Topic: Microtrack II External Microphone Preamps

[gossling]

Hi everyone,

I am planning to record music, both on stage and at home.  I have an H2 with a great return policy.  Its four on-board mics are, in my opinion, highly underrated and overlooked.  I will definitely be using the internal microphones of whatever device I finally decide on, for non-serious recordings (rehearsals, practice, etc.).  But I will eventually need to connect some real studio condenser microphones to my portable device.  So my options are:
- Mics -> external preamp -> H2
- Mics -> Microtrack II

NOTE: I have done some searching online to no avail...
So how good are the Microtrack II's external mic preamps? Which of the above setups would yield higher quality? I know it completely depends on the quality of the external preamp, so I'll tell you I'm looking at the $100 range.  I would prefer the external preamp to have four channels (which would then make the H2's setup more versatile), but two should suffice.  Also, I am aware that the external mic preamp would take away the H2's portability factor, but I would only be using external microphones in non-portable situations.  That's not to say that the Microtrack II's on-board phantom power isn't nice.

I've read this:
http://www.scopereviews.com/audiocomparo.html

But the reviewer used external preamps for all three devices, and it was comparing a Microtrack 24/96 to the Edirol and H2.  Also, the reviewer somehow ignored the hiss factor in the internal microphones.
On a side note, is the hissiness of the Microtrack II's T-mic a result of the microphone itself, or the input?


Thanks a lot!

[taperwheeler]

Hi everyone,

I am planning to record music, both on stage and at home.  I have an H2 with a great return policy.  Its four on-board mics are, in my opinion, highly underrated and overlooked.  I will definitely be using the internal microphones of whatever device I finally decide on, for non-serious recordings (rehearsals, practice, etc.).  But I will eventually need to connect some real studio condenser microphones to my portable device.  So my options are:
- Mics -> external preamp -> H2
- Mics -> Microtrack II

NOTE: I have done some searching online to no avail...
So how good are the Microtrack II's external mic preamps? Which of the above setups would yield higher quality? I know it completely depends on the quality of the external preamp, so I'll tell you I'm looking at the $100 range.  I would prefer the external preamp to have four channels (which would then make the H2's setup more versatile), but two should suffice.  Also, I am aware that the external mic preamp would take away the H2's portability factor, but I would only be using external microphones in non-portable situations.  That's not to say that the Microtrack II's on-board phantom power isn't nice.

I've read this:
http://www.scopereviews.com/audiocomparo.html

But the reviewer used external preamps for all three devices, and it was comparing a Microtrack 24/96 to the Edirol and H2.  Also, the reviewer somehow ignored the hiss factor in the internal microphones.
On a side note, is the hissiness of the Microtrack II's T-mic a result of the microphone itself, or the input?


Thanks a lot!

I can only touch on a few things in your post.  As an MT2 user I've been very happy overall with the device.  I have only recorded digi thru the spdif (which has produced great results) and analog in via the 3.5mm input.  One thing to be aware of, the plug in power 5v's for the 3.5 mm is not enough for high SPL situations.  You will overload and get distortion in loud situations.  You'll need a battery box.  Mini mics>battery box > mt2 have produced some nice pulls for me imo.  I will soon be running the church audio 9100 preamp between my mics and recorder via the 1/4" inputs which makes a great combo and is a pretty inexpensive and compact.  You can run some church audio or sound pro mics in front.  There was some discussion that the 48v phantom power on the discussion threads here and there may be some question as to whether-or-not the device really provides proper, 48v power via the 1/4". 
I think if you're looking for an all-in-one, all situation device, the mt2 may not be the best choice.  However, for the price and easy addition of a reasonably priced pre and mics it makes a great recorder.

[gossling]

Thanks for the response,

Under what circumstances do you use the digital input? Do you record live concerts with a sound board feed to the digital input? Or do sound boards output in analog?

Why will you use an external preamp in between the mics and the MTII? Are the onboard preamps for external mics not sufficient?


I read on this forum that the line-in of the MTII is poor with unbalanced inputs.  Under what circumstances will I be dealing with unbalanced inputs?

[taperwheeler]

Thanks for the response,

Under what circumstances do you use the digital input? Do you record live concerts with a sound board feed to the digital input? Or do sound boards output in analog?

Why will you use an external preamp in between the mics and the MTII? Are the onboard preamps for external mics not sufficient?


