Topic: Should I keep my microtrack? Thinking about going back to minidisc.

[taper420]

Bought it almost two weeks ago.... tomorrow's pretty much the last day I can return it. What I like is 24 bit, digital in, and drag and drop uploading. What I don't like is no seamless split over 2 gigs, shitty analog components, and relatively expensive media. Also I've noticed dropouts or hiccups during playback (in the same spot), but these weren't there when looking at the wave on the computer. I have an ultralite with spidf out that works good with it as a medium/small size setup, so I don't have to drag the laptop along always. And I tried it out as a stealth setup without external preamp/ADC and it really wasn't all THAT bad. Not the greatest, but definitely doable.

My alternative is the RH1 HiMD recorder. I already have an rh10, so the new one would be for switching to seamlessly after the first one runs out (94 min). What I like about it is it'll work with my mac (unlike the RH10), the ADC is top notch, the media is pretty cheap and can be used as an archive of the original recording (unlike CF cards which you must erase and reuse), and I'll be able to upload my huge catalog of legacy md's finally. Things I don't like about it are it's 16 bit, it's not drag and drop, the ADC is 20 bit which means it will truncate the additional 4 bits from a 24 bit digital signal (which may not matter cause those bits are noise anyway?), yet I do think it applies dither when going down from 20 to 16. Also the 1 gig limit is a pain, but not so much since I'll have two recorders. And I guess the only other thing would be the need for an external preamp (not usually a problem) because the preamp on the MD clips way to early and is unusable in my opinion (where as the one in the MT is at least usable). Also, it only accepts optical digital input, and my ultralite uses spidf so I'd need to use a co2, or my traveler if I wanted to run digital in.

Gotta make a decision quick, like I said, tomorrows the last day I can return it. I'm kinda bumming about having to get rid or these $150 worth of CF cards (which I don't think can be returned), but I am looking forward to uploading these hundreds of legacy md's from my early days of taping.

What do you guys think?

[powermonkey]

I've not used a microtrack, but is the lack of a seamless file split not something that is likely to be resolved by a future firmware update?

[Javier Cinakowski]

because the preamp on the MD clips way to early and is unusable in my opinion

I found the Hi-MD's preamp to be very usable.  (low-sen setting)  I have not had any brickwalling problems or distortion.  I recorded some fairly loud concerts (not metal).  With the thing set to low sensitivity, I have pulled some really nice tapes.    The preamp stage is fine and the ADC is great. 

That being said, I ditched the Hi-MD format because I hate Sonic Stage and 1GB is just not enough.  Now if the Hi-MD was 3GB discs with drag and drop, nothing could touch it...

[taper420]

I wrote to them and I've read some threads here... it seams like it can't be fixed. I made three suggestions how they could make it so, and most if not all of them we're not technologically possible. The MT stores data in a 2gig buffer and then writes this to the card when you stop recording. I suggested two mono files instead of one stereo because I assumed the 2 gig limit had something to do with the 2 gig .wav limit.... but it's not...it's due to their buffer (which was probably designed with foreknowledge of the 2 gig .wav limit.). So while splitting to mono would allow us to get twice the record time in a single .wav file, it doesn't matter because the size of the buffer is the size of the buffer, and I assume it's not designed to read and write at the same time. One possible solution I suggested was giving us a manual seamless split option before the limit is reached...but somehow I don't think this is possible or it would have been done already. I forget my third suggestion, but I believe it was equally as hopeless. It doesn't seam like this seam is going to be fixed.

[Roving Sign]

I've not used a microtrack, but is the lack of a seamless file split not something that is likely to be resolved by a future firmware update?

If you follow some of the threads - it seems like this request has been made since the device was introduced, and not addressed in any of the firmware revisions. Seems like the general consensus is that its not going to happen...?

I'm reconsidering the Microtrack - but the 2gb issue is irksome. The 2 gig limit seems to make 24/96 slightly impractical - perhaps a minor inconvenience that you can work around - but I can see it being a hassle - just like a tape flip...take your eye off the ball for a second - and yer screwed...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I've not used a microtrack, but is the lack of a seamless file split not something that is likely to be resolved by a future firmware update?

Given how much time has passed and how long we've been asking, it seems clear that M-Audio is NOT going to provide seamless split.. Or even the basic work-around of recording dual channel mono (where you'd have two mono files, each up to 2GB in size).

If digi in wasn't important, I'd suggest an r09.

[Todd R]

Personally, I'd keep the MT -- if only because there is no way I'd go back to real-time transfers (still required with MD right?).  Plus to do a good transfer with MD, you need a digital out MD.  Way back, no portable/field MD players had digital optical out, so it required a separate home-stereo sized MD player with optical out just to do the real time transfers digitally.  All of which to me is way too much of a pain, though I'm not sure all this holds true in your case/these days.

