M-Audio's response to 48v phantom power bug
Jonny Durango
sa...@m-audio.com and/or in...@m-audio.com if you are also concerned
about this problem.
<<
A rep from your company recently addressed the list of bugs associated
with the Microtrack 2496. Among them, was the underperforming phantom
power supply. Here is a copy of the reply as posted to rec.audio.pro and
rec.arts.movies.production.sound
"BUG:
- 30v max on Phantom on stead of advertised 48v
ANSWER:
I believe our marketing mentions "Phantom Power", but never states
48v. We took a prototype down to an equipment rental store, and they
let us go through their mic closet. The MicroTrack provided enough
power for everything we tried, from the U87 to Sennheiser shotgun mics
and some esoterics. So, is this a complaint that a mic didn't work,
or is it a complaint that the Volt-Ohm meter needle didn't go where
they wanted?"
In fact, your marketting DOES specifically state 48v phantom power as is
apparent from page 6 of your own 2005 Product Guide.
http://www.m-audio.com/images/global/media/M-Audio2005Catalog.pdf
Likewise, every retailer and M-Audio dealer's website had advertised 48v
phantom power before the MT's release (while they were still taking
pre-orders) and most still advertise it even though it has been found
that the unit may only deliver 30v of phantom power (according to Len
Moskowitz of core-sound.com and others, see taperssection.com archives).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=389807&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:aKjfIljToEUJ:www.audiomidi.com/Micro-Track-24-96-P6906.aspx+microtrack+48v&hl=en
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YUjbMmFMSFgJ:www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicroTrack/+microtrack+48v&hl=en
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EbZh4NftKBYJ:www.minidisco.com/microtrack.html+microtrack+48v&hl=en
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:gqAJ7pUb-X4J:www.bananas.com/productdetail.asp/PID_8927+m-audio+microtrack+2496+48v&hl=en
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4SWOO0xgbGgJ:www.torcomp.com/products/product_detail.cfm%3Fproductid%3D48251%26ProductPriceID%3D208734+m-audio+microtrack+2496+48v&hl=en
Even such major retailers as Sweetwater, BH Photo Video and
AudioMidi.com are advertising 48v Phantom Power.
As such, I believe this is a product defect that should be fixed and
addressed in later revisions. Despite what your own testing indicates,
it is true that many mics will not function properly with highly
underrated phantom power supplies. Schoeps has confirmed that it's
12-48v phantom mics will only operate properly when powered by 12v OR
48v, not 12 TO 48v..
I'd like to thank you for making such a great product. I'm sure if you
can work out most of the firmware bugs, and bring the phantom power
supply up to it's rated voltage, it will be a VERY succesful machine.
Please let me know how, or if you plan to address this issue. Thankyou!
--
Jonny Durango
"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"
>>
Will post more when/if I get a response.
Jonny Durango
Phil Allison
"Jonny Durango"
** This was posted on sci.electronics design a few days ago:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a repair problem for a low noise microphone pre-amp but seems to be
a general design flaw.
Pre-amp uses a Burr Brown INA103 very low noise instrumentation op-amp.
In this M-Audio Omni i/o preamp and an outline design application in the
Burr Brown book show much the same circuitry.
The 48Volt phantom supply to the mike is protected by 6.8K limiter
resistors.
But to block the 48V DC to the op-amp there is a 10uF/100V electrolytic in
each line directly to the inv & non-inv i/p of the op-amp .
If , as seems in this case, a balanced line microphone with a short to
ground is connected to such a system
then the +48V / 0V across the elecrolytic will instantneously go to 0V
/ -48V with -48V
directly connected to the op-amp i/p powered from +-15V rails and according
to the databook
can be taken to only +-12V.
Blown input to this op-amp due to just the owner connecting a microphone.
Anyone familiar with this, adding limiting diode pair at each input ?
I see no point in replacing this 15 GBP/ 25 USD IC until this design flaw
is attended to or it will happen again should a fault to ground develop in a
mike or lead while the 48V power is on.
--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Looks like the wankers at M-Audio need to go figure how phantom powering
is actually done in the real world.
......... Phil
RD Jones
Jonny Durango wrote:
> "BUG:
> - 30v max on Phantom on stead of advertised 48v
>
> ANSWER:
>
> I believe our marketing mentions "Phantom Power", but never states
> 48v. We took a prototype down to an equipment rental store, and they
> let us go through their mic closet. The MicroTrack provided enough
> power for everything we tried, from the U87 to Sennheiser shotgun mics
> and some esoterics. So, is this a complaint that a mic didn't work,
> or is it a complaint that the Volt-Ohm meter needle didn't go where
> they wanted?"
There are in fact mics that seriously underperform
without the correct voltage. AKG C452 and the 'P48'
version of the C414. There most likely are others.
That a mic 'works' and works properly to spec are
different animals.
rd
Jonny Durango
Wow! Well hopefully the MT isn't designed with the same op-amp as the
Omni interface. Regardless, has anybody contacted M-Audio about this flaw?
Jonny Durango
Very good point...I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as
"well the mic makes sound, so there's no problem." Unless we raise a
fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.
Something is happenin here, and I don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?
heh, sorry I couldn't resist! Thanks again!