I read on this forum that the line-in of the MTII is poor with unbalanced inputs.  Under what circumstances will I be dealing with unbalanced inputs?

My primary (open) rig is AKG480>V3>MT2.  The V3 runs spdif in to the MT2.  In this instance, the MT2 is just a bit bucket, capturing my 24 bit digi stream from the V3. 

I will be using the ca9100 pre between mics and MT2 for 2 reasons.  Number 1, the ca preamp is cleaner, less noisy, thus able to give me more gain with less increase in noise.  Number 2, it will provide my elecret mics with 9v of juice serving the same purpose as a battery box, and the units pretty much the same size.

Every rig is unique in regards to mics>pre(or no pre)>recorder.  The mini mics I run (sp-cmc-8 with AT933 caps) were modified.  I did this because in really loud shows, they would distort.  Now they handle really loud shows well, but in a quiter, acoustic show need much more preamplification.  I am getting the church audio pre since I like the way it interplays and will give me the gain with less noise than the MT2.

The shortcomings with sending an unbalanced input to the MT2 lies only when using the 1/4" input.  You can get around this (as I plan to do) by using a preamp between mics and recorder and keeping the MT2 gain all the way down and using the pre for all the gain adjustments.

Soundboard feeds can be done either thru digi in (spdif on the MT2) or analog via 1/8 or 1/4 input.  This will vary depending on what outs the sbd offers and the cables you have to patch with.  I have not recorded sbd>mt2 myself so can't give any advice.   

[gossling]

The shortcomings with sending an unbalanced input to the MT2 lies only when using the 1/4" input.  You can get around this (as I plan to do) by using a preamp between mics and recorder and keeping the MT2 gain all the way down and using the pre for all the gain adjustments.

But aren't microphones balanced? So couldn't you connect the mics straight to the MT2's 1/4 inputs and have no problem? I know the quality wouldn't be quite as good as with an external preamp, but wouldn't results still be acceptable this way? This is what I plan to do for home recordings (2 mics going into the MTII's 1/4 inputs). 

Also, is there typically a balanced output option for preamps? Or do they usually output unbalanced?

Thanks

[taperwheeler]

The shortcomings with sending an unbalanced input to the MT2 lies only when using the 1/4" input.  You can get around this (as I plan to do) by using a preamp between mics and recorder and keeping the MT2 gain all the way down and using the pre for all the gain adjustments.

But aren't microphones balanced? So couldn't you connect the mics straight to the MT2's 1/4 inputs and have no problem? I know the quality wouldn't be quite as good as with an external preamp, but wouldn't results still be acceptable this way? This is what I plan to do for home recordings (2 mics going into the MTII's 1/4 inputs). 

Also, is there typically a balanced output option for preamps? Or do they usually output unbalanced?

Thanks

As I haven't used mics with 1/4" plugs, I can't say whether-or-not they are balanced and assume it varies.  Likewise, I assume there may be some pre's that do send a balanced signal. 

You should look thru the faq's on m-audio's site at the following addy:

http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=support&tab=faqs&serie_ID=18&PID=e90b6c01880c13625426f04cb2d53318&keywords=

There's some info there that you should find helpful.   

As I said before, I have been very satisfied with all my recordings with the MT2 so far.  Even running my at933 mics>batt box>1/8" input came out nice to my ears.  For the price, functionality, size, has impressed me. 

[jaz]

  I've only heard bad things about the onboard amps. I have run AKG c1000s into the MT2 via xlr-1/4" and my source sounded great! Currently we run the AKGs into FP-24 and out via 1/8" into the MT@ if I run xlr to 1/4 out of the pre-amp the signal is too high no matter what levels are on the sure FP-24. Always something with these microtracks.

[landshark]

Jaz -

Heh - the signal out of the Shure FP24 /aka/ Sound Devices MixPre is BLAZING hot at almost any level.  I always had to run -10db pads into my Korg MR1 (which admittedly has a ridiculously low max Line input) and stay well off the gain knobs.  I've heard the MixPre / FP is best in low SPL situations and a little too much gain in the usual concert high SPL settings (not that it can't do it, you just have to be careful).

Of course, the lowness of the self-noise on the MixPre / FP is sick.  Sicksicksicksicksick.  In another post someone referred to it as inky black <grin>.

Mike