- Added safeguard against overwriting MTII resource file with MT24/96 resource file
- Fixed problem with Japanese fonts being shifted to the right
- Updated strings for Chinese, Japanese, and German languages
- Automated time/date format based on language selection
- Added Chinese option to time/date setting
===========================================================
-
MicroTrack II BETA 01/25/2008 1.0.4 BETA MicroTrackII Firmware v1.0.4 BETA.zip
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.drivers&f=861
icroTrack II
Version: 1.0.4 BETA (BETA)
Release Date: January 25, 2008
Applied this already... noise still there. I think is not something that can be fixed with a firmware update.
-
I got this e-mail from sweetwater regarding my pre-order
We have another ETA of the 29, another in Feb, another in March
Stay tuned. I heard there were intial issues with the first release, be careful buying one that is in stock now, it may have issues with it...
:hmmm:
From sweetwater.... New ETA of 2/22/08
Somethings up... I'm about to bail.
-
From sweetwater.... New ETA of 2/22/08
Somethings up... I'm about to bail.
Gee, M-audio choking again, what a suprise ::)
-
From sweetwater.... New ETA of 2/22/08
Somethings up... I'm about to bail.
Gee, M-audio choking again, what a suprise ::)
Just a bit confused. Isn't this what you would want if the initial run had defects? Instead of everyone here trying to get things working on the fly isn't a good thing that they're delaying things to fix them on their end first?
-
Sure its a good thing they are delaying the second shipments, but....
Shouldn't they have worked out all the bugs with the first Microtrack?
-
Sure its a good thing they are delaying the second shipments, but....
Shouldn't they have worked out all the bugs with the first Microtrack?
One would think they would have. This is a prime example of companies outsourcing products and departments overseas though. One branch does the design of the casing. One branch does the PCB design. One branch picks the chips, one does some QC. Then someone in the US gets to sell it. Plus for $300 there is probably not a whole lot of fire under their asses, ya know.
-
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.
-
Well, I will just continue using my MTII until the day they say everything is fixed and send me a new deck. So far, I couldn't be happier. It is lighter than my cellphone for god's sake!
-
I got mine late last week... just need to wait for the stupid CF card to come in the mail to start testing/playing. Looking forward to it!
-
Its looks like the next batch got pushed back another week...
ETA 2/29/08
The more this gets pushed back the more likely I'll get a R-44.
-
As an early MT 1 owner, watching this thread unfold is a big deja vu......
It's deja vu all over again!
But my MT 1 is still chugging along.
-
Well, I will just continue using my MTII until the day they say everything is fixed and send me a new deck. So far, I couldn't be happier. It is lighter than my cellphone for god's sake!
Will M-Audio be sending out new replacement decks once this problem is fixed or is that just wishful thinking? Has M-Audio told you this? I certainly hope so...
:P
-
Sure its a good thing they are delaying the second shipments, but....
Shouldn't they have worked out all the bugs with the first Microtrack?
One would think they would have. This is a prime example of companies outsourcing products and departments overseas though. One branch does the design of the casing. One branch does the PCB design. One branch picks the chips, one does some QC. Then someone in the US gets to sell it. Plus for $300 there is probably not a whole lot of fire under their asses, ya know.
Apparently their Quality control division doesn't do a hell of a lot...
:P
I agree that a $300 device is not going to be their #1 priority, but they've been doing a sh*tload of advertising for the MT II, so it must be on their radar...and plus, after the debacle with the release of the MT I, you'd think they would have done it differently this time.
Oh well, M-Audio has probably lost me as a customer for good...
-
my mt 2 actually worked flawlessly for me. about time.
v-3 spdif @24/48
i don't think it likes my transcend 120x 8gb card.
worked perfectly for 2 sets with the 6gb hitachi microdrive.
will probably be a great bit bucket once they work out all the glitches and i'm the one who called it a piece of shit after my 1st use.
happy taping
ed
-
Hi,
I just found this forum and thread by searching google for information on the noise problem I noticed in my recently purchased Microtrack II. I get the same "water sprinkler" noise that you are reporting here, tested with balanced and unbalanced through the 1/4 (with unbalanced sources is quite severe, specially with a contact mic). It's interesting that I spent three days looking for one where I live (Toronto) and nobody had it in stock and just kept telling me that they are expecting a shipment anytime soon... but I finally I found one at another store and probably from an older shipment. The fact that nobody else has it seems to fit with the idea that maybe that first batch was really defective and they are working on a new one. Anyway, I will return mine tomorrow. Does anyone have any recent news about this problem? I would like to use the Microtrack because it seems to be the only portable recorder in that price range that has digital inputs. which I need.
