Topic: Microtrack II - Part 2

[page]

P.S.: I got up the nerve to run chkdsk /f on the drive, and it correctly restored the entire 2 hour, 3 minute, 50-second WAV file up to the point where the recorder froze. Whew! (Now, if it only hadn't frozen ... but that turned out to be OK, too, in its own way. This time.)

I, for one, await your in-depth review and comments. I saw someone this past weekend who had an MT1 and grumbled a bit about it, but was generally happy. With that in mind, I see many people who have similar reactions about the MT2. I keep looking at it as the only 24bit digi-in, but I have trouble pulling the trigger on one with the random issues.

On that note, my iriver120 isn't perfect, but I've never had an issue in the field personally but I had one at home testing stuff, so it might be that every recorder has random gremlins, and it's just what percentage of normal operation is affected.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

I see many people who have similar reactions about the MT2. I keep looking at it as the only 24bit digi-in, but I have trouble pulling the trigger on one with the random issues.

On that note, my iriver120 isn't perfect, but I've never had an issue in the field personally but I had one at home testing stuff, so it might be that every recorder has random gremlins, and it's just what percentage of normal operation is affected.

What I would add to that is that to go better you have to spend more, like on a Korg MR1, or a Sony D50 or a Fostex FR2.

Right now I am balancing between the MT 2 or the Edirol R-09HR. But that is because I can't find a review with a line-in noise-spectrum curve for the Zoom H2 or the Tascam DR1. Is there one anywhere?

[rsimms3]

So here is the $64,000 question....has anyone got the brass balls to put the MTII firmware on the MT 24/96?  I just got the MT 24/96 for the second time to record 24 bit and wanted to go 96k with it, but forgot about the seamless split issue and you can only record 57 minutes at 24/96 which is too short for any main set.  On the M-Audio site it specifically says not to use the 24/96 firmware with the MTII but says nothing about using the MTII firmware on a 24/96.  I am tempted just for giggles and possibility of getting seamless track splits on the 24/96.  Thoughts?  Anyone know how the guts are different?

[dallman]

So here is the $64,000 question....has anyone got the brass balls to put the MTII firmware on the MT 24/96?  I just got the MT 24/96 for the second time to record 24 bit and wanted to go 96k with it, but forgot about the seamless split issue and you can only record 57 minutes at 24/96 which is too short for any main set.  On the M-Audio site it specifically says not to use the 24/96 firmware with the MTII but says nothing about using the MTII firmware on a 24/96.  I am tempted just for giggles and possibility of getting seamless track splits on the 24/96.  Thoughts?  Anyone know how the guts are different?

 I can't imagine anything good would come of it. The MT 2496 firmware is stable and the unit is easy to use. The unit was not built to accomodate the seamless split, which is probably (at least partly) why the new unit was created. I cannot see any way that the firmware would solve this issue.

A better solution is to record at 24/48.

[rsimms3]

So here is the $64,000 question....has anyone got the brass balls to put the MTII firmware on the MT 24/96?  I just got the MT 24/96 for the second time to record 24 bit and wanted to go 96k with it, but forgot about the seamless split issue and you can only record 57 minutes at 24/96 which is too short for any main set.  On the M-Audio site it specifically says not to use the 24/96 firmware with the MTII but says nothing about using the MTII firmware on a 24/96.  I am tempted just for giggles and possibility of getting seamless track splits on the 24/96.  Thoughts?  Anyone know how the guts are different?

 I can't imagine anything good would come of it. The MT 2496 firmware is stable and the unit is easy to use. The unit was not built to accomodate the seamless split, which is probably (at least partly) why the new unit was created. I cannot see any way that the firmware would solve this issue.

A better solution is to record at 24/48.

Yeah, that's what I figured I would do.  It took quite a while to figure out how to do that with my UA-5.  The MT came with an old Beta, 1.04 I think, and it wasn't reading the sample rate automatically so whatever rate I had set under the analog inputs was being carried over when I switched to the digital input.  My next plan is to upgrade the regular firmware to 1.4.6 and record 24/48 until I win the lotto and upgrade to something else.  I am liking the coax cable better than the optical for digital recording, I don't feel like I have to baby the cable like the optical one with the caps and such. 

[dallman]

So here is the $64,000 question....has anyone got the brass balls to put the MTII firmware on the MT 24/96?  I just got the MT 24/96 for the second time to record 24 bit and wanted to go 96k with it, but forgot about the seamless split issue and you can only record 57 minutes at 24/96 which is too short for any main set.  On the M-Audio site it specifically says not to use the 24/96 firmware with the MTII but says nothing about using the MTII firmware on a 24/96.  I am tempted just for giggles and possibility of getting seamless track splits on the 24/96.  Thoughts?  Anyone know how the guts are different?

 I can't imagine anything good would come of it. The MT 2496 firmware is stable and the unit is easy to use. The unit was not built to accomodate the seamless split, which is probably (at least partly) why the new unit was created. I cannot see any way that the firmware would solve this issue.

A better solution is to record at 24/48.