--
Jonny Durango
Phil Allison
"Jonny Durango"
> interface. Regardless, has anybody contacted M-Audio about this flaw?
>
** Wanna guess what their reply would be ?
Allege user error ?
Point out no claim is make re input IC protection ??
Blah, blah ........
........... Phil
Ben Bradley
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:56:13 -0700, Jonny Durango
<jonnydurango1B...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here's a copy of an email I sent to M-Audio. Please send email to
>sa...@m-audio.com and/or in...@m-audio.com if you are also concerned
>about this problem.
I guess I'm "concerned" ... I wonder if the FTC is concerned.
>"BUG:
>- 30v max on Phantom on stead of advertised 48v
>
>ANSWER:
>
>I believe our marketing mentions "Phantom Power", but never states
>48v. We took a prototype down to an equipment rental store, and they
>let us go through their mic closet. The MicroTrack provided enough
>power for everything we tried, from the U87 to Sennheiser shotgun mics
>and some esoterics. So, is this a complaint that a mic didn't work,
>or is it a complaint that the Volt-Ohm meter needle didn't go where
>they wanted?"
So what they "mean" by 48V Phantom Power is it "will power mics
that claim to run on 48V Phantom Power."
I'm starting to catch on to this marketing/advertising stuff. I
could end up being very rich, or very dangerous, or both.
this]@ri.t-com.hr Edi Zubovic
<jonnydurango1B...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here's a copy of an email I sent to M-Audio. Please send email to
>sa...@m-audio.com and/or in...@m-audio.com if you are also concerned
>about this problem.
>
><<
>
>A rep from your company recently addressed the list of bugs associated
>with the Microtrack 2496. Among them, was the underperforming phantom
>power supply. Here is a copy of the reply as posted to rec.audio.pro and
>rec.arts.movies.production.sound
>
>"BUG:
>- 30v max on Phantom on stead of advertised 48v
--- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
OK at 30 V if designed properly and, will the Microtrack 24/96 be
able, without major design changes, to supply full 48 V to 2
microphones given its batteries? -- I mean 48 V is here a maximum
which can't be reached easily given the dimensions of Microtrack or?
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Pooh Bear
Jonny Durango wrote:
It's not the *IC* that's the problem. It's the poor implementation of the circuitry
around it.
Decent console makers have incorporated proper protection for ages. It costs about 10
cents in parts.
Graham
Pooh Bear
The info on their advertising quite definitely says *48* V.
They need to make their product work properly or withdraw the 48V claim.
Whilst they're at it they can add some input protection too.
This is what happen when computer geeks start thinking they can be audio pros. Big learning curve before they can get it right.
Graham
Mike Rivers
Pooh Bear wrote:
> The info on their advertising quite definitely says *48* V.
Jonny seemed to find plenty of evidence about that, but the question of
phantom power came up on the Ampex list and nobody was able to find the
stated voltage in the available literature. This is confusing. But it's
not the first product that M-Audio has built with less than 48V phantom
powering. I believe it was the Audio Buddy (one of the early
inexpensive outboard mic preamps) that provided 30 volts or so.
Still, and while I can't condone or excuse this, terms that have a
proper scientific definition tend to become corrupted as the technology
trickles down to users with a non-technical background. And while
design engineers and even marketing copy writers may know the classical
definitions, the marketeers have to write to the level of their
expected customers. In this case, I suspect that "Phantom powering"
means "48 V. Phantom Powering", and which one sounds better to the
uneducated potential customer? The one with the 48V or without?
Are battery manufacturers lying when they say it's a 1.5V battery? It's
just a matter of tolerance. If you're willing to accept a 50%
tolerance, 30V qualifies as a 48V power supply. Not unreasonable in a
world where we're supposed to be impressed with "Frequency respons 22Hz
- 22kHz" which is not at all an unusual statement for low-budget
microphones.
Not that I'm defending M-Audio here, and I'm glad that the word is out
on the street for those who care. But I suspect that it isn't going to
get changed as a result of a letter-writing campaign, or even in a
magazine-published review. When I had a TASCAM US-122 in for review, I
managed to blow out an input by plugging in a mic with phantom power
(48V, really) turned on, and suspected the same failure mode that Phil
described (and the lack of the standard protection diodes that Graham
mentioned). I mentioned this in my review, and as far as I know there
was never a change.
Products like this are like that. It means that sometimes we just have
to exercise our common sense and NOT buy something that we would
otherwise like to have - not out of protest (that does no good) but
because we know it isn't going to work some times, and we can't afford
that in a professional working environment. Or we decide to buy it
anyway, learn its limitations, and only use it where it will work.
Richard Crowley
> Not that I'm defending M-Audio here, and I'm glad that
> the word is out on the street for those who care. But I
> suspect that it isn't going to get changed as a result of a
> letter-writing campaign, or even in a magazine-published
> review.
Indeed. It seems highly unlikely that they just picked 30v
out of the air if they were capable of doing 48v. With the
battery life already questionable, using that much more
power for the phantom supply would just exacerbate the
problem.
wildt®ax
Phil Allison
"Chel van Gennip"
> BTW, the IEC
> standard will cost about 1W power,
** How so ?
Even 4 mA at 48 volts is under 200mW.
