Topic: MicroTrack 24/96 Statement from M-Audio

[M-Audio]

Greetings,
 
Hello, this is Steve from M-Audio. The M-Audio team would like to thank all of you for your valuable feedback and want you to know that we are aware of the issues that have been discussed in this forum.  We have released a beta version of a firmware update for the MicroTrack 24/96, which is now available on our Web site ( www.m-audio.com/microupdate ). This firmware update fixes a number of issues in the initial release version.

Please note that we have also posted an FAQ regarding phantom power on the MicroTrack 24/96. That FAQ can be found here:
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support.faq&ID=7fb377f3ef962038a26bc5c2291bafc1
 
I will report back to this forum regarding upcoming firmware updates as soon as more information becomes available. Please feel free to check www.m-audio.com for additional resources.

[Ed.]

welcome to ts.  your presence here is very much appreciated.

[Simp-Dawg]

welcome to ts.  your presence here is very much appreciated.

indeed!  nice to see manufacturers taking interest in our community and actively working with us to address our needs.  thanks!

[JasonSobel]

welcome to ts.  your presence here is very much appreciated.

indeed!  nice to see manufacturers taking interest in our community and actively working with us to address our needs.  thanks!

yes, it certainly is nice to see M-Audio take our concerns seriously.  I think many of us here think the MicroTrack 24/96 has a lot of potential, and are hoping that our concerns will be address in future firmware updates.  Thanks for keeping us all updated.

[udovdh]

Amen!

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Welcome!

Maybe you could tell us the story about the phantom power?  The product was promoted as having 48v phantom (be happy to provide you with photos and links if there is any doubt). It wasn't until people started actually measuring the units in the field that we found that it didn't. So I'm sure there is a story...

I saw this warning was recently added to your website. Oddly, there was no mention of it in the actual product packaging.


*In very rare cases, damage to your equipment may occur as a result of using a level of phantom power that is different from the manufacturer’s specified requirement. Please verify operating requirements with your microphone’s manufacturer.  M-Audio is not responsible for any damage to your MicroTrack 24/96, microphone, or other equipment which may be caused by a phantom power mismatch.

[coloartist]

Thanks for listening to our concerns, and responding fairly quick with our first firmware upgrade.

Keep them coming!! 

[bagtagsell]

+t, thank you. 

[F.O.Bean]

awesome, this is exactly the testing grounds we need

thanks for taking us minorities seriously

[Steve J]

awesome, this is exactly the testing grounds we need

thanks for taking us minorities seriously

Gotta watch out for them swing votes! Good to see the MFR involvement here. 

[svenkid]

thanks for responding M-Audio
definately much appreciated

Carl

[plucks]

welcome to the forum
+T for being aware of our niche community.
I think you will find that while we may not be the biggest consumer audience out there, we do take out gear very seriously

[svenkid]

phil lucks? signal path taper/archiver???

[plucks]

yes??

[F.O.Bean]

awesome, this is exactly the testing grounds we need

thanks for taking us minorities seriously

Gotta watch out for them swing votes! Good to see the MFR involvement here. 

 

we have the whole spectrum covered

[goose]

phil lucks? signal path taper/archiver???

yes??

he's so dreeeeamy   

[BLOODYJACK]

I seem to remember a rumor that said one of the delays of this product was the fact that the switching supply to create 48v put noise on the inputs at a guess I would say thats your story and 30v is the compromise fix to get this product to market.
That said this is a fantastic product at the right price and if your going to use mics that need 48v at 10ma then you are going to be useing an esoteric pre-amp as well i think a lot of you expect to much for too little money.
To put this in perspective, i am useing a Sound Devices mix-pre as my font end and that cost over $600 dollers just for 2 mic pre,s and no a2d.
No firmware is going to fix this and you can whine as much as you like it is what it is, only a revision to the hardware or maybe a version 2 will fix this, remember the JB3 did not come close for taping untill version 3 and this thing is almost there.

[greenone]

I seem to remember a rumor that said one of the delays of this product was the fact that the switching supply to create 48v put noise on the inputs at a guess I would say thats your story and 30v is the compromise fix to get this product to market.

Y'know, it might not be the best idea to antagonize the guy right after he shows up to show they're listening to and addressing our questions...

[wbrisette]

No firmware is going to fix this and you can whine as much as you like it is what it is, only a revision to the hardware or maybe a version 2 will fix this, remember the JB3 did not come close for taping untill version 3 and this thing is almost there.

Which is along the lines of what I stated in another thread about these devices all being pretty new for most of the companies.

That being said, I wouldn't consider the Earthworks mics that esoteric, in fact the SR-77 and 71 mics have seen a lot of use in the taping community, but they do require the maximum of 10 mA that the Phantom power spec allows. But again, I agree with your statement about having to use a pre-amp with most of the stuff the taping community is doing. It might be fine for a starter rig, but I think eventually to get the best sound folks will either have to add the pre-amp and/or A/D unit if they want to continue with the MicroTrack. However, once you start factoring in the other external devices (if you don't already own one) then you're at a price point where other non-linear recorders are and people might be better served going with one  of them.