Thanks!
Hector
I've had the same problem twice now. I returned my first MT II for an exchange thinking it was just a random defect. Now, the second one does the exact same thing. I'm not sure if the retailer is going to take the second unit back for a full refund or not. If they do take it back, I think they'll charge me a 15% restocking fee.
M Audio customer service did not lead me to believe that they think this is an issue. They must have a lot of complaints because they have a name for this noise - "the sprinkler sound". Their solution to my incident report was short - "This behavior will not occur with balanced cables." That doesn't sound like they're going to do anything to fix the units that are already sold.
-
Hi,
I just found this forum and thread by searching google for information on the noise problem I noticed in my recently purchased Microtrack II. I get the same "water sprinkler" noise that you are reporting here, tested with balanced and unbalanced through the 1/4 (with unbalanced sources is quite severe, specially with a contact mic). It's interesting that I spent three days looking for one where I live (Toronto) and nobody had it in stock and just kept telling me that they are expecting a shipment anytime soon... but I finally I found one at another store and probably from an older shipment. The fact that nobody else has it seems to fit with the idea that maybe that first batch was really defective and they are working on a new one. Anyway, I will return mine tomorrow. Does anyone have any recent news about this problem? I would like to use the Microtrack because it seems to be the only portable recorder in that price range that has digital inputs. which I need.
Thanks!
Hector
I've had the same problem twice now. I returned my first MT II for an exchange thinking it was just a random defect. Now, the second one does the exact same thing. I'm not sure if the retailer is going to take the second unit back for a full refund or not. If they do take it back, I think they'll charge me a 15% restocking fee.
M Audio customer service did not lead me to believe that they think this is an issue. They must have a lot of complaints because they have a name for this noise - "the sprinkler sound". Their solution to my incident report was short - "This behavior will not occur with balanced cables." That doesn't sound like they're going to do anything to fix the units that are already sold.
Sent my MT2 in over 3 weeks ago for repair of several issues discussed in threads here. Yesterday got call from tech supervisor wanting my opinions of MT2 issues. The noise problem was most of the conversation as I related from my extensive experience in analog circuit/PCB design this kind of performance is most likely due to improper analog ground paths where cuts and jumpers on the PCB might solve the problem if M-audio is very, very lucky, but most likely re-design of the PCB ground paths is needed to really solve this problem.
I also related that using the common-mode rejection of balanced mode input to get more acceptable noise performance is a 'band-aid' approach that doesn't bode well in taper's (and engineering) circles as a solution to way excessive analog ground reference noise.
Our discussion was documented and sent to engineering for consideration on what might be done, or not done to correct MT2 shortcomings.
FWIW Shortages of MT2 at dealers was said to be from high demand, and fact M-audio restricted number of units initially sold to test the market for reaction before making larger release shipments fitting buyer demand. Looks to me like this a good move considering the situation.
-
Sent my MT2 in over 3 weeks ago for repair of several issues discussed in threads here. Yesterday got call from tech supervisor wanting my opinions of MT2 issues. The noise problem was most of the conversation as I related from my extensive experience in analog circuit/PCB design this kind of performance is most likely due to improper analog ground paths where cuts and jumpers on the PCB might solve the problem if M-audio is very, very lucky, but most likely re-design of the PCB ground paths is needed to really solve this problem.
I also related that using the common-mode rejection of balanced mode input to get more acceptable noise performance is a 'band-aid' approach that doesn't bode well in taper's (and engineering) circles as a solution to way excessive analog ground reference noise.
Our discussion was documented and sent to engineering for consideration on what might be done, or not done to correct MT2 shortcomings.
FWIW Shortages of MT2 at dealers was said to be from high demand, and fact M-audio restricted number of units initially sold to test the market for reaction before making larger release shipments fitting buyer demand. Looks to me like this a good move considering the situation.
It's interesting that that in some cases they are treating it like a real problem and in other cases (like mine) they are telling people to used balanced cables or the 1/8" input and everything will be fine. ::)
-
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?