........... Phil
Scott Dorsey
Maybe they made use of +/-15V supply rails with a funny ground reference?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>
>With current technology I don't see any reason for such a high phantom
>voltage or power. Besides that many (most?) microphones are designed to
>work well with a wide range of voltages e.g. 9-52V. In this world it is
>not strange to use a design that will work and has benefits. BTW, the IEC
>standard will cost about 1W power, that is quite a lot for a small battery
>driven recorder. I understand the M-Audio choices. I also understand some
>people would have made other choices. These people can choose to provide
>the 0.5W per microphone IEC standard phantom power externaly or use other
>devices.
If anything, I want MORE power available! More power means more electronics
at the microphone are possible, electronics that otherwise might need to run
in class AB can run in class A, and output impedances can be lower! Give me
more current and higher voltages! I want to run incandescent tally lights
off the mike! I want to run submini tubes! I want more!
David Satz
1938 for 12-Volt, 24-Volt and 48-Volt implementations. In Europe, it's
EN 61938.
The 24-Volt implementation has never been widely adopted by equipment
manufacturers due to a chicken and egg problem (why build consoles and
preamps to work with microphones that don't exist, and vice versa?),
leaving just the 12 and 48 Volt versions ("P12" and "P48") in practice.
The standard has a long history and is well established. But exactly
the same can also be said for pig-headedness, no?
By the way, PreSonus went through a similar fiasco with their original
"Blue Tube" preamp. Its front panel switch was even labeled "48 V," but
it put out only thirty-something (open circuit). The company revised
the preamp after receiving complaints and didn't even go through a
public denial phase about it first, which I thought was very mature of
them.
--best regards
Mike Rivers
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> With current technology I don't see any reason for such a high phantom
> voltage or power.
Are you suggesting that we should be prepared to buy new microphones to
go with our new low-powered recorders? And if so, that's likely to
limit our choices. We may not like what's available.
> Besides that many (most?) microphones are designed to
> work well with a wide range of voltages e.g. 9-52V.
Some, yes. I'm not convinced by your statement that many or most are. I
know that I have at least three here that won't work at 30V, at least
not to their full level of performance.
> In this world it is
> not strange to use a design that will work and has benefits.
It's unfortunately becoming stranger to provide backward compatability,
and that's what this is about. No problem for people with plenty of
money to spend, and no problem for those with no previous investment.
But there are others to consider.
> BTW, the IEC
> standard will cost about 1W power, that is quite a lot for a small battery
> driven recorder.
Correct, for a pair of worst case mics, and that's indeed a concern.
It's been suggested that one could use an external phantom power supply
to accommodate mics that the Micro Trak won't power. This partially
defeats the advantage of self-containd mic power since it's another
box, another set of batteries, and another pair of cables and
connectors for the signal to go through. If I had to use external power
I'd rather have a box (or belt) with D-cells to get enough current to
power the mics and recorder, and make sure it will keep running for the
whole gig. A Nagra uses a bundle of D-cells, but it will run all day on
them. And while it won't fit in a jacket pocket, it won't easily get
yanked by a cable and fall off the table.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as "well the mic
> makes sound, so there's no problem."
> Unless we raise a fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.
So, vote with your wallet. Don't buy it.
Just say No to bad gear.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
Bob Cain
Jonny Durango wrote:
> "BUG:
> - 30v max on Phantom on stead of advertised 48v
Has anyone checked the phantom resistors? If they were less
than the usual 6.8K then for the higher current mics you
could end up with as much or more voltage after the drop
across them.
48 V/10 mA/6.8K leaves 14 V at pins 2 and 3. 4250 Ohm
resistors would yield the same voltage at 30 V/10 mA.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
vin
Mike Rivers
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> What I ment is that if you design a microphone circuit now, you could
> well do with 10V 2mA and create a perfect circuit.
Maybe. You certainly could if you used an electret element, but an
electrically polarized element still needs 50 to 80 volts in order to
work, and that means a DC-DC converter in the mic. Remember that you're
not just powering an impedance converter.
While you need essentially no current to polarize the capsule element,
you need a certain amount of current to polarize the converter. If you
wanted to use a lower polarizing voltage, you'd have to move the
diaphragm closer to the back plate or put it at higher tension. Both
probably have more things going against them than for them when it
comes to capsule design. Not to say that someone couldn't come up with
a radically different capsule design, in over 50 years, we still think
that Mr. Neumann got it right.
> This situation is
> different from e.g. 1966 when the DIN 45596 standard was made.
The only thing different is that there are lower power components
available today than there were then, but there are certain design
elements that you can't get rid of. This isn't consumer electronics.
> If you look at currently available microphones, most are designed to work
> with little power.
Have YOU looked at them? Got a list of mics that will run at 12-24V
with current requirements of 2 mA or so? Show me my choices and I'll
tell you what I might want to buy to freshen up my mic closet.
> There are some microphones in the "vintage area" that won't work with low
> phantom power (and did not work with standard phantom power at the time
> they were designed: some Neumans, the Schoeps CMC ("Colette") series,
> some Shure KSM-series microphones etc.).