Wayne

[Martinusb]

Hello Microtrack-Friends,

I am trying to get one of these devices and want to measure all the properties of the device.
One thing that is strange is the voltage of the phantom power.
Basically there are three different feeding circuits defined in the standard:
48V, using 6,8kOhm feeding resistors
24V, unsing 1,2kOhm feeding resistors
12V, using 680 Ohm resistors.
Did anyone of you measure the voltage of the Microtrack with/without a microphone connected ?
Because of the feeding resistors there will be a voltage drop at the terminals as soon as a microphone is connected and a current is drawn.
The fact is that using a lower voltage will result in a loss of quality, e.g. the sensitivity and maximum SPL of the microphone will be worse than stated in the datasheet. Some microphones might be more noisy or have crackling noise, depending on the circuit design of the microphone.
Some microphones are designed to accept 12/24/48 V, some only accept 48V.

Another issue I am interested in but could not find a specification: what is the maximum uninterrupted recording length ?
Is there a limitation in duration, file size or is the size of the CF card the only limitation ?

Does anyone out there have experiences with recordings during connected power supply ? Does it work properly or is the noise floor affected by the power supply ?

Don´t get me wrong, I think the Microtrack is a really great device. This beats Edirol R-1 by far !
Especially the dual microphone Inputs (plug in power and phantom power) make it a versatile device.


Best regards from Germany

Martinusb

[udovdh]

Another issue I am interested in but could not find a specification: what is the maximum uninterrupted recording length ?

If the 2GB bug is fixed, media is abundant, without pantom, the advertised battery life (8 hours) should be approachble?
Only it is not mentioned under what conditions 8 hours should be reached...
So please specify?

[Ed.]

the 2gb bug isn't exactly fixed, but theres a convenient work-around.  however, they are working on fixing it so the work-around isn't needed.

[WiFiJeff]

the 2gb bug isn't exactly fixed, but theres a convenient work-around.  however, they are working on fixing it so the work-around isn't needed.

For me, the "work-around" doesn't work, at least around 24/96.  At 24/44.1 and a two hour run-time, it's okay, but I simply can't do a reset every 58 minutes or so.  So I'm really hoping this one is fixed ASAP.

Jeff

[JasonSobel]

the 2gb bug isn't exactly fixed, but theres a convenient work-around.  however, they are working on fixing it so the work-around isn't needed.

For me, the "work-around" doesn't work, at least around 24/96.  At 24/44.1 and a two hour run-time, it's okay, but I simply can't do a reset every 58 minutes or so.  So I'm really hoping this one is fixed ASAP.

Jeff

there is no "work-around" yet.  the 2 gig file size limit is a fact.  it isn't something that they'll easily be able to "fix".    Right now, when you re-start a file, you lose somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds.  that's not good enough, I know.  The "work-around" is to have it automatically start a new file when 2 GB is reached, and have no data lost, so that the files can be seamlessly put back together in post editing.

all of the recent indications from M-Audio show that they are aware of the problem and are actively working on a "work-around" for the issue.  hopefully it'll be in the next firmware.

[spyder9]

I think the fix for the 2gb limit should be patterned after the JB3.  The JB3 has a 3 HOUR limit.  Just update the firmware from "file size limit" to "time limit".  The fix for that can't be too complicated.  A phone call from M-Audio to Creative Labs would help point the way.  Just my 2 cents. 

[Simp-Dawg]

Hello Microtrack-Friends,

I am trying to get one of these devices and want to measure all the properties of the device.
One thing that is strange is the voltage of the phantom power.
Basically there are three different feeding circuits defined in the standard:
48V, using 6,8kOhm feeding resistors
24V, unsing 1,2kOhm feeding resistors
12V, using 680 Ohm resistors.
Did anyone of you measure the voltage of the Microtrack with/without a microphone connected ?
Because of the feeding resistors there will be a voltage drop at the terminals as soon as a microphone is connected and a current is drawn.
The fact is that using a lower voltage will result in a loss of quality, e.g. the sensitivity and maximum SPL of the microphone will be worse than stated in the datasheet. Some microphones might be more noisy or have crackling noise, depending on the circuit design of the microphone.
Some microphones are designed to accept 12/24/48 V, some only accept 48V.

Another issue I am interested in but could not find a specification: what is the maximum uninterrupted recording length ?
Is there a limitation in duration, file size or is the size of the CF card the only limitation ?

Does anyone out there have experiences with recordings during connected power supply ? Does it work properly or is the noise floor affected by the power supply ?

Don´t get me wrong, I think the Microtrack is a really great device. This beats Edirol R-1 by far !
Especially the dual microphone Inputs (plug in power and phantom power) make it a versatile device.


Best regards from Germany

Martinusb

read one of the *many* threads on the MT and you'll find answers to your questions

[nickgregory]

I think the fix for the 2gb limit should be patterned after the JB3.  The JB3 has a 3 HOUR limit.  Just update the firmware from "file size limit" to "time limit".  The fix for that can't be too complicated.  A phone call from M-Audio to Creative Labs would help point the way.  Just my 2 cents. 

actually it should be patterend off of the 722 which does it right imo.  It stops and saves the file before 2 Gb is reached and starts a new one, so that they can seamlessly be joined together after the fact, and where they were split was irrelevant, because nothing was lost

[Brian]

jb3 = 16/44.1 or 48.  pretty easy for them to implement a 3 hour limit because it falss under 2GB at that bit depth and sample rate.

remember this is all based upon the 2GB limit....not the amount of time.

or were you just saying that there should be a general "time limit" dependent upon the bit depth and sample rate chosen?

I think the fix for the 2gb limit should be patterned after the JB3.  The JB3 has a 3 HOUR limit.  Just update the firmware from "file size limit" to "time limit".  The fix for that can't be too complicated.  A phone call from M-Audio to Creative Labs would help point the way.  Just my 2 cents. 

