Topic: M-Audio MicroTracker details **PART III**

[udovdh]

Thanks for the manual links answers (quick!). 
About the 2GB issue: assuming it is there (i.e.: stop after 2GB), better put in tickets kindly requesting the auto-open of new files after XXX MB/GB (or 2GB at the latest).

[nic]

I thought I might suggest people here to fill out a support ticket on the M-Audio site to suggest a firmware upgrade to defeat the 2gb file size. I put a ticket in myself, but it could possibly speed things along if several people where requesting the same revision. Good idea? Bad idea?
dB-

except that no one knows how the MT handles the 2GB limitation.
for all we know, it allready does seemless splits.

[udovdh]

for all we know, it allready does seemless splits.

Source, please? (would be great news)

[nic]

for all we know, it allready does seemless splits.

Source, please? (would be great news)

thats the thing...no one knows since no one has been able to test one yet.
people are assuming it will be an issue, but it very well may not be.

[The Kilted Taper]

But I believe it's already been said that a firmware upgrade was going to be needed to fix the 2gb problem. Isn't that correct? Hasn't someone spoken with M-Audio about this already?

[John Kelly]

But I believe it's already been said that a firmware upgrade was going to be needed to fix the 2gb problem. Isn't that correct? Hasn't someone spoken with M-Audio about this already?

But it was also said that this firmware upgrade *could* have been ready before it shipped.  Since no one has one yet, no one knows.

In other words, don't send in any support tickets until we know what it really does.

[JasonSobel]

But I believe it's already been said that a firmware upgrade was going to be needed to fix the 2gb problem. Isn't that correct? Hasn't someone spoken with M-Audio about this already?

I spoke with an M-audio tech a while back (one month ago?  two?), and he told me that they already had plans to implement a feature to automatically start a new file after 2 GB in a future firmware.  I have no idea if this has since been implemented, or if it is still plans for "future firmware".  Either way, it seemed to me like they were aware of the potential issue.

[nickgregory]

thats the thing...no one knows since no one has been able to test one yet.
people are assuming it will be an issue, but it very well may not be.

let me preface by saying that I am not comparing the 722 to the Microtracker....but the manual for the 722 calls out that it handles seamless splits....I hope the microtracker can handle them though...

[wbrisette]

let me preface by saying that I am not comparing the 722 to the Microtracker....but the manual for the 722 calls out that it handles seamless splits....I hope the microtracker can handle them though...

I'm biased when it comes to manuals, but then I wrote (or more correctly rewrote the Deva manual for Zaxcom). However,  we don't talk about that point, and I don't go into detail on how you work with larger than 2 GB files (bwav files can be larger, but since applications don't like them, it can be problematic). Zaxcom is a bit luckier in some respects though because you don't use the original file, you use a copy of the original (everything must be mirrored to another disc or drive). Right now we have hard 4 GB limits on partitions on the drive, but that is all about to change with the next firmware release. The current idea is to let us determine how big the files should be during the mirroring stage, which makes a lot of sense. Not sure why more companies don't use this method. Let the user determine where to break the file. 1 GB, 2 GB, or even larger if that's what they want.

Wayne

[nickgregory]

let me preface by saying that I am not comparing the 722 to the Microtracker....but the manual for the 722 calls out that it handles seamless splits....I hope the microtracker can handle them though...

I'm biased when it comes to manuals, but then I wrote (or more correctly rewrote the Deva manual for Zaxcom). However, we don't talk about that point, and I don't go into detail on how you work with larger than 2 GB files (bwav files can be larger, but since applications don't like them, it can be problematic). Zaxcom is a bit luckier in some respects though because you don't use the original file, you use a copy of the original (everything must be mirrored to another disc or drive). Right now we have hard 4 GB limits on partitions on the drive, but that is all about to change with the next firmware release. The current idea is to let us determine how big the files should be during the mirroring stage, which makes a lot of sense. Not sure why more companies don't use this method. Let the user determine where to break the file. 1 GB, 2 GB, or even larger if that's what they want.

Wayne

agreed....and the 722/744 lets you set from .5 Gb I believe up to 4 Gb...why I thought it was relevant was to call out  in the manual was because when you are reocrding a continuous stream, what happens when the space max'es based on what you spec'ed...

given that it could be fixed with the microtracker and they dont call it out because it isnt relevant...

[Brian]

(bwav files can be larger, but since applications don't like them, it can be problematic).

just out of curiosity....what applications to you speak of?  I work with BWF all the time in many different applications.

[wbrisette]

agreed....and the 722/744 lets you set from .5 Gb I believe up to 4 Gb...why I thought it was relevant was to call out  in the manual was because when you are reocrding a continuous stream, what happens when the space max'es based on what you spec'ed...

given that it could be fixed with the microtracker and they dont call it out because it isnt relevant...

Remember though, you and I have a hard drive in our recorder, and there are different ways to deal with this issue. I really like the idea of mirroring because it allows you to record a huge file (based on the file system of the hard drive -- Zaxcom uses their own format), so you could have a 6 GB file, then mirror it off into chunks of 2 GB at a time. If you have to deal with the file directly, as in the case of the 722/744 & Microtracker, you're absolutely right. You have the other issue which is what happens when you reach that point in the file and need to close it and start a new file. Let's hope they have enough RAM in the unit which allows for a buffer to cache the audio while it closes and opens a new file.

Wayne

[wbrisette]

(bwav files can be larger, but since applications don't like them, it can be problematic).

just out of curiosity....what applications to you speak of?  I work with BWF all the time in many different applications.

Depends on the number of tracks. But don't toss a 7 or 8 track BWF file at ProTools or it will choke. Motu's DP doesn't deal with Poly BWF files, so they have to be mono. Peak (even the newest 5.0 version) can only handle a 2 GB file. It also chokes on larger files.

Wayne

[nickgregory]

gotcha wayne, I didnt understand the mirroring comment until you detailed it.  Agree with you though that makes a difference with how it is handled.

[Brian]

Depends on the number of tracks. But don't toss a 7 or 8 track BWF file at ProTools or it will choke. Motu's DP doesn't deal with Poly BWF files, so they have to be mono. Peak (even the newest 5.0 version) can only handle a 2 GB file. It also chokes on larger files.

Wayne

Weird. The project i'm working on now is 17 tracks and Pro Tools is working just fine.  Hell...I can even use plugins too

I convert to AIFF when working in peak for two channel stuff.  I can bounce plugins with zero problems as opposed to when try with .wav files.

WL 5 seems to handle 4 bwf tracks fine as well.