Microtrack II - Part 2

[stevetoney]

MTII Question for you guys...

Used it for the first time on Friday night...U89i > V3 (analog) > MTII.  Rather than even messing with the 1/4 inch inputs on first use, I went for the 1/8 input.  My levels were pretty good on the MTII, but the problem is that I had to set the trim on the V3 all the way to the lowest setting in order to get reasonable peaks.  I was recording Toubab Krewe outside, and they really aren't a very high volume band, so I'm concerned that I'm not gonna have enough headroom on the MTII for louder bands/venues.  Anyone else have this experience?

A couple of comments/thoughts to go with the above question...

I like running the V3 as an analog device...so while I suspect that a logical solution would be to run the V3 digital out into the SPDIF connector on the MTII, I didn't really want to do that if possible because I like the V3 sound better in analog mode. 

Unless there's a logical solution to the above experience that I'm not considering, I may just keep the MT2496 and pass the MTII on to my son-in-law.  (I had been figuring on keeping the new MTII and giving him the older MT2496.)

TIA for any help anyone can provide.

Steve

I was recording Toubab Krewe fairly close in, but the sound levels were really very low.  I'm

[page]

MTII Question for you guys...

Used it for the first time on Friday night...U89i > V3 (analog) > MTII.  Rather than even messing with the 1/4 inch inputs out of the box, I went for the 1/8 input.  My levels were pretty good on the MTII, but the problem is that I had to set the trim on the V3 all the way to the lowest setting.  I was recording Toubab Krewe outside, and they really aren't a very high volume band, so I'm concerned that I might not have enough headroom on the MTII for louder bands/venues.  Anyone else have this experience?

This will probably help reconcile the difference in gain on the V3 vs what you saw on the MT2:

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113926.msg1524480.html#msg1524480

[stevetoney]

^^ Thanks Page, but that's not really getting at the root of the issue. 

A better explanation would help...so the V3 is on the lowest trim setting and I'm getting one green light on each channel of the V3.  Rarely was I even bouncing up to two lights during the Toubab show.  At that V3 setting, the MTII levels are bouncing up pretty close to peak.  Actually at the Toubab show, the levels on the MTII were perfect, but as I said it was a low volume show. 

So what that means is that any show where the V3 levels go above one or two green lights, I'll be clipping the MTII...and since my V3 was at the lowest setting, I can't back off anymore on the V3 level.   

[page]

^^ Thanks Page, but that's not really getting at the root of the issue. 

A better explanation would help...so the V3 is on the lowest trim setting and I'm getting one green light on each channel of the V3.  Rarely was I even bouncing up to two lights during the Toubab show.  At that V3 setting, the MTII levels are bouncing up pretty close to peak.  Actually at the Toubab show, the levels on the MTII were perfect, but as I said it was a low volume show. 

So what that means is that any show where the V3 levels go above one or two green lights, I'll be clipping the MTII...and since my V3 was at the lowest setting, I can't back off anymore on the V3 level.   

Well, the issue is that the lights on the V3 are calibrated to what they would end up with after the AD stage which takes a blazing hot signal. So to get a -2db signal out of the AD stage (and thus show up as such on the V3's meters), it takes around a +20db equivilent signal going to the AD stage. So if your not seeing bright lights on the V3, that doesn't mean your not pumping out juice, just the lights are calibrated to the analog out signal. Compound this with I suspect the max line in the MT2 will take being around +4 (I'm guessing based on my own gear), you've gotta run the V3 with almost no gain.

In short; the lights on the V3 are useless if your running analog out to a recorder which doesn't handle a hot pro signal (+20db range) like the SD boxes. You can use the diagram that Jason posted as a guideline to how that maps based on the cabling you have out of the V3.

edit: and an even abbreviated explanation is that the V3 analog outs aren't designed to be used with non-hot receiving boxes.

[Brian Skalinder]

Page provided a quick explanation.  I was just about to post my slightly more detailed explanation, so I'll go ahead anyway.