[fozzy]

I think the fix for the 2gb limit should be patterned after the JB3.  The JB3 has a 3 HOUR limit.  Just update the firmware from "file size limit" to "time limit".  The fix for that can't be too complicated.  A phone call from M-Audio to Creative Labs would help point the way.  Just my 2 cents. 

actually it should be patterend off of the 722 which does it right imo.  It stops and saves the file before 2 Gb is reached and starts a new one, so that they can seamlessly be joined together after the fact, and where they were split was irrelevant, because nothing was lost

A JB3 in continuous mode behaves the same way, w/ the latest firmware it is seamless.  Difference is now that i encounter files rolling over much more often @ 24/96 (~57:38) vs. the ~3hrs on the JB3.

[spyder9]

I think the fix for the 2gb limit should be patterned after the JB3.  The JB3 has a 3 HOUR limit.  Just update the firmware from "file size limit" to "time limit".  The fix for that can't be too complicated.  A phone call from M-Audio to Creative Labs would help point the way.  Just my 2 cents. 

actually it should be patterend off of the 722 which does it right imo.  It stops and saves the file before 2 Gb is reached and starts a new one, so that they can seamlessly be joined together after the fact, and where they were split was irrelevant, because nothing was lost

What is the purpose of the 2GB limit for either the 722 or the MT?  Over-heating from  manufacturing test failures past the 2 GB continous record?  Seriously, can someone answer that question? Maybe a safety valve for possible unit failure during a long recording?  Save-as-you go feature?  Nice if your ENG, but as a taper, that would make me nervy, even if the split & restart was seamless.

The JB3 3 HOUR max is perfect for our needs for continous taping.  No one plays 3 hours sets.  At least not consistently.  If MT can configure the split under a Time constraint, irregardless of whether your running 44.1/16 or 96/24, it should be just rewriting the section of the firmware.  Granted, I'm no software engineer, bit it would be my wish-solution for this problem.

[OFOTD]

Remember that the 2GB file limitation is a result of FAT32 file system and not something that can be changed via a firmware update.  All a firmware update can do is split the files before they reach th 2GB mark or something of that nature.  But having a single file over 2GB isn't gonna happen.

[Brian]

there is a 2 GB file limit because that's how .wav was designed.  back when those two guys(can't remember their names) developed the pcm wave format they had no idea how advanced digital audio would get and how big the files can be.

[spyder9]

Remember that the 2GB file limitation is a result of FAT32 file system and not something that can be changed via a firmware update.  All a firmware update can do is split the files before they reach th 2GB mark or something of that nature.  But having a single file over 2GB isn't gonna happen.

Hmmm.  Good answer OFOTD.  So what you're saying is MT has no chance of eliminating the 2GB split?  So they do need to pattern it after the 722 and make the split seamless.

Is Fat32 a Microsoft thingy?   

[keepongoin]

Remember that the 2GB file limitation is a result of FAT32 file system and not something that can be changed via a firmware update.  All a firmware update can do is split the files before they reach th 2GB mark or something of that nature.  But having a single file over 2GB isn't gonna happen.

Hmmm.  Good answer OFOTD.  So what you're saying is MT has no chance of eliminating the 2GB split?  So they do need to pattern it after the 722 and make the split seamless.

Is Fat32 a Microsoft thingy?   

yes, MS thing... it sucks.

[spyder9]

I wonder, with the new OS next year, if Microsoft is going to improve the file system for stuff like this. 

[mmedley.]

I wonder, with the new OS next year, if Microsoft is going to improve the file system for stuff like this. 

They were. WinFS (Windows File System) but have since dropped that for the time being due to holding up development.

NTFS and all your worries are gone....and so is multiple OS/cross platform support. 

Someone mentioned NTFS has licensing restrictions, could be another reason no one uses it?

Sure would be cool to have the option to format to NTFS in the MicroTrack in a firmware update. Hint Hint!

[spyder9]

I wonder, with the new OS next year, if Microsoft is going to improve the file system for stuff like this. 

They were. WinFS (Windows File System) but have since dropped that for the time being due to holding up development.

NTFS and all your worries are gone....and so is multiple OS/cross platform support. 

Someone mentioned NTFS has licensing restrictions, could be another reason no one uses it?

Sure would be cool to have the option to format to NTFS in the MicroTrack in a firmware update. Hint Hint!

You hit the nail on the head.  If they developed WinFS to replace NTFS, then Microsoft could release the licensing restrictions on NTFS, like they did with Fat32.   

  Sh$t, c'mon Billy, get WinFS going!  Your messing with our recordings!

[nickgregory]

What is the purpose of the 2GB limit for either the 722 or the MT?  Over-heating from  manufacturing test failures past the 2 GB continous record?  Seriously, can someone answer that question? Maybe a safety valve for possible unit failure during a long recording?  Save-as-you go feature?  Nice if your ENG, but as a taper, that would make me nervy, even if the split & restart was seamless.

the purpose of the split is so that you can manage whatever size files you want.  I think you can set it all the way down to .5Gb to a max of 4 Gb....pretty convenient based on the speed of the PC you work with.  As for making me nervous, thankfully it works fine (outside of one bad firmare update that caused a looping problem)...

