Topic: Microtrack: 24/96 over S/PDIF

[JasonSobel]

well, in the post about the latest firmware (v1.2.3), there was some very brief talk about now recording via the S/PDIF input at 24 bit, 96 kHz.  maybe one or two people tested it, said it worked.  but then someone said that their computer didn't recognize the file to be 96kHz or something like that.  Anyway, I didn't get around to testing it, until right now.  I had my V3 setup at home, because I was transferring some old cassettes.  so, it was all set up, I figured I'd give it a go.  I only recorded for a minute or so, at 24/96 via the S/PDIF.  everything was fine, no hang-ups, freezes, or problems.  transferred the file over to my computer and opened it up in WaveLab.  it's a recognized as a 24/96 file, with no problems.  obviously, this minute long test is not conclusive.  but it works.

even so, it seems like there are still two major issues preventing me from recording at 24/96 on a regular basis.
(1) the 2gig file limit and no autosplit feature.  at 24/96, you'll hit 2 gigs in about an hour, which just won't cut it.  at 24/48, I can usually get away with a split every two hours.  but at 24/96, the 2 gig file limit because a huge problem.
and
(2) at 24/96, my 4 gig CF card is only good for 2 hours.  until the price drops enough for me to get an 8 gig CF card, it's just not enough space for me.

BUT, my main reason for starting this post is to generate soem conversation and hear about other people's experience.  have you recorded at 24/96 via the S/PDIF input?  what have your experiences been to date?

[anhisr]

I taped the first set of Tea Leaf Green the other night in 24/96.  Daling with when to change files sucked.  Second set I ran 24/48.  Until they fix the 2gb file split, I will stick to 24/48. 

[eric.B]

I agree.. as I'd love to know if the MT is stable at 2496..  Seems to run fine at 2448, but with that 2gig limit, it doesnt seem to matter much if it actually will do 2496..    hmm.. I spose sometimes you could use it though..

[aberg]

Now, when you are getting close to the 2gb mark with the MT, do you have to stop the file, and restart the unit or is there a quick feature to press stop, then rec again and a new file is created? Obviously this won't be seamless, but I think you can easily do this between songs or sets without an issue. This is what I do with the R-1, and I'm wondering if the MT allows you to do this fairly easily? Also, how are the levels for digi-in?

[shruggy1987]

you don't have to restart the entire unit.  you end the recording and it finalizes the save onto the CF (this is when the "writing file" message is up).  Then you can restart recording as soon as that is done.  It takes approx 5 seconds to stop and then start recording again.

[OFOTD]

Do you guys think the 24/96 has more to do with the CF or MicroDrives than the unit itself or are you certain it is the MT?   Also where is MAudio at with releasing the new firmware versions?  Monthly or longer?

[anhisr]

when I got to the point I wanted to start a new file, I just hit rec twice at one time.  It will end the old file and then start the new.  It took about 6 seconds. 

[udovdh]

Do you guys think the 24/96 has more to do with the CF or MicroDrives than the unit itself or are you certain it is the MT?   Also where is MAudio at with releasing the new firmware versions?  Monthly or longer?

the 2GB limit is a problem with the MT
----WAV files in their standard form are limited to 2GB
----the MT lacks the feature that enables it to seemlessly start a new file when the existing file is nearing/reaching the 2GB limit

The standard as defined and the practical standard? 4GB WAV should be possible if the 32-bit counters are used unsigned.
I could perhaps live with that if the device is reliable enough. 2GB with splits is better of course.
What does the MT lack to enable seamless starts of new files?
A little bit of buffering is all that is needed?
Where did you get this info?
Would M-Audio make a new revision of the MT that can cope with the 2GB issue? (see the PCB revision on LCD).

It does take M-Audio take long to fix the issue and they don't give much info.
What is the latest status?
Since the support email changed (starting 2006?) I did not get a reply from their international support.

[udovdh]

Maybe we should renew our efforts to make it clear to M-Audio we need the 2GB fix or that we need at least clarity w.r.t. the status of this issue. I.e.: can it be fixed? Will they fix it?

[spoogles]

the 2GB limit is a problem with the MT

==there are other devices/software that deal correctly with this limitation (722, R4, wavelab5, n-track, etc)...likewise there are others that dont (R1, soundforge, older wavelab, etc)

[/quote]

wavelab 5 still has the 2 gig file limit, supposedly fixed in wavelab 6 coming out next month.

[aberg]

the 2GB limit is a problem with the MT

==there are other devices/software that deal correctly with this limitation (722, R4, wavelab5, n-track, etc)...likewise there are others that dont (R1, soundforge, older wavelab, etc)

wavelab 5 still has the 2 gig file limit, supposedly fixed in wavelab 6 coming out next month.
[/quote]

Hell, even the jb3 covered this issue with the continuous recording function and seamless autosplit at the 3 hour mark. I don't think I once used that however.

[Craig T]

WL5 has auto-split.  WL6 will supposedly handle audio files >2GB.

[Jhurlbs81]

96kHz is a joke people!   

[mmedley.]

96kHz is a joke people!   

With your rig...yes! 