Tonedeaf -- I'm surprised you prefer the MT ADC to the V3.  I far prefer the V3 ADC, personally.  No matter...just goes to show we all have different ears and there's no single solution that satisfies all ears. 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to run the V3 purely as a preamp.  So you have mics > V3 > V3 analog out > MT or MTII 1/8" (unbalanced) analog-in.  At the TK show, you had both the variable trim and the stepped gain as low as they can go, i.e. 0 and 10, respectively.  And your levels were still quite high, even for a quiet show, so you're concerned louder shows will result in levels from the V3 that are too high for the MTII to handle.  Do I understand correctly?

If I understand correctly, it seems your concerns are warranted.  The MTII's unbalanced 1/8" input takes a maximum input of -3.6 dBV, or approx. -1.4 dBu (per M-Audio specs and dBV > dBu calculator.  So, if the MTII's 1/8" input receives a signal stronger than -1.4 dBu, it will overload.

Jason's chart to which Page linked shows that the V3's analog, unbalanced output is -8 dBu when the lowest level meter (-27 dBFS) lights up.  The V3's analog, unbalanced output is -2 dBu when the second lowest level meter (-21 dBFS) lights up.  So if the V3's second lowest level meter lights up (as they did occasionally for you), you're basically maxing out the MTII's 1/8" input:  the V3 is outputting -2 dBu and your MTII only accepts -1.4 dBu.  So...no more headroom, and hence your problem.

You might try the balanced 1/4" inputs, but I think you'll run into the same problem.  The MTII's balanced 1/4" inputs take a max signal of +4.3 dBu.  As you can see from Jason's chart, the V3's balanced output provides -2 dBu when the lowest level meter (-27 dBFS) lights up, and +4 dBu when the second lowest level meter (-21 dBFS) lights up.  Even if you switched to the 1/4" inputs, you'd basically have the same problem:  with the second lowest level meter lit up on the V3, the V3 outputs +4 dBu and the MTII's balanced 1/4" inputs accepts a max signal of +4.3 dBu.  So...again, no more headroom.

So, four options to consider.  Basically, you need to reduce the signal level before it hits the V3, within the V3, or after the V3 but before it hits the MTII.

• Set the V3's input attenuators to -20 dB (if they're not already set).  These are internal jumpers, L = J3/J4, R = J14/J15.  Se the V3 manual for more details. 
• Set the pad (attenuator) on your mics.  I'm not familiar with your mics, whether they even have a pad, or how they sound with the pad engaged, but...it's an option to consider.
  
• You might try the M-Audio -10 dB attenuator (or another in-line attenuator device).
  
• Learn to love the V3 ADC and run V3 digital out > MT/MTII! 
  

[jerryfreak]

i know some people arent a fan of the V3's A>D, but the reality is its gonna kill the MT A>D on just about every level. the only time people skip the V3's A>D is if they have an HQ DAC like an AD2K or 722 to go to.

[stevetoney]

Page provided a quick explanation.  I was just about to post my slightly more detailed explanation, so I'll go ahead anyway.



Tonedeaf -- I'm surprised you prefer the MT ADC to the V3.  I far prefer the V3 ADC, personally.  No matter...just goes to show we all have different ears and there's no single solution that satisfies all ears. 

[rest of response deleted for brevity]

Bingo.  Thanks alot Brian and Page.  Brian, your answer gives me exactly the info that I was asking for...and then some.  I really appreciate the effort you put into providing that answer!!!    Page I also appreciate your responses too.  Thanks.

Brian, to answer the question about preferring the MTII ADC against the V3, I have no preference because honestly I haven't tried running the V3 in all the possible configs.  (I'm confident that the V3 ADC is MUCH better than the MTII's) Additionally, I only got the V3 awhile ago and then I messed it up (see the preamp forum where I explained what I'd done to mess my V3 up).  So I haven't actually had access to it all that much.

Regarding using the MTII, I just received the MTII last week so this was the first time I'd used it.  I had been running my R-09HR with the V3 outputting an analog signal to the Line In jack and honestly, I really liked the sound I was getting initially so, for the limited shows that I've run the V3 with, I figured why mess with it.  