-
Well, I will just continue using my MTII until the day they say everything is fixed and send me a new deck. So far, I couldn't be happier. It is lighter than my cellphone for god's sake!
Will M-Audio be sending out new replacement decks once this problem is fixed or is that just wishful thinking? Has M-Audio told you this? I certainly hope so...
:P
This is not what they told me. However, if they make physical changes to circuitry, I imagine they would probably allow the 1st gen owners to send theirs in for a replacement. So far, mine has worked flawlessly for what I need. Has anyone patched using the 1/4 or 1/8 input? The only cable I have is 1/8 to dual male 1/4 and I imagine this cable is balanced, so I should not have trouble.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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... ;)
-
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.
-
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..
:)
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://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 ?
-
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.
(http://www.sonicstudios.com/-35dBu_SnagIt.gif)
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 (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mt2496rv.htm)
-
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.
-
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 :o ??? ???
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Hey, guys -- Thanks for all the great info in this forum.
I've been enjoying my MicroTrack II for a couple of months now. But I recently encountered a weird problem that I haven't seen documented anywhere else.
While listening back to a large file (approx. 1.25 GB) on the unit, I accidentally hit the Record button. The MTII started recording a new file. I didn't have a mic plugged in, so apparently it was just recording silence. After about a second, I hit Record again to stop recording. I stowed the recorder, not knowing that something terrible had just happened.
Later at home I transferred files from the MTII into my computer. Disappointingly, the file I'd been listening to had been erased!! ??? Well, sort of. The file name was still there, but it had a size of Zero KB.
I didn't hit the Delete button to erase this file, because I would have had to confirm the delete and I know that didn't happen. I also know that the file wasn't empty before, because I listened to a lot of it before it got Zeroed out. I also know this wasn't caused by static electricity on my CF card, because I use a large format card (16GB) that I never change out.
I also tried replicating the error on a different file, but the MTII just recorded a new file without changing the one I was listening to. So I'm stumped as to what's going on.
Has anybody else had this problem? Any ideas?
Thanks, R2R
-
Ouch man, sounds like one hell of a bug. Let everyone know which version of the firmware you are using and someone else can test to confirm the bug. You could just try to reproduce it. Perhaps it only occurs if you are really far into a playback? Hope it works out or at least it is figured out what the issue is.
-
So are these good enough to purchase one yet? I've got the MTI and have had no problems. I've just been waiting till the bugs were worked out before getting the MT II. So are we good enough to go yet? I found an online retailer selling them for $214 and some change brand new.
-
So are these good enough to purchase one yet? I've got the MTI and have had no problems. I've just been waiting till the bugs were worked out before getting the MT II. So are we good enough to go yet? I found an online retailer selling them for $214 and some change brand new.
are you running SPDIF into it? I love mine. Works like a charm on the 2GB seamless split.
-
using it as a bit bucket, I have no problems with the unit. The internal battery or the draw of the machine is much better than the MT I. I can do a whole show and opening band with the internal battery. I still have an external in my bag, just in case though.
-
I've got an older one as well as the MT II. As said, for bit buckets they are great. A few things I really like about the MT II's is that they boot up fast, do seemless splits and have the backlight so you can turn it off/on when you want it with a switch.
-
Just using it for >:D recordings. I'll be using the CA gear and utilizing the 1/4" TRS inputs. I'll be doing most of the gain with the CA 9100 pre. The way I've done it before is set the MT at 75% of the gain and then adjust the rest via the pre. Seems to work good for me that way.
My old one runs fine but I want to record via 24/96 and don't want to have to worry about stopping/starting near the 2GB mark.
-
Just using it for >:D recordings. I'll be using the CA gear and utilizing the 1/4" TRS inputs. I'll be doing most of the gain with the CA 9100 pre. The way I've done it before is set the MT at 75% of the gain and then adjust the rest via the pre. Seems to work good for me that way.
My old one runs fine but I want to record via 24/96 and don't want to have to worry about stopping/starting near the 2GB mark.
Be aware of the "sprinkler sound" when using the MT II 1/4" inputs with an unbalanced source. If the inputs are not balanced, you can probably get away with it by using as little of the MT II gain as possible.
-
Ok, I think I'm ready to get one of these. I'm not very tech savvy, so please be kind to the slow witted.
