Topic: MicroTrack 24/96 Statement from M-Audio

[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!!