As to the 2Gig limit on the MT, to compare apples to apples, the HiMD only does 16/44.1k wav, right?  At 16/44.1, the MT can get about 3 hours and 25 minutes of record time.  That really makes the 2Gig limit pretty much a non-issue for 16/44.1.  I know the 2G limit is a much bigger deal at 24/48 or 24/96, but since the hiMD can't do that, it seems to me you'd be better off making the comparison of what each can do at 16/44.1, and then deciding.  If you need to record for 3 hours straight with the MT, record at 16/44 and you're no worse off than the HiMD.  If you only need to record up to 2 hours, record 24/48 on the MT, and you've done better than would've been possible with the MD.

[bgalizio]

If digi in wasn't important, I'd suggest an r09.

[Roving Sign]

Personally, I'd keep the MT -- if only because there is no way I'd go back to real-time transfers (still required with MD right?).  Plus to do a good transfer with MD, you need a digital out MD.  Way back, no portable/field MD players had digital optical out, so it required a separate home-stereo sized MD player with optical out just to do the real time transfers digitally.  All of which to me is way too much of a pain, though I'm not sure all this holds true in your case/these days.

I think he's talking HiMd - which I think now has drag/drop transfers - and - will read and transfer old ATRAC MD discs

[dkarDaGobert]

Personally, I'd keep the MT -- if only because there is no way I'd go back to real-time transfers (still required with MD right?).  Plus to do a good transfer with MD, you need a digital out MD.  Way back, no portable/field MD players had digital optical out, so it required a separate home-stereo sized MD player with optical out just to do the real time transfers digitally.  All of which to me is way too much of a pain, though I'm not sure all this holds true in your case/these days.

As to the 2Gig limit on the MT, to compare apples to apples, the HiMD only does 16/44.1k wav, right?  At 16/44.1, the MT can get about 3 hours and 25 minutes of record time.  That really makes the 2Gig limit pretty much a non-issue for 16/44.1.  I know the 2G limit is a much bigger deal at 24/48 or 24/96, but since the hiMD can't do that, it seems to me you'd be better off making the comparison of what each can do at 16/44.1, and then deciding.  If you need to record for 3 hours straight with the MT, record at 16/44 and you're no worse off than the HiMD.  If you only need to record up to 2 hours, record 24/48 on the MT, and you've done better than would've been possible with the MD.

Hi Todd
with the new hiMD-recorders its possible to upload the recordings directly with usb to the computer - the last himd-recorder (rh1/m200) can upload old records which are on normal MDs too!
So there´s no realtime transfering with a digital out / line-cable needed!

i´ve got the rh1 and the mt - and use my rh1 only as a portable player or as SBD-Backup!

I think he's talking HiMd - which I think now has drag/drop transfers - and - will read and transfer old ATRAC MD discs

the HiMDs doesn´t have really drag n drop transfers - u need to use the sonicstage software..
only the Sony MZ-RH1 can upload old atrac MDs!

[Todd R]

Oops, sorry, I guess I don't know much about HiMD.  I thought Sony kept everything MD crippled so we couldn't pirate music.

Nevermind.

[shaggy]

As to the 2Gig limit on the MT, to compare apples to apples, the HiMD only does 16/44.1k wav, right?  At 16/44.1, the MT can get about 3 hours and 25 minutes of record time.

with the rockboxed H1XX, you can get twice as long with lossless wavpack encoding!  But the AD is a bit shrill, better as a bit bucket....

[dunebug81]

I have the RH1 and I love it.  I can say its the best recorder I have ever used.  Small, excellent battery life, cheap media (even reuseable if you want to reuse it), uploads are MUCH faster then your RH10 not to mention being able to upload all your regular MDs.  For $300 you can't go wrong. 

I buy 1gb discs from a local shop here and they are the cheapest I've seen anywhere.  www.tapewarehouse.com Shipping prices are reasonable and if you're out of state you won't have to pay tax! 

Sonic Stage still has to be used but its not that bad.  The latest version 4.2 (I think) is pretty stable unlike previous versions.  They also just put out an update for Windows Vista if you are running that.  You said you have a mac and there is a Mac tool but I've never used it but i hear its pretty easy to use.

[busterr]

What I like is 24 bit, digital in, and drag and drop uploading. What I don't like is no seamless split over 2 gigs, shitty analog components, and relatively expensive media.
My alternative is the RH1 HiMD recorder. I already have an rh10, so the new one would be for switching to ??seamlessly?? after the first one runs out (94 min).

Here's my $0.02... Your first sentence in the quote is why I own a MT, a simple to use(w/ new fw), bit perfect device(using coax in) for about half the price of anything actually comparable. Yes, the non seamless split is not ideal, however running two md decks and monkeying around trying to line up your waves after the fact seems like more work than simply starting a new file during a song break. Why don't you just use your current md to fiil that gap if nessesary?. Also if you already have the cf cards you need, you are effectively done buying media, so i'm not real sure why that's an issue. As far as stealthing goes I find the random crowd intrusions that comes along with stealthing, far more annoying than a little analog noise from the internal pre's and whatnot.

Hope that helps, it just seems like you'd be taking a step backwards.(nothing at all against hi-md) Unless you have no interest in 24 bit I'd say keep the Microtrack, then maybe look into borrowing a hi-md that you can do your transfers with.

[Brian Skalinder]

What do you guys think?

I think you should sell your MT to me at a cut-rate price.