Topic: New improved microtrack (MT II)

[OFOTD]

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

[SClassical]

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 so I definitely need to get the MTII.

[jtessier]

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.

[jtessier]

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.

[Brian Skalinder]

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.

[jerryfreak]

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.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

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.

[JoeKiller]

Seemless autosplit would be the only reason why I would upgrade.  What other features really makes it worth while?

[H₂O]

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.

[guysonic]

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

[Colin Liston]

 

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?

[rowjimmy]

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.

[Colin Liston]

That'd be my guess too.  I hope I am wrong though. 

[JoeKiller]

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.

[guysonic]

Being out of production (I think at this time) little support for older MT except repair or battery replacement service.