The Shure KSM is "vintage" already? My, how time flies! We didn't have
phantom powering until the KM80 series Neumanns from 1966. Were you
born then? If not, that might explain your perspective on this.
> For me it is important to have a small light device capable of making
> high quality recordings. For backwards compatibility with vintage
> microphones you could use external phantom power, or use a different
> device, e.g. the 722.
I'll put up with a little extra weight in exchange for less haywire and
the ability to use the mics that I want to use, not the subset of mics
that work at low power. And I'd like it to be less expensive than the
Sound Devices 722. A unit of that cost will never pay for itself around
here, and I don't have that kind of money to throw at a device that
I'll only use for my own amusement.
Tim Martin
"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem this]@ri.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:en7nj19eleka0pld9...@4ax.com...
> --- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
> this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
> OK at 30 V if designed properly and, will the Microtrack 24/96 be
> able, without major design changes, to supply full 48 V to 2
> microphones given its batteries? -- I mean 48 V is here a maximum
> which can't be reached easily given the dimensions of Microtrack or?
What the product should do is specify the voltage and current it can supply
to microphones. And what the microphone manufacturers should do is specify
the voltage and current required by their microphones to achieve the
specified performance.
That is, manufacturers should provide accurate and informative product
specs.
Whether a phantom power supply should deliver 10 milliamps per microphone at
48V can then be left to the marketplace to decide - together with whether
it's OK for a microphone's performance to be worse if supplied with 30V
phantom power at 5 milliamps or whatever.
Obviously it's easiest in some ways if products all complied with an
international standard; however, if complying with the standards results in
some disadvantage for the user (eg cost, weight) then it's reasonable for
manufacturers to offer products which do not conform. There's no need for
all products to meet the same specs; however, the buyer needs to know what
specs the product *does* meet.
Tim
-¦-R€b€rto¤
>digidesign owns m-audio now. or does it?
It does. But i'm not sure if that is positive, or negative.
R
martin griffith
>
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem this]@ri.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>news:en7nj19eleka0pld9...@4ax.com...
>
snip
>That is, manufacturers should provide accurate and informative product
>specs.
snip
> however, the buyer needs to know what
>specs the product *does* meet.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
I've just got this feeling that the MT was pushed out of the door by
the marketing department before it was ready for release. M-Audio do
know how to design audio. The techs working on the MT would have
known exactly what was wrong with the MT, they probably lurk here, and
on RAMPS.
I think its a shame that something with the potential of the MT has
had such a bad professional launch. A dilbert problem
martin
Mike Rivers
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:17:03 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
> I have bought a device that fullfills my requirements, you will have to
> wait a little longer.
Yes, sigh, again.
Jonny Durango
> digidesign owns m-audio now. or does it?
>
I believe Avid (famous for video editing software) acquired Digidesign
and M-Audio. And when they did so, it appears as though they cleaned
house of all their Digidesign product engineers/testers.
--
Jonny Durango
"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"
Jonny Durango
My feelings exactly.....great product with great potential, but I get
the feeling it was pushed out the door too early. I also wouldn't be
surprised if M-Audio lost a lot of good engineers when it was acquired
by Avid, although I couldn't confirm this.
SoundSpeed
In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for M-Audio claiming 48v
if it is not true, or even that it reduces battery time so much that it
is not worth it.
I will buy one, because my mixer supllies all the 48v I need. It may be
handy to run the unit on it's own, but I will work within the
limitations of the gadget. I also have a denecke 48v power supply lying
around somewhere - and I would rather change the batteries on that
occasionally, than relying on the recorders powering.
It was cool how all the techno wizards came out on this topic, though.
Ed Anson
> --- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
> this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
> OK at 30 V if designed properly
But the fact is that some of the best mics won't work properly at 30 V.
For example, my Neumanns specify 48 V +/- 4 V. That's nowhere near to 30.
Jonny Durango
> it appears as though they cleaned
> house of all their Digidesign product engineers/testers.
>
Oops, typo, should be "cleared house of a lot of their GOOD Digidesign
product engineers/tester." I really don't think they axed the entire
Digi production staff.
Richard Crowley
> --- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
> this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
> OK at 30 V if designed properly
Maybe you're thinking only of electret-capsule microphones,
not externally-polarized ones?
> and, will the Microtrack 24/96 be
> able, without major design changes, to supply full 48 V to 2
> microphones given its batteries? --
Seems dubious. If I had the choice, I'd rather have longer battery
life and 30v of phantom. If I want to use the good mics that require
48v, I'll likely use something a bit more substantial to record on.
Seems to me the objections here are mainly over the "false-
advertising" where M-Audio apparently thought that "48v"
was just a *name* rather than the spec for phantom power.
It does show some bone-headedness on their part (and their
goofy "where the needle lands" response just made it worse.)