[spyder9]

What is the purpose of the 2GB limit for either the 722 or the MT?  Over-heating from  manufacturing test failures past the 2 GB continous record?  Seriously, can someone answer that question? Maybe a safety valve for possible unit failure during a long recording?  Save-as-you go feature?  Nice if your ENG, but as a taper, that would make me nervy, even if the split & restart was seamless.

the purpose of the split is so that you can manage whatever size files you want.  I think you can set it all the way down to .5Gb to a max of 4 Gb....pretty convenient based on the speed of the PC you work with.  As for making me nervous, thankfully it works fine (outside of one bad firmare update that caused a looping problem)...

Oh, so you can set it beyond 2GB.  Is the 722's firmware based on Fat32?  If it is, then the theories and assumptions about Fat32 are not correct?

[Scooter]

Using an NTFS file system wouldn't solve the 2gig size limit.  It's a .wav limitation, not a file system limitation.

[nickgregory]

I can make 4 Gb wav files with my 722 that CDWav reads fine....just other programs choke on it...such as wavelab

[it-goes-to-eleven]

You hit the nail on the head.  If they developed WinFS to replace NTFS, then Microsoft could release the licensing restrictions on NTFS, like they did with Fat32.   

  Sh$t, c'mon Billy, get WinFS going!  Your messing with our recordings!

FACT:  FAT32 supports 4 GB files.

Decent audio programs support 4GB wav files.

NTFS and WinFS have nothing to do with 'our recordings' and 2GB issues.  FAT32 already supports 4GB files.  Most windows audio applications don't even support >2GB files.  The Microtrack 2GB limitations are a microtrack problem that have nothing to do with NTFS or any other file system.

[mmedley.]

Drifting off topic, but 2GB is a software limit put in place. The 722 will do 4GB wav files and must split there due to FAT32 limitations. NTFS has no limit unless you are talking in the terabyte range. 

[spyder9]

Nice discussion guys.  I learned more on this thread than any other.  Good read for newbs.  I'm even a newb on stuff like this.   

[onebear]

Drifting off topic, but 2GB is a software limit put in place. The 722 will do 4GB wav files and must split there due to FAT32 limitations. NTFS has no limit unless you are talking in the terabyte range. 

FAT32 has a maximum file size limit on 4 GB and NTFS has in theory a limit on 16 exabytes 

[lstelie]

MBHO 603A/KA-200N > Core Sound Mic2496 > M-Audio MicroTrack24/96

Hello,

Please what is your experience with the association CS Mic2496/MicroTrack ?

Thanks in advance

[coloartist]

the 2gb bug isn't exactly fixed, but theres a convenient work-around.  however, they are working on fixing it so the work-around isn't needed.

For me, the "work-around" doesn't work, at least around 24/96.  At 24/44.1 and a two hour run-time, it's okay, but I simply can't do a reset every 58 minutes or so.  So I'm really hoping this one is fixed ASAP.

Jeff

there is no "work-around" yet.  the 2 gig file size limit is a fact.  it isn't something that they'll easily be able to "fix".    Right now, when you re-start a file, you lose somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds.  that's not good enough, I know.  The "work-around" is to have it automatically start a new file when 2 GB is reached, and have no data lost, so that the files can be seamlessly put back together in post editing.

all of the recent indications from M-Audio show that they are aware of the problem and are actively working on a "work-around" for the issue.  hopefully it'll be in the next firmware.

Why wouldn't this be able to be fixed easily with a firmware upgrade, like on the JB3? When you get to the 3 hour limit on the JB3, all you have to is push the ">l" button and it starts a new file seamlessly. At 24/48 you get two hours on the MT, and I would have no problem pushing one button, once.

PS- I went over three hours twice on the Jamcruise last year.

[JasonSobel]

the 2gb bug isn't exactly fixed, but theres a convenient work-around.  however, they are working on fixing it so the work-around isn't needed.

For me, the "work-around" doesn't work, at least around 24/96.  At 24/44.1 and a two hour run-time, it's okay, but I simply can't do a reset every 58 minutes or so.  So I'm really hoping this one is fixed ASAP.

Jeff

there is no "work-around" yet.  the 2 gig file size limit is a fact.  it isn't something that they'll easily be able to "fix".    Right now, when you re-start a file, you lose somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds.  that's not good enough, I know.  The "work-around" is to have it automatically start a new file when 2 GB is reached, and have no data lost, so that the files can be seamlessly put back together in post editing.

all of the recent indications from M-Audio show that they are aware of the problem and are actively working on a "work-around" for the issue.  hopefully it'll be in the next firmware.

Why wouldn't this be able to be fixed easily with a firmware upgrade, like on the JB3? When you get to the 3 hour limit on the JB3, all you have to is push the ">l" button and it starts a new file seamlessly. At 24/48 you get two hours on the MT, and I would have no problem pushing one button, once.

it should be easily fixable.  I never said it wouldn't.  in fact, I said that hopefully it'll be in the next firmware.  what I meant was that some people are talking about an existing "work-around", which is not true.  as it stands today, you hit the 2gig limit and the recording stops.  you then have to restart it.  we should not expect a "fix" from M-audio, in that we should not expect to record 4 gig or 6 gig files or whatever.  we should get an auto-split feature to "work-around" the 2 gig limit and not miss any music.

[Sebastian]

I just looked at the definitions of the WAVE and (R)IFF file formats and couldn't find anything about a 2 GB limit and FAT32 actually has a 4 Gibibyte (roughly equivalent to 4 Gigabyte) limit.

Maybe I just looked in the wrong places, but it appears that there is no real reason for a limit lower than 4 GiB on a device like the MT.