That leads me to Friday night.  When I arrived at the venue to record Toubab, I discovered that I'd accidently left the R-09HR at home, so I was left with using the MTII the first time out.  So, since I hadn't given any thought to how best to run the MTII and since I had the necessary cables for connecting the R-09HR via the 1/8 input jack, I just set it up the same as I normally set up the R-09HR.

Of course, before the music started I had the V3 levels set where I normally have had them set for the start of a show (I don't know the settings yet...approximately in the 9pm position).  When the music started, my levels on the MTII pegged hard.  So I backed off the MTII levels all the way back and then backed the V3 levels all the way back down as far as it will go.  Fortunately, the MTII was no longer peaking, but the MTII levels were pretty much dead on.  That was great for the TK show, but of course that got me to thinking about what about future loud shows...so that's why I asked the question.

Anyway, based on the feedback that you gave me, I'll have to think some more about how best to go forward.  I picked the MTII up as a backup to the R-09HR, but also so that I could run a second rig with my Church Audio setup.  

I also have an MT2496, but I bought the MTII so I could give the MT2496 to my son-in-law...my daughter asked me to get him a starter rig for his birthday, so I'm giving him the MT2496 for his birthday, and I've picked up some CA-14's and 9100 preamp for her to give him.

Anyway, that's a little background about this situation.  I think probably what I'll do is use the MTII only in conjunction with the CA gear and use the R-09HR with the V3.  

Thanks again for the detailed responses guys!!!

[stevetoney]

i know some people arent a fan of the V3's A>D, but the reality is its gonna kill the MT A>D on just about every level. the only time people skip the V3's A>D is if they have an HQ DAC like an AD2K or 722 to go to.

But there are plenty of great sounding V2 > (insert $300 recording device here) rigs out there.  How is that any different than a V3 analog out to...say an R-09HR?  In my listening, the V2/V3 analog just has a warmer sound to it that I generally have preferred in my listening comparisons over the digital V3 sound. 

Personally, I've never really understood why the general TS.com membership tends to insist on bit perfection.  I know I'm in the significant minority here, but if it sounds good to me, then it _IS_ good and I don't really care if it's the absolute highest quality digitally perfect stream.  That's why I've stuck with my V3 analog > R-09HR...cause I like it.

Course, I'm sure the difference between me and most is that I don't playback on audiophile quality end devices either, so there's probably a big difference between my needs and many that read TS.com.

[Rockinman59]

I have a situation with a recent pair of recordings and just wonder something about the MTII.  Is it possible that I really didn't record in 24/48 even though the MTII was set to 24 bit and my UA5 was definitely set to 48kHz?  I recorded 2 shows that were 2.5 hours each.  I wound up with 2 wav files each night, one was 1.86gb in file size and the 2nd file 669mb, total of 2.52gb.  That seems awfully small for a 24 bit recording. It should be double that size.  I see clearly in Soundforge 8 and cd wav editor that the wav file is 24 bit, 48000 sample rate, so how could the compressed flacs result in only .99gb total file size?  That's the file size for the 16 bit version.  I was def working with the 24 bit files and already resampled/dithered to 16 bit and save that wav as 16 bit.  I viewed the wav file's properties and it does say it's a 24/48 file but the audio format says "PCM" (not sure what that means).  After splitting the tracks in cd wav I did save it as Direct Wav and checked the box "use alternate 24 bit format", then encoded to Flac using Flac Frontend (level and that went ok, but then I see the total file size of the flacs = .99gb.  It makes no sense.  Did I really record in 24/48 even though the evidence shows I did.

Any help would be appreciated.  I'm quite new to doing 24 bit.  I did follow the resample/dither instructions and my 16 bit came out just fine, just don't what the heck is going on with the file size, mainly WHY is the wav file only a total of 2.52?

[stevetoney]

^^ Can't help you other than to say that, at 24/48, a good rule of thumb is one gig an hour.  So, based on your explanation, it seems the second file which is smaller would be the one that is wierd.