If they had just correctly called it 30v phantom power, we
would be back concentrating on the real issues. But this is
Usenet where we will flog any topic long past its due.
d rosen
to those people that have an MT and are using with their mixers, how
have you intergrated the MT into the bag cable wise?
i've been advised not to use 3 pole input jacks (1/4") and that 2 pole
jacks will be best if i'm using the unbalanced mixout from my sd302,
i'm trying to patch a power supply from the np1into the usb and would
also like to make a monitor return. been thinking about putting all 3
on a breakaway as i want to keep the jacks into and out of the MT under
somekind of protective pouch. i read someone was using an "L" shaped
bracket to fix an MD to his mixer bag. unless something is designed to
be used in a bag with other things it is always a problem to have good
ergonomics.
any thoughts?
dan.
Kurt Albershardt
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> "Jonny Durango"
>>
>> posted on sci.electronics design a few days ago:
>>
>>
>>> Actually a repair problem for a low noise microphone pre-amp but
>>> seems to be a general design flaw. Pre-amp uses a Burr Brown
>>> INA103 very low noise instrumentation op-amp. In this M-Audio
>>> Omni i/o preamp and an outline design application in the Burr
>>> Brown book show much the same circuitry. The 48Volt phantom
>>> supply to the mike is protected by 6.8K limiter resistors. But to
>>> block the 48V DC to the op-amp there is a 10uF/100V electrolytic
>>> in each line directly to the inv & non-inv i/p of the op-amp .
>>
>>
>> Looks like the wankers at M-Audio need to go figure how phantom
>> powering is actually done in the real world.
>
>
>
> Wow! Well hopefully the MT isn't designed with the same op-amp as the
> Omni interface.
Highly unlikely, given the INA103's optimum rail voltages and power
consumption.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Technology is not fixed. You are right there is a standard for phantom
> power. The 1966 DIN 45596 standard well defined phantom power as: 48V, 6k8
> resistors and a maximum current of 2mA. That worked well, until some
> manufacurers, like Schoeps, started to build microphones that needed
> tripple that current or more. There came a new standard: IEC 61938.
>
> With current technology I don't see any reason for such a high phantom
> voltage or power.
Wait -- many of us (and quite a few higher end mic designers) want MORE
power available and are pushing for the P48H standard to be ratified
(48V through 2k1 resistors.)
Also note that P12 provides higher current thanks to its 680 Ohm
resistors (though still not as much juice as T-power offers.)
Kurt Albershardt
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:19:31 +0200, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>"Chel van Gennip"
>>
>>
>>> BTW, the IEC standard will cost about 1W power,
>>
>>
>> Even 4 mA at 48 volts is under 200mW.
>
>
> 2 microphones at (IEC) 10mA at 48V is 960mW or ~ 1W
Did you forget the 6k8 resistors? Maximum power transfer does not occur
at 48V...
RD Jones
Jonny Durango wrote:
> My feelings exactly.....great product with great potential, but I get
> the feeling it was pushed out the door too early. I also wouldn't be
> surprised if M-Audio lost a lot of good engineers when it was acquired
> by Avid, although I couldn't confirm this.
Typical product research and development has gone
through it's cycle before release. So any significant
changes will likely be applied to a product revision
that also might get a facelift, for example, and a price
increase. This is especially true when R&D is half way
round the globe from manufacturing. Small, repair or
mod resistant design is another stumbling block to
such changes.
Anybody willing to wait for a SuperMT or the MT Ultra ?
The mics I used as examples that wouldn't work well
(or at all) with the 30v are old out-of-production
models and it's reasonable to assume that very few
might actually be used with the MT. But that's not a
justification to mislabel (or de-spec) the phantom
supply voltage.
rd
d rosen
to those people that have an MT and are using with their mixers, how
have you intergrated the MT into the bag cable wise?
i've been advised not to use 3 pole input jacks (1/4") and that 2 pole
jacks will be best if i'm using the unbalanced mixout from my sd302,
i'm trying to patch a power supply from the np1into the usb and would
also like to make a monitor return. been thinking about putting all 3
on a breakaway as i want to keep the jacks into and out of the MT under
somekind of protective pouch.
any thoughts?
dan.
Paul Stamler
news:X9GdnfRREq1...@comcast.com...
And that's not just theoretical; my KM-84s put out no sound whatsoever at
24V. Haven't tried them at 30 yet.
On the bright side, Microtech Gefell says their M930 won't work on 24V, but
it does, and still sounds superb.
Peace,
Paul
Jonny Durango
http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/user_files/90.jpg
Thanks cmoorevt!
Edi Zubovic
>
>Jonny Durango wrote:
>
>> My feelings exactly.....great product with great potential, but I get
>> the feeling it was pushed out the door too early. I also wouldn't be
>> surprised if M-Audio lost a lot of good engineers when it was acquired
>> by Avid, although I couldn't confirm this.
>
-------------------8<-------------------------------
>rd
-- Hmm, this was the way I've thinging of this the last night, too...
wondering if nowadays marketing was the most important department
instead of engineering and quality assurance ones. For instance, it
would cost nothing if they stated that given the dimensions of the
device, the maximum voltage of phantom power was 30V and for some
microphone models, an external supply was needed. Instead, they simply
stated 48V -- one of phantom power standards -- and look what they've
done. Now this _is_ bad because now their specs are not conforming to
the real capabilities of the device and under circumstances, it may be
suable -- I'm serious. This is not the way anybody ought sell a
professional product, but unfortunately, I've seen such things
elsewhere. What I want is much less marketing and more engineering and
QA, and especially, a serious approach to technical documentation, my
dear manufacturers.