[nickgregory]

I just looked at the definitions of the WAVE and (R)IFF file formats and couldn't find anything about a 2 GB limit and FAT32 actually has a 4 Gibibyte (roughly equivalent to 4 Gigabyte) limit.

Maybe I just looked in the wrong places, but it appears that there is no real reason for a limit lower than 4 GiB on a device like the MT.

it has been stated earlier in this thread that it is not a wav limitation...what it is is an audio editing and computer speed limitation.  on the 722 as an example you can set your splits from .5 a gig up to 4 gigs...whatever you audio editing program wont choke on (wavelab doesnt do well with saving/opening over 2 gig files) and computer speed.  I know some witha  722 that sets the split at 1 gig as it is easier to deal with those smaller files on their PC

[nic]

I just looked at the definitions of the WAVE and (R)IFF file formats and couldn't find anything about a 2 GB limit and FAT32 actually has a 4 Gibibyte (roughly equivalent to 4 Gigabyte) limit.

Maybe I just looked in the wrong places, but it appears that there is no real reason for a limit lower than 4 GiB on a device like the MT.

the .wav format originally came out when the main filesystem in use on pcs was FAT16, which DID have a 2GB limitation.
application programmers erred on the side of backwards compatability when FAT32/NTFS came out and hard-coded a 2GB limitation.
true, .wav can be as big as 4GB, but the vast majority of applications will not work with these files due to the hard-coded backwards compatability limitation.

remember, it wasnt until the relatively recent 24bit recordings that the 2GB limitation even came into play.
how many 4+ hour sets can you think of from the past 10+ years? thats about how long it will take a 16bit recording to fill up 2GB

[scb]

I think we need a post about the 2GB limit at the top of the archive forum, if it's not already there (yes i'm loo lazy to look right now).  it seems a few of us post the answer a lot but it gets lost in the shuffle of other threads

i'll answer a bunch of posts here and give the answer to "why does a 2 gig limit exist?"


WAV/AIFF are 32 bit formats.  the max amount if information that the file formats can store is 2^ 32 bits, or 4 gigs. This means that technically, wav files have a hard limit of 4 gigs.  However, most software programs use signed numbers, so they use 1 bit for the sign.  This drops the amount of bits available to 2^31, or 2 gigs.  So the file format has a 4 gig limit, but most software programs make it a 2 gig limit by using signed numbers. 


file systems and operating systems are not the reason for the 2 gig limit.  it's a combination of the wav/aiff format and how software handles the files. 


To answer the question of "how come a JB3 can split on 3 hours instead of a size issue?"  Well, do you know how large a 3 gig 16/44.1 file is?  Remember 90 meter dat tapes?  They recorded a little over 3 hours, right?  What size did it say on there?  2GB. 

So it's not a hardware limitation.  It's not something hardware manufacturers or software designers decided to make up on their own.  It's a limtation in the file format itself.  To address larger files, the format needs to be larger than 32 bits.  Wav64, for example, although it's not a "standard" (as far as i know), can handle HUGE files, because it's a 64 bit format.  2^64 is a HUGE number of bits

[mmedley.]

I think we need a post about the 2GB limit at the top of the archive forum, if it's not already there (yes i'm loo lazy to look right now).  it seems a few of us post the answer a lot but it gets lost in the shuffle of other threads

i'll answer a bunch of posts here and give the answer to "why does a 2 gig limit exist?"


WAV/AIFF are 32 bit formats.  the max amount if information that the file formats can store is 2^ 32 bits, or 4 gigs. This means that technically, wav files have a hard limit of 4 gigs.  However, most software programs use signed numbers, so they use 1 bit for the sign.  This drops the amount of bits available to 2^31, or 2 gigs.  So the file format has a 4 gig limit, but most software programs make it a 2 gig limit by using signed numbers. 


file systems and operating systems are not the reason for the 2 gig limit.  it's a combination of the wav/aiff format and how software handles the files. 


To answer the question of "how come a JB3 can split on 3 hours instead of a size issue?"  Well, do you know how large a 3 gig 16/44.1 file is?  Remember 90 meter dat tapes?  They recorded a little over 3 hours, right?  What size did it say on there?  2GB. 

So it's not a hardware limitation.  It's not something hardware manufacturers or software designers decided to make up on their own.  It's a limtation in the file format itself.  To address larger files, the format needs to be larger than 32 bits.  Wav64, for example, although it's not a "standard" (as far as i know), can handle HUGE files, because it's a 64 bit format.  2^64 is a HUGE number of bits

+T for the perfect explanation.

[tightglobes]

Wav64, for example, although it's not a "standard" (as far as i know), can handle HUGE files, because it's a 64 bit format.  2^64 is a HUGE number of bits

wave64 (.w64 extension) was created by sonic foundry for sound forge & their other suite of audio software to get around the 2gig file size limit with wav files.  i know cubase can also save w64.  so, this would fix the wav file size limitation (2 gig - even on a NTSF formatted system).  if the MT could incorporate w64, that would help.  of course, flac encoding would be an ideal fix for the file size problem.

if the MT continues to record seamlessly when the file size reaches maximum is ok by me.  but flac would give more room per CF card in addition to helping with recording time vs. file size.

off the course of this post:  i got my MT yesterday & have been playing.  i'm very pleased overall but my concern is that the lowest level setting for the line in (db-wise) isn't 0.  why would this be?  i do 99% board taping & am fearing it will be very difficult to do so without more control over the levels.  is this a result of the hardware or will this be fixable in a firmware upgrade (and if fixable via firmware - will it be fixed)?  or, am i off to fabricate trs attenuators for my recorder?