[Jhurlbs81]

<Nyquist rolls over in his grave> 

[Jhurlbs81]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

[JasonSobel]

there is more reason to record at 96kHz than just being able to capture higher frequencies.  our hearing can detect very small differences in time that a music "event" happens, we can hear smaller than 1/48000th of a second between acoustical "events".  by recording at 96kHz, we are more precisely able to define *when* something happens, like a drum beat or whatever.  being able to record exactly when something occurs, it creates a better and more realistic soundstage.

I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns, and I'd question whether or not recording at 192kHz is worth it (which, of course, is a moot point when talking about the MicroTrack anyway).  but I think 96kHz can be used to create better recordings when compared to 48kHz.

[poorlyconditioned]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

I'm with you!  Unless you're doing ultrasound, no need to go over 48k!

The only reason I would consider 96k is if I wanted to multiplex two 44/48k streams onto a single signal. Ie., to get four tracks recorded on inexpensive "consumer" gear.  Wasn't Len at CoreSound talking about a four input preamp/ADC with one 96k SPDIF/optical output?

  Richard

[Chanher]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

I'm with you!  Unless you're doing ultrasound, no need to go over 48k!

The only reason I would consider 96k is if I wanted to multiplex two 44/48k streams onto a single signal. Ie., to get four tracks recorded on inexpensive "consumer" gear.  Wasn't Len at CoreSound talking about a four input preamp/ADC with one 96k SPDIF/optical output?

  Richard

yes. I emailed him, and he claims that if you have a recorder that can reliably record stereo 24/96 via s/pdif, then you can record four unmixed channels (or two stereo channels) with his new preamp via "multi-plexing". shit, if len comes through with this, I'll test it out...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

So what happens when a 30khz sound collides with a 31khz sound?

[eric.B]

I am a somewhat new 24 bit listener on modest gear and I can hear a difference between 16 and 24/48... and Im liking it.. 
 I would agree with this as to the reason for what I hear...   
snip

our hearing can detect very small differences in time that a music "event" happens, we can hear smaller than 1/48000th of a second between acoustical "events".  by recording at 96kHz, we are more precisely able to define *when* something happens, like a drum beat or whatever.  being able to record exactly when something occurs, it creates a better and more realistic soundstage.

unsnip   jsobel

as 24/96 becomes cheaper and cheaper to playback(its allready *cheap* in terms of audiophilia), I see no reason not to be using it exclusively in the next five years for most..

[poorlyconditioned]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

So what happens when a 30khz sound collides with a 31khz sound?

What do you mean "collides"?  If you mean two are produced by a single (linear) source, they add (superposition) and you just have a 30k and a 31k and you hear nothing.

If you mean something nonlinear happens, then you may generate lower frequency 'beating' as well, eg.,, based on the difference in the two tones.  In that case, you hear the low frequency part.

That's all!

  Richard

[Jhurlbs81]

and if you dont like 96kHz, dont use it. personally i would rather use it when possible.

boogie

I humbly retract my post from last night.  I get antagonistic when I have a few.  apparently there is more to this debate than I had realized.  So you feel the difference is worth a file twice the size?  Is hould probably do an A-B listen before I open my mouth.


Jesse

[JasonSobel]

and if you dont like 96kHz, dont use it. personally i would rather use it when possible.

boogie

I humbly retract my post from last night.  I get antagonistic when I have a few.  apparently there is more to this debate than I had realized.  So you feel the difference is worth a file twice the size?  Is hould probably do an A-B listen before I open my mouth.

Jesse

well, to decide whether or not it's worth it, that's entirely up to each individually.  I think the jump from 16 bit to 24 bit makes a much bigger difference than the jump from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate.  I originally started this thread to note that the MicroTrack could now, indeed, record at 24/96 via the digital input.  However, in the first post, I stated two reasons why it was not worth it for me, at the moment.  Right now, it's not worth it because 8gig CF cards are still very expensive, and it is too much of a problem because the MicroTrack has not implemented an autosplit feature.  BUT, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to record at 24/96.

In the future, prices on larger CF cards will drop.  that's a given.  it'll happen, just a matter of time.  when 8 gig CF cards are reasonably priced, than it will be worth it to record at 24/96.  (assuming they've implemented an auto-split feature by that time).

That's a comparison as to whether it's worth it in terms of cost.  is the difference worth a file twice as big?  DVD storage is cheap, that's not really an issue for me.  the issue for me is storage on a CF card.  right now, it's not worth it.  my 4GB card can only hold 2 hours at 24/96.  not enough.  but as larger storage cards drop in price, than the file size issue will be a no big deal...

[cmoorevt]

Right now, it's not worth it because 8gig CF cards are still very expensive, and it is too much of a problem because the MicroTrack has not implemented an autosplit feature.  BUT, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to record at 24/96.

I submitted a Technical Support Incident to M-Audio about the need for a 2GB auto-split feature and their response was some generic "Thanks for the idea.  We're always looking for ways to improve our products", so I wouldn't hold my breath. 

They did however, acknowledge that monitoring via the headphone and rca outs when using the spdif input would be part of an upcoming firmware upgrade.  Of course no mention of when that firmware upgrade would be arriving.....