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Martin Harrington
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
It's amazing how this group loses the point of the original statement so
easily.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128012126.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> With current technology I don't see any reason for such a high phantom
>> voltage or power.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should be prepared to buy new microphones to
> go with our new low-powered recorders? And if so, that's likely to
> limit our choices. We may not like what's available.
>
>> Besides that many (most?) microphones are designed to
>> work well with a wide range of voltages e.g. 9-52V.
>
> Some, yes. I'm not convinced by your statement that many or most are. I
> know that I have at least three here that won't work at 30V, at least
> not to their full level of performance.
>
>> In this world it is
>> not strange to use a design that will work and has benefits.
>
> It's unfortunately becoming stranger to provide backward compatability,
> and that's what this is about. No problem for people with plenty of
> money to spend, and no problem for those with no previous investment.
> But there are others to consider.
>
>> BTW, the IEC
>> standard will cost about 1W power, that is quite a lot for a small
>> battery
>> driven recorder.
>
> Correct, for a pair of worst case mics, and that's indeed a concern.
> It's been suggested that one could use an external phantom power supply
> to accommodate mics that the Micro Trak won't power. This partially
> defeats the advantage of self-containd mic power since it's another
> box, another set of batteries, and another pair of cables and
> connectors for the signal to go through. If I had to use external power
> I'd rather have a box (or belt) with D-cells to get enough current to
> power the mics and recorder, and make sure it will keep running for the
> whole gig. A Nagra uses a bundle of D-cells, but it will run all day on
> them. And while it won't fit in a jacket pocket, it won't easily get
> yanked by a cable and fall off the table.
>
Martin Harrington
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"-¦-R?b?rto¤" <~*u-¦-e-¦@l¤ess.com> wrote in message
news:3mjoj1pj1tb6am0qe...@4ax.com...
Mike Rivers
RD Jones wrote:
> The mics I used as examples that wouldn't work well
> (or at all) with the 30v are old out-of-production
> models and it's reasonable to assume that very few
> might actually be used with the MT.
This is true. There are a small handful of us who are looking for a
replacement for whatever portable reocrder we're using now (with the
mics we have now). However, this includes the "taper" crowd, who often
have very good mics that require full 48V power. I've been known to use
my KM84s with my Jukebox 3, but with an outboard preamp ahead of it.
But the majority of the potential customers will be people who don't
presently own any decent mics or any mics at all. They won't be
accessorizing it with $1000 Shoepps mics, they'll be looking at the
Audio Technica stereo mics or something like that. M-Audio sells mics
now, so maybe they have something upscale from the mini mic that they
provide with the Micro Trak.
What bothers me most is not specifically M-Audio's design, but that the
buyers will need to know one more thing that they shouldn't have to
worry about. Andy any educating that M-Audio might attempt is going to
look like they're making excuses for their product. Mackie's powered
mixers supplied 15V for mic powering. It was in the manuals and slick
spec sheets, and I don't know that anyone ever asked about it.
During the short time that I was working for Mackie, I got them to be a
sponsor at the Folk Alliance conference that year. I was manning the
Mackie booth and someone came up to me saying she had one of those
Mackie powered mixers, and asked why her new mic that was highly
recommended didn't sound very good with it. She didn't even know the
model mic she had, but she pulled it out of her backpack - a Neumann
KSM105. I explained phantom powering to her, told her that her mixer
wasn't a good match for her mic, and recommended that she get an
outboard power supply. Unlike your typical r.a.p. reader, she didn't
get indignant, thanked me for the honest non-marketing answer, and a
month or so later, I got an e-mail message from her saying that she got
the Audio Technica power supply that I suggested and was really pleased
with her mic and mixer.
So, sure, it's possible to educate people, but you can't expect all of
them to take it so well.
philicorda
> LOL! Here's an original photo showing the 48V switch
>
> http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/user_files/90.jpg
>
> Thanks cmoorevt!
They probably call it '48v' because it would confuse the hell out
of many people if it said '30v'.
'48v' has become synonymous with 'phantom power'.
For me though, it's very irritating as I was thinking of getting one. I
now don't know if any of my mics will work properly with it.
Kayte
picture of the mt w/ switch marked "48V" but they've apparently changed
that.
http://www.m-audio.com/images/global/manuals/050906_MicroTrack_UG_EN01.pdf
scroll to page 6
It's very ambiguous: they don't say anywhere in the manual or any of
the marketing material 30 or 48v, just phantom power.
"Phantom power for powering condenser microphones"
I guess it doesn't really matter... but it does make it seem a lot
cheaper.
Ben Bradley
<richard....@intel.com> wrote:
>"Edi Zubovic" wrote ...
>> --- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
>> this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
>> OK at 30 V if designed properly
>
>Maybe you're thinking only of electret-capsule microphones,
>not externally-polarized ones?
>
>> and, will the Microtrack 24/96 be
>> able, without major design changes, to supply full 48 V to 2
>> microphones given its batteries? --
>
>Seems dubious. If I had the choice, I'd rather have longer battery
>life and 30v of phantom. If I want to use the good mics that require
>48v, I'll likely use something a bit more substantial to record on.