[hydrobud]

im shocked that they even considered addressing  the community in such a personal fashion.
you don't see that kind of pr anymore.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

im shocked that they even considered addressing  the community in such a personal fashion.
you don't see that kind of pr anymore.

Actually, a lot of vendors have their own message boards for customers (even vendors whose products are not released while still in beta).

[BayTaynt3d]

Wav64, for example, although it's not a "standard" (as far as i know), can handle HUGE files, because it's a 64 bit format.  2^64 is a HUGE number of bits

wave64 (.w64 extension) was created by sonic foundry for sound forge & their other suite of audio software to get around the 2gig file size limit with wav files.  i know cubase can also save w64.  so, this would fix the wav file size limitation (2 gig - even on a NTSF formatted system).  if the MT could incorporate w64, that would help.  of course, flac encoding would be an ideal fix for the file size problem.

if the MT continues to record seamlessly when the file size reaches maximum is ok by me.  but flac would give more room per CF card in addition to helping with recording time vs. file size.

off the course of this post:  i got my MT yesterday & have been playing.  i'm very pleased overall but my concern is that the lowest level setting for the line in (db-wise) isn't 0.  why would this be?  i do 99% board taping & am fearing it will be very difficult to do so more control on the output levels.  is this a result of the hardware or will this be fixable in a firmware upgrade (and if fixable via firmware - will it be fixed)?  or, am i off to fabricate trs attenuators for my recorder?

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think there's really TWO different limitations coming into play here. First, wav's 32-bit with one-bit used for other reasons, gives you a 2 gig limit on the wav format itself -- which is the main problem here. However, FAT16, FAT32, and NTSF all have there own limitations on maximum file size as well. So, even with wav64, it would still be possible to bump into a 2 gig limit (FAT16) or a 4 gig limit (FAT32), etc. So, seems like wav64 or flac on NTSF would be the ultimate solution.

[F.O.Bean]

im shocked that they even considered addressing  the community in such a personal fashion.
you don't see that kind of pr anymore.

well said, thats def a great sign, if the 2gb thing is fixed in the next firmware and they dont need powered down so much, Im jumping onto the bandwagon

Hoping the just try and clean up the 'clunkiness' of the OS on the MT, make it a bit quicker startup if at all possible

the damn pmd-671 has my eye tho, but 12v powering has me steering away from it and back to this thing easily powered from my leegeddy VRBox

[mmedley.]

So who has reported bugs through m-audio's bug site? Anyone find anything unusual yet, outside what has already been metioned?

I have reported 2.

First dealing with some LOUD digi noise/static at the beginning and end of recordings via SPDIF. Also dropped samples after 1+ hours. I sent them a sound clip of it in mp3 to see.

Second dealt with a possible sample rate issue (16/48) while recording via SPDIF. Kinda chipmunk(ish). However, this is still not confirmed and I'm still not sure there was an issue.

Edit:

The sample issue is confirmed to be on the master and not a resample issue or the like FYI.

[dallman]

I have some comments and questions, having just bought a Micro Track 24/96.

I wonder if anyone encountered this issue - I have drives mapped to "a", "c", "d", "e", "f", and a network external hard drive mapped to "g". When I plugged my micro track into the computer to install the upgrade, it was apparent thaqt the system recognized the microtrack, but I could not see it or find it. I could  eject it, and I could look at properties, but it would not show up under "my computer". I cannot remember exactly where I was finding the properties (somewhere in the control panel), but I found it was showing that the Micro Track was also mapped to drive "g". It was almost as if the Micro Track was stuck behind the other external drive. I then re-mapped the hard drive (to "m"), and intantly the Micro Track showed up and I was able to do the firmware upgrade. I have no idea if anyone has experienced anything like this or if it has anything to do with the latest firmware upgrade, but I throw it out there in case any one else has any problems.

I have one big burning question that does not exactly get answered in the manual. (or it does and I do not like the answer). It involves the L/M/H button and exactly what it does. What I want to know is if I use a 1/8 input, for my mics, can I put the switch in the "L" (line) position. Willl it then act as a "line in" and not a "mic in". From my NJB3 days (going all the way back a week or so), I always plugged my mics 1/8 cable into a battery box, and that into a "line in" connection and that yielded superior sound than the "mic in" connection. The manual seems to imply that the "L" (Line in) position is only for the 1/4 mic inputs. Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!!

[Colin Liston]

I have a question. 

Has anyone heard anything from the M-Audio rep that started this thread?

Is he still around?  Lots of questions still going unanswered.

[mmedley.]

I have a question. 

Has anyone heard anything from the M-Audio rep that started this thread?

Is he still around?  Lots of questions still going unanswered.

Looks like he is lurking every now and again.

Last Active:     October 20, 2005, 12:51:14 PM

[rodeen]

Bump.  I'm interested in this too.

I have some comments and questions, having just bought a Micro Track 24/96.