Yeah, that's what I figured I would do.  It took quite a while to figure out how to do that with my UA-5.  The MT came with an old Beta, 1.04 I think, and it wasn't reading the sample rate automatically so whatever rate I had set under the analog inputs was being carried over when I switched to the digital input.  My next plan is to upgrade the regular firmware to 1.4.6 and record 24/48 until I win the lotto and upgrade to something else.  I am liking the coax cable better than the optical for digital recording, I don't feel like I have to baby the cable like the optical one with the caps and such. 

I have had the MT 2496 since it came out. Originally it was terrible, but within a few months it got much better and then with the final firmwares it became rock solid. It is not for everyone though, because it is qwirky. I have not lost a recording or had a problem since 2006. I really love the deck and my recordings. I always go at 24/48. I have had a few close calls on the split, but even if I lose a few seconds it is not the end of the world. So far the only time that did happen is when I tried 24/96.

There have been a few times I started a new file between songs, bu pushing record twice. That worked well.

The only thing for me that I try and keep drilled in my head is to remember to put the hold button back on after I do anything. It is really easy to touch the buttons and screw up a recording. I'm pretty religious about remembering that if I make any changes during a recording.

I am afraid that putting firmware from the new MT could make the unit not function.

[taperwheeler]

I think the same thing goes with the MT2.  Initially there were a lot of bugs, but they've been mostly overcome.  Seems that by the major decrease in postings about the device and it's problems, most people running them are satisfied.  I love my unit.  Has been great running digi-in and am also pretty impressed with going 1/8" in with my at933's.  Definately worth the purchase imho.

Now if only we could get an Oade mod...

[lefty]

sorry for the basic questions...

which inputs are digital?
is the s/pdif input and/or output?

I've got some old DAT tapes (has s/pdif optical & coax out) and minidiscs (has 1/8" out) I want to transfer to my PC, but I don't have an audio interface.  I'm looking at the MT2 as option... anyone have thoughts on that?

edit:
old DAT recorder is the Sony PCM-M1 & I have a Sony RM-D100K for the digital outputs
old minidisc recorder is the Sony MZ-N1

[taperwheeler]

sorry for the basic questions...

which inputs are digital?
is the s/pdif input and/or output?

I've got some old DAT tapes (has s/pdif optical & coax out) and minidiscs (has 1/8" out) I want to transfer to my PC, but I don't have an audio interface.  I'm looking at the MT2 as option... anyone have thoughts on that?

edit:
old DAT recorder is the Sony PCM-M1 & I have a Sony RM-D100K for the digital outputs
old minidisc recorder is the Sony MZ-N1

If you're only looking to do a digi transfer of old tapes, I would invest in a much cheaper usb audio interface for your computer (under $100).  But if you want a new digital recorder, the MT2 isn't a bad investment.

The MT2 has spdif as it's digi in and it's outputs are either digi thru the usb or analog thru rca stereo connectors. You could run your md thru the 1/8th jack, m1 thru the spdif...

[silentmark]

I thought the outputs were analog only, like the original MT ?

[taperwheeler]

To play audio, no digi outputs, but for transfer, digi thru usb.

[lefty]

...  But if you want a new digital recorder, the MT2 isn't a bad investment.

yeah, actually i am thinking kill two birds with one device...  i need a new recorder too.  i just bought an edirol R09HR, but think i'll exchange it for the MT2 just to get the digi inputs

excellent news! thank you very much for the quick reply!

[dactylus]

...  But if you want a new digital recorder, the MT2 isn't a bad investment.

yeah, actually i am thinking kill two birds with one device...  i need a new recorder too.  i just bought an edirol R09HR, but think i'll exchange it for the MT2 just to get the digi inputs

excellent news! thank you very much for the quick reply!

Other than the digi inputs on the MT2 I would stick with the edirol R09HR that you just bought.

The 1/4" TRS inputs on the MT2 will produce noise on your recording if you are inputting from an unbalanced source...

 

[flintstone]

Guysonic's tests show the MT2 works well with
-- balanced mic input to the 1/4-inch jacks
-- line input and
-- unbalanced mic input to the 1/8-inch jack. 
There is a lot of noise added when using the 1/4-inch jack and an unbalanced input. 

Here is Guysonic's post:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,88437.msg1286241.html#msg1286241

The upgrade to the MT2 added a seamless rollover when 2 GB file size is reached, and fixed a low voltage problem with phantom power.  But the MT2 preamp is generally more noisy than its predecessor, the Microtrack 2496.

This is one of the few times I can think of where the revised model is not as good as the original. (Another example: iRiver replacing the H120 with the H320.) If you can live with a 2 GB file size and don't need the full 48V of phantom power, then buy a used MT 2496.

Flintstone

[groovecon1]

In case anyone with the MicroTracK II is interested, I recently sold mine (for personal reasons, not dissatisfaction).  I've got a Denecke PS-2 and AD-20 set that I paid $450 for back in April, used 5x at my bands rehearsals, that I'm selling for $200.00.  It's really a terrific deal.  The AD-20 produces far superior sound to the internals in the MicroTrack.  Both going for about $125 less than the cost of the AD-20 alone.

The thread with my contact info is in Recording Gear and Yard Sale forums now.

Thanks,

Dan