>
>Seems to me the objections here are mainly over the "false-
>advertising" where M-Audio apparently thought that "48v"
>was just a *name* rather than the spec for phantom power.
I don't believe that, I think they know the specs very well.
They've been making and selling audio products for years, they've
apparenly made a lot of money at it. I've had no problem researching
the 48V Phantom Power spec with nothing more advanced than Google,
surely they can too. Perhaps there's some official spec on it that you
can pay for, but you don't need that to know the source voltage should
actually be 48V +/- 10 percent, or even (and easily done) 5 percent.
Having it at 30V (37 percent low) clearly saves cost, and also extends
rated battery life, which even more people would complain about if
that were too short, or if it were 'wrong' on the spec sheet. It's in
their favor to use the lowest voltage that "powers all the mics in
some guy's closet", and I have no doubt they intentionally designed it
that way.
Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced (FWIW, I was
apparently the first on RAP to discover this, and I was surprised Arny
hadn't already found it). The output could at least be claimed to be
"impedance balanced" (both + and - have the same "driving" impedance
to ground) but the inputs are clearly not balanced. The "+" input
detects signal, the "-" input has a resistor to ground which does
nothing except provide a return path for a balanced transformer
output.
Many manufacturers do technically sleazy things to save money on
products, especially in the "semi-pro" product range. This is not a
surprise, and it's almost not a dissapointment - a cynical person (pr
perhaps even a "realist") learns to expect such things. If you want
"True ISO-Rated 48-Volt Phantom Power[TM]" you have to spend more, in
batteries as well as up-front product cost.
>It does show some bone-headedness on their part (and their
>goofy "where the needle lands" response just made it worse.)
>
>If they had just correctly called it 30v phantom power, we
>would be back concentrating on the real issues. But this is
>Usenet where we will flog any topic long past its due.
I like the 'freedom' of Usenet that we can discuss these things,
even though it gives tr**ls the opportunity to make dozens of useless,
insulting posts a day. Plonk at will. :)
Jonny Durango
The original link I posted still say "48v phantom power for
studio-quality microphones."
http://www.m-audio.com/images/global/media/M-Audio2005Catalog.pdf
I guess they don't consider the CMC6 or KM84 studio quality.
--
Jonny Durango
Jonny Durango
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:20 +0200, Martin Harrington wrote:
>
>
>>Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this
>>thing? We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
>
>
>
Yep, me too! Unless of course you'd like to provide me w/ a sonosax or
cooper to prevent such an audio atrocity from occuring =)
Mike Rivers
Martin Harrington wrote:
> Isn't this really a moot argument.
> Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
> We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
I'd like a portable recorder that I can plug two good mics directly
into and record minimalist stereo. I used to do that with a TASCAM
portable DAT before it died, and a Nagra before that.
Now, technology has gone awry - they've given us a neat, portable
recording device that should be capable of making recordings of at
least Nagra quality, but they made it so small that they had to put
useful buttons on the sides where they're difficult to find. And for
the sake of size and weight, reduced its power supply so that it only
runs a few hours on a set of batteries and won't power perfectly good
microphones.
If you have to carry a mixer, who cares how small and light your
recorder is (within reason, of course).
Ma...@uwaterloo.ca
I agree with this. I still find myself using minidisc (PCM mode) when I need
a portable recorder. It is small, has removeable media, and has a nice remote
with level meters. I use electret mics (AT853, Senn MKE2, AKG CK93 capsules),
so I can power these with a simple "battery box" using a 9V battery. I'm
thinking of moving to the microtrack or the Edirol R1, but I'm not really in a
hurry.
Richard
hank alrich
> I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as
> "well the mic makes sound, so there's no problem." Unless we raise a
> fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.
They're aiming at a market that will be satisfied if "the mics make
sound" with it. And I doubt this can be fixed in firmware.
--
ha
hank alrich
> "Jonny Durango" wrote:
> > I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as "well the mic
> > makes sound, so there's no problem."
> > Unless we raise a fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.
> So, vote with your wallet. Don't buy it.
> Just say No to bad gear.
Thank you. And nevermind that in marketing it started out as somebody's
"affordable" wet dream. Leave crap on the shelf.
--
ha
hank alrich
> I'll put up with a little extra weight in exchange for less haywire and
> the ability to use the mics that I want to use, not the subset of mics
> that work at low power. And I'd like it to be less expensive than the
> Sound Devices 722. A unit of that cost will never pay for itself around
> here, and I don't have that kind of money to throw at a device that
> I'll only use for my own amusement.
I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
the conversion in that little box is admirable.
--
ha
Don Erickson
nothing at all when plugged into my Yamaha EM660 (15v). In all
fairness, Yamaha specifies the actual voltage when referring to phantom
power.
Don
Mike Rivers
Richard Crowley wrote:
> If I had the choice, I'd rather have longer battery
> life and 30v of phantom.
I haven't seen the schematic, but I suspect that the 30V phantom power
doesn't save batteries as much as it saves pennies (=parts), and that's
why they made it that way.
> If I want to use the good mics that require
> 48v, I'll likely use something a bit more substantial to record on.