[Rockinman59]

Thanks for the input.  I think since the show was 2 1/2 hours that 2.52 gb total is about right, but why did the total file size of all the flacs come out to only .99gb which is really what the 16 bit version should be?  I would think the file size would be double that.  the bottom line is the wav's show up as 24/48 in 2 programs plus if right click and check Properties of the wav file.

[Brian Skalinder]

Thanks for the input.  I think since the show was 2 1/2 hours that 2.52 gb total is about right, but why did the total file size of all the flacs come out to only .99gb which is really what the 16 bit version should be?  I would think the file size would be double that.  the bottom line is the wav's show up as 24/48 in 2 programs plus if right click and check Properties of the wav file.

The compressed, FLAC file size will depend on the bit depth and sample rate of the original file, the compression level used, and the content of the recording.  Don't worry about the compressed FLAC file size.

BTW...are you running current MTII firmware?  Reason I ask:  UA5 + MTII were not compatible at 24-bit, initially.  More info here:  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,95964.msg1671629.html#msg1671629

[Rockinman59]

Thanks for the input.  I think since the show was 2 1/2 hours that 2.52 gb total is about right, but why did the total file size of all the flacs come out to only .99gb which is really what the 16 bit version should be?  I would think the file size would be double that.  the bottom line is the wav's show up as 24/48 in 2 programs plus if right click and check Properties of the wav file.

The compressed, FLAC file size will depend on the bit depth and sample rate of the original file, the compression level used, and the content of the recording.  Don't worry about the compressed FLAC file size.

BTW...are you running current MTII firmware?  Reason I ask:  UA5 + MTII were not compatible at 24-bit, initially.  More info here:  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,95964.msg1671629.html#msg1671629

Thanks Brian for the info.  I DID check on the firmware and even called M-Audio and then checked my MTII and I def am current with the firmware.  I have a Wmod UA5 and I made sure I had it set to 48 kHz and the MTII to 24 bit.  It seems the 2.52 gb total wav file size is correct for a 2.5 hour show, but the compression at level 8 in Flac Frontend must be what had it end up as .99gb. The reason I was concerned is that the 16 bit version I did (after resample & dither to 16 bit) had the total flac size as .99gb also.  Could it be that the UA5 is really not sending a 24/48 signal to the MTII?  Should one unit be turned on before the other to ensure the signal gets received?  It's weird because the wav file shows up clearly as 24/48 in Soundforge and by right clicking and looking at Properties of the wav file.

[Brian Skalinder]

Thanks for the input.  I think since the show was 2 1/2 hours that 2.52 gb total is about right, but why did the total file size of all the flacs come out to only .99gb which is really what the 16 bit version should be?  I would think the file size would be double that.  the bottom line is the wav's show up as 24/48 in 2 programs plus if right click and check Properties of the wav file.

Just for kicks...does SF have a "bit meter" function?  It's possible the WAV properties say 24-bit even though the actual data is 16-bit.  The "bit meter" function would confirm it, one way or the other.

[Rockinman59]

Thanks for the input.  I think since the show was 2 1/2 hours that 2.52 gb total is about right, but why did the total file size of all the flacs come out to only .99gb which is really what the 16 bit version should be?  I would think the file size would be double that.  the bottom line is the wav's show up as 24/48 in 2 programs plus if right click and check Properties of the wav file.

Just for kicks...does SF have a "bit meter" function?  It's possible the WAV properties say 24-bit even though the actual data is 16-bit.  The "bit meter" function would confirm it, one way or the other.

I'm not sure what SF calls it but I'll check it out.  I do see in SF when I open a wav file at the bottom it shows the bit depth and sample rate and it changes based on the type of wav file.  I guess the "bit meter" is on the toolbar so I'll check it.  I will also try decoding a flac back to wav and see if it still shows it as 24/48 or did it change to 16/48 or 16/44, then I'll know if something is wrong.

Thanks again for the help.


Tom