I wonder if anyone encountered this issue - I have drives mapped to "a", "c", "d", "e", "f", and a network external hard drive mapped to "g". When I plugged my micro track into the computer to install the upgrade, it was apparent thaqt the system recognized the microtrack, but I could not see it or find it. I could  eject it, and I could look at properties, but it would not show up under "my computer". I cannot remember exactly where I was finding the properties (somewhere in the control panel), but I found it was showing that the Micro Track was also mapped to drive "g". It was almost as if the Micro Track was stuck behind the other external drive. I then re-mapped the hard drive (to "m"), and intantly the Micro Track showed up and I was able to do the firmware upgrade. I have no idea if anyone has experienced anything like this or if it has anything to do with the latest firmware upgrade, but I throw it out there in case any one else has any problems.

I have one big burning question that does not exactly get answered in the manual. (or it does and I do not like the answer). It involves the L/M/H button and exactly what it does. What I want to know is if I use a 1/8 input, for my mics, can I put the switch in the "L" (line) position. Willl it then act as a "line in" and not a "mic in". From my NJB3 days (going all the way back a week or so), I always plugged my mics 1/8 cable into a battery box, and that into a "line in" connection and that yielded superior sound than the "mic in" connection. The manual seems to imply that the "L" (Line in) position is only for the 1/4 mic inputs. Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!!

[BayTaynt3d]

Bump.  I'm interested in this too.

I have some comments and questions, having just bought a Micro Track 24/96.

I wonder if anyone encountered this issue - I have drives mapped to "a", "c", "d", "e", "f", and a network external hard drive mapped to "g". When I plugged my micro track into the computer to install the upgrade, it was apparent thaqt the system recognized the microtrack, but I could not see it or find it. I could  eject it, and I could look at properties, but it would not show up under "my computer". I cannot remember exactly where I was finding the properties (somewhere in the control panel), but I found it was showing that the Micro Track was also mapped to drive "g". It was almost as if the Micro Track was stuck behind the other external drive. I then re-mapped the hard drive (to "m"), and intantly the Micro Track showed up and I was able to do the firmware upgrade. I have no idea if anyone has experienced anything like this or if it has anything to do with the latest firmware upgrade, but I throw it out there in case any one else has any problems.

I've run into this same problem using thumb USB drives at work. I assume you are on PC. For some stupid reason, the PC tries to place drive into slot that is already mapped, and this is not a MT-specific problem. This is how I fixed it:

- Right-click "My Computer" on desktop and choose "Manage"
- Go to "Disk Management" under "Storage"
- The MT should show up on the screen
- Right-click on the section for the MT in the bottom right pane, and choose "Change Drive Letters & Paths"
- Change drive letter to something you never use for anything else
- DONE!

I've never done that with an MT, because I don't own one, but I bet it works, and I bet it'll fix it for good even after you plug-unplug the MT. Let me know if it worked...

-- Taint

[dallman]

Bump.  I'm interested in this too.

I have some comments and questions, having just bought a Micro Track 24/96.

I wonder if anyone encountered this issue - I have drives mapped to "a", "c", "d", "e", "f", and a network external hard drive mapped to "g". When I plugged my micro track into the computer to install the upgrade, it was apparent thaqt the system recognized the microtrack, but I could not see it or find it. I could  eject it, and I could look at properties, but it would not show up under "my computer". I cannot remember exactly where I was finding the properties (somewhere in the control panel), but I found it was showing that the Micro Track was also mapped to drive "g". It was almost as if the Micro Track was stuck behind the other external drive. I then re-mapped the hard drive (to "m"), and intantly the Micro Track showed up and I was able to do the firmware upgrade. I have no idea if anyone has experienced anything like this or if it has anything to do with the latest firmware upgrade, but I throw it out there in case any one else has any problems.

I've run into this same problem using thumb USB drives at work. I assume you are on PC. For some stupid reason, the PC tries to place drive into slot that is already mapped, and this is not a MT-specific problem. This is how I fixed it:

- Right-click "My Computer" on desktop and choose "Manage"
- Go to "Disk Management" under "Storage"
- The MT should show up on the screen
- Right-click on the section for the MT in the bottom right pane, and choose "Change Drive Letters & Paths"
- Change drive letter to something you never use for anything else
- DONE!

I've never done that with an MT, because I don't own one, but I bet it works, and I bet it'll fix it for good even after you plug-unplug the MT. Let me know if it worked...

-- Taint

Good to know the mapping problem is more a PC quirk than a Micro Track issue. Your suggestion is exactly what I did to solve the problem.

Now....Can anyone supply an answer about the L/M/H button?? and exactly what it does. What I want to know is if I use a 1/8 input, for my mics, can I put the switch in the "L" (line) position. Willl it then act as a "line in" and not a "mic in". From my NJB3 days (going all the way back a week or so), I always plugged my mics 1/8 cable into a battery box, and that into a "line in" connection and that yielded superior sound than the "mic in" connection. The manual seems to imply that the "L" (Line in) position is only for the 1/4 mic inputs. Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!!

[keepongoin]

2 samples -

one with errors, one without.

does this sound like a write speed problem?

[rodeen]

Now....Can anyone supply an answer about the L/M/H button?? and exactly what it does. What I want to know is if I use a 1/8 input, for my mics, can I put the switch in the "L" (line) position. Willl it then act as a "line in" and not a "mic in". From my NJB3 days (going all the way back a week or so), I always plugged my mics 1/8 cable into a battery box, and that into a "line in" connection and that yielded superior sound than the "mic in" connection. The manual seems to imply that the "L" (Line in) position is only for the 1/4 mic inputs. Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!!

I found this discussed a little in a separate thread.

Edit:  I forgot the URL to the discussion  :-)
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=52968.0

[mmedley.]

2 samples -

one with errors, one without.

does this sound like a write speed problem?