I don't know whats balanced or unbalanced on my gear. I just know that when I plug it all together it works.
So what I want to know is. How would I get AT831 mics and a SP-SPSB-8 battery box to work with the MTII?
1- Would I use the 1/8" mic input?
2- Some sort of stereo 1/8" to 1/4" adapter from Radio Shack for lines in?
3- See if Ed at Kind Kables, or someone can make me a custom device that would the job. (I only have one good hand so I can't do my own soldering.)
Thanks in advance, Richard
-
I have recorded with my MTII using sp/at mics similar to yours and have had great results. They'll plug straight in to the 1/8 jack. Trust me, you wanna avoid the trs inputs at all costs!
-
Made my first real stealth recording over the weekend at a large venue running at-spc-8 mics directly into my mt2. Overall I am pretty happy with the result. The vocals came out pretty crisp and clear, and the sound is good to my ears, but there is something rather off with the low end. I'm not sure if I should've used my battery box w/roll off or if it maybe had anything to do with location of my mics (clipped to my backpack that I had on my lap). Either way, was hoping someone could give me some insight or critique as to what I could do to improve the existing recording, or capture better recordings in the future.
Thanks...
-
Trust me, you wanna avoid the trs inputs at all costs!
You mean as unbalanced mic input, right? It seems to work fine for balanced mics.
-
Made my first real stealth recording over the weekend at a large venue running at-spc-8 mics directly into my mt2. Overall I am pretty happy with the result. The vocals came out pretty crisp and clear, and the sound is good to my ears, but there is something rather off with the low end. I'm not sure if I should've used my battery box w/roll off or if it maybe had anything to do with location of my mics (clipped to my backpack that I had on my lap). Either way, was hoping someone could give me some insight or critique as to what I could do to improve the existing recording, or capture better recordings in the future.
Thanks...
Were the mics cardioid or omni caps? Omnis are often very boomy. This can be fixed in post if you have an EQ. Can you describe what you mean by "off". Is that muddy, or boomy, or lacking bass? How obstructed were the mics in your lap? All that info would be useful.
-
Sounds distorted. I posted a clip up here...
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,106415.0.html
They were cardiod caps. The mics were angled up towards the stacks, clipped to my backpack. I'm wondering if running the batt box would've helped.
-
Sounds distorted. I posted a clip up here...
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,106415.0.html
They were cardiod caps. The mics were angled up towards the stacks, clipped to my backpack. I'm wondering if running the batt box would've helped.
Also, these are old sp-cmc-8 mics. They have the AT933 caps. Thanks again for any input...
-
Sounds distorted. I posted a clip up here...
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,106415.0.html
They were cardiod caps. The mics were angled up towards the stacks, clipped to my backpack. I'm wondering if running the batt box would've helped.
How different was that bass sound compared to what you were hearing with your ears? It's hard for me to tell on my laptop, but I would think a battery box may have helped. Were you clipping at all? How high was your recording level? I know that there are significant differences in the MT1 and 2, so I may not be of help. On the MT1, the 1/8 inputs are not very good, but the 1/4 trs are. I have had bass distort if I clopped using the 1/8 inputs but found the 1/4 trs inputs very forgiving.
-
[/quote]
How different was that bass sound compared to what you were hearing with your ears? It's hard for me to tell on my laptop, but I would think a battery box may have helped. Were you clipping at all? How high was your recording level? I know that there are significant differences in the MT1 and 2, so I may not be of help. On the MT1, the 1/8 inputs are not very good, but the 1/4 trs are. I have had bass distort if I clopped using the 1/8 inputs but found the 1/4 trs inputs very forgiving.
[/quote]
I didn't have any clipping on my mt2 or in the wav's when I transferred the files...even had to boost the levels some. I left the mt2 at the lowest level possible. Had to set it quickly and stow it. As far as the sound in the venue, was very bassy but wasn't sounding distorted. I ordered a 1/8 mini to TRS connector but know that using that with unbalanced mics is gonna introduce that lovely "sprinkler noise".
Maybe that extra 4 volts of power will be what I need. Maybe while my stepkids are away this weekend I'll be able to do some living room testing and compare the diff w/the bb in the chain.
Thanks for your help... +4 tix...
-
Time for a new thread.
continue here: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,106690.0.html