Yeah, that's definitely dropped samples...probably caused from write speed. What media are you using and at what bitrate/sample rate were you running at the time?

Gearin' up for Yonder. You should make the drive.

[keepongoin]

2 samples -

one with errors, one without.

does this sound like a write speed problem?

Yeah, that's definitely dropped samples...probably caused from write speed. What media are you using and at what bitrate/sample rate were you running at the time?

Gearin' up for Yonder. You should make the drive.

Dane-Elec CF card at 24/48.  It happened occassionally throughout the 2nd half of the show, not at all in the first half.

I won't make ymsb - i kind of wish there wasn't so much going on in life right now.

[John R]

Actually, a lot of vendors have their own message boards for customers (even vendors whose products are not released while still in beta).

freelunch, fyi, beta refers to something 'still in development' possibly released for further testing.  if the vendor you're referring to in the above statement is indeed m-audio, i think it is inapropriate to do so in their own thread.  the device has been released for everyday use, and is being used by many without fail.  m-audio has addressed many of the issues in the bug report and are replacing defective units(like mine) if necessary.  no need to be biting the hand that feeds us.

[mhibbs]

I seem to remember a rumor that said one of the delays of this product was the fact that the switching supply to create 48v put noise on the inputs at a guess I would say thats your story and 30v is the compromise fix to get this product to market.
That said this is a fantastic product at the right price and if your going to use mics that need 48v at 10ma then you are going to be useing an esoteric pre-amp as well i think a lot of you expect to much for too little money.
To put this in perspective, i am useing a Sound Devices mix-pre as my font end and that cost over $600 dollers just for 2 mic pre,s and no a2d.
No firmware is going to fix this and you can whine as much as you like it is what it is, only a revision to the hardware or maybe a version 2 will fix this, remember the JB3 did not come close for taping untill version 3 and this thing is almost there.

Large difference here.  The JB3 was never promoted as a taping device.  It took several versions to iron out the taper specific issues.  The M-Audio was very much designed to be a field recorder from the outset.  Claiming to be a "pro recorder" lands your product in a critical circle.

From their website...
"2-channel WAV and MP3 recording and playback for pro recording, meetings, training, education and worship"

It was promoted as having 48v phantom and now doesn't?  Just a quick glance through the list of compatible mics is enough to indicate it wasn't intentional.  Not to mention it makes little business sense to deviate from the 48v "standard". 

Now I'd agree that I wouldn't expect the pre to be very good at that price point, but if I were a stealth taper intending to use it as an all in one solution w/ some 48v mics I'd be upset.  Nobody expects it to be perfect out of the box, but I wouldn't consider this issue in particular to be a minor oversight or bug they didn't catch. 

To their credit, they're making an effort to address it, and I'm glad they did it here as well.




Mitch

[it-goes-to-eleven]

the device has been released for everyday use, and is being used by many without fail

The firmware is still described as Beta.  Beta firmware = beta product.

[Roving Sign]

I have a question. 

Has anyone heard anything from the M-Audio rep that started this thread?

Is he still around?  Lots of questions still going unanswered.

If he ever comes back -  maybe he can clear up some the CO2 bashing that goes on around here...

[L Ron Hoover]

Actually, a lot of vendors have their own message boards for customers (even vendors whose products are not released while still in beta).

freelunch, fyi, beta refers to something 'still in development' possibly released for further testing.  if the vendor you're referring to in the above statement is indeed m-audio, i think it is inapropriate to do so in their own thread.  the device has been released for everyday use, and is being used by many without fail.  m-audio has addressed many of the issues in the bug report and are replacing defective units(like mine) if necessary.  no need to be biting the hand that feeds us.

I'm just curious John, why did you need to send yours back? At this point, I'm wondering if mine is defective.

[plucks]

2 samples -

one with errors, one without.

does this sound like a write speed problem?

Yeah, that's definitely dropped samples...probably caused from write speed. What media are you using and at what bitrate/sample rate were you running at the time?

Gearin' up for Yonder. You should make the drive.

Dane-Elec CF card at 24/48.  It happened occassionally throughout the 2nd half of the show, not at all in the first half.

I won't make ymsb - i kind of wish there wasn't so much going on in life right now.

Your problems stems from the Dane-Elec card.  Supposedly the MT2496 does not work well with it.  As i listed in a previous post in a statement i got from MAudio, you need a 45x or greater card.
I ditched my Dane-Elec card after finding this out.  $170 on ebay it was sold for

[Brian Skalinder]

If he ever comes back -  maybe he can clear up some the CO2 bashing that goes on around here...

If by bashing you mean the repeated communication of artifacts introduced with some combinations of gear, then yes - perhaps he can clear up why the CO2, when paired with certain other gear, produces these unfortunate artifacts, while other DFCs (namely the Hosa boxes) do not seem to introduce artifacts in any gear combinations I've run across.

[John R]

the device has been released for everyday use, and is being used by many without fail

The firmware is still described as Beta.  Beta firmware = beta product.

that's one view, not mine.

hoover, based on my bug report describing my white noise issue and duration, m-audio indicated a replacement was in order.

[blindowl]

Is there any way to get a Windows 98 computer to see the MT?   So far its invisible to mine.   I know the mnimum specs of the MT call for Windows XP, and I do have an XP laptop, but I would like to be able to use with my 98 machine.  If anyone knows how, I'd appreciate it.

[L Ron Hoover]

^In hopes of seeing the new firmware soon.