Well, me too, but at this point we have to spend about twice as much as
the MT (thinking Marantz PMD671 here) and I don't know any more about
that than I do about the MT at this point. And to get a hard disk that
I want rather than flash card for storage, we're talking $1600 or so
for an Edirol R4 (though that does give 4 channels) or $1000 more yet
for a Sound Devices. So pricewise, the MicroTrack looks mighty
attractive.
> Seems to me the objections here are mainly over the "false-
> advertising"
That's what the uproar is about (this isn't unusual when it comes to
high tech product marketing) but still, it does limit the choice of
microphones without having to add another box (and another power cord
or set of batteries). I'm willing to put up with adapters for the
cables, and I trust a two 1/4" jacks more than one stereo mini jack,
but It's still rather have XLR inputs for the sake of robustness. A lot
of board-mounted 1/4" jacks don't have a lot of grip, but then
board-mounted XLR-F connectors don't have latches, either. Like I said,
the technology has gone awry.
> If they had just correctly called it 30v phantom power, we
> would be back concentrating on the real issues.
No, we'd be bitching that 30V doesn't meet any standard for phantom
power.
> But this is
> Usenet where we will flog any topic long past its due.
Yup.
Martin Harrington
thread.
As I said before, no "professional" recordist will be using this thing
without a front end.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"hank alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h3p4l7.18k2q3fcqloboN%walk...@thegrid.net...
Pooh Bear
Mike Rivers wrote:
< snip >
> board-mounted XLR-F connectors don't have latches, either.
They do if you ( the manufacturer ) specify them !
It's often presumed by designers that most users prefer the convenience of
latch free disconnection.
Latches cost extra too.
Graham
Pawel Kusmierek
>1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
>"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced
Why did I start reading this group? ;-D
I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
them balanced.
Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
about the Tannoys....
Mr.T
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dhhfd...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Has anyone checked the phantom resistors? If they were less
> than the usual 6.8K then for the higher current mics you
> could end up with as much or more voltage after the drop
> across them.
>
> 48 V/10 mA/6.8K leaves 14 V at pins 2 and 3. 4250 Ohm
> resistors would yield the same voltage at 30 V/10 mA.
Well yes, but only at 10mA. What about a mic that needs higher than 30V, at
low current?
Personally I think people are expecting too much from such a device. I'd
live with that limitation quite happily. However M-Audio *should* have
quoted 30V in the specs, not 48V.
MrT.
Jonny Durango
> As I said before, no "professional" recordist will be using this thing
> without a front end.
professionalism is subjective (hence the quotations) =P
Jonny Durango
I hope I didn't give the impression that I think the xt capsule
bad.....i've never tried it, in fact I would guess it sounds great! At
least as good as it's older cousin the MK41......I just don't think
there's any need for 40k freq. response unless your audience is
something other than human beings....but that's a whole different
argument that has been addresses here about a billion times (see recent
thread of 192khz recording for a taste)....
btw, tannoys SUCK!!
j/k =)
ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010
Jonny Durango
My Denecke PS2 has latches....they're kind of a pain, but not as much as
having a connector fall out during recording!
--
Jonny Durango
Mike Rivers
Mr.T wrote:
> Personally I think people are expecting too much from such a device.
You mean we shouldn't expect that a recorder that's more expensive than
a toy should work with any microphone that's more expensive than a toy?
> I'd live with that limitation quite happily.
If that was the only limitation for me, I'd probably allow that
anything I'd use it for wouldn't require the best of my mics and I
could compromise. But with all the other things standing betweem me and
the recorder, I guess I shouln't worry about phantom powering and start
worrying about where gasoline prices are heading, or when we're going
to get the US troops out of Iraq.
wildt®ax
per liter. That´s 1/4th of a gallon!!!!!
But yes, trading in 30V phantom power for a troop withdrawal from Iraq
sounds like a fair deal!!
Frank.
David Satz
CMC 6-- amplifier circuit with response up to ca. 50 kHz. The MK 41
(supercardioid/hypercardioid) which you mentioned is a type of Colette
capsule which could be used with that amplifier, but so could any other
Colette capsule (MK --) from the past six or eight years that has
"axial orientation" (i.e. not side-addressed).
Schoeps is a small company, and they're generally willing to consider
the custom manufacture of variant product types even in relatively
small quantities. Then they sometimes market these variant products to
the public if there seems to be enough interest. For many years Schoeps
has offered the option of setting the low-frequency rolloff of their
CMC-series amplifiers to something lower than the usual 20 or 30 Hz.
The way their microphones are built, it's just one part change and a
bit of custom engraving so that the amplifier can be correctly
identified. That option isn't requested very often, but it remains in
the catalog for those who may want it. The CMC 6xt, which is only a
little more complicated, was similarly designed in response to some
more recent customer requests, I believe from Japan, and was then
offered to the general public.
Neither variant represents, so far as I can tell, any official
statement of opinion by Schoeps that it's necessary, important or even
advantageous to record information beyond the range of human hearing.
They don't sell dogma; they sell microphones. On the contrary, they are
completely aware of the problems that out-of-band garbage can cause
(and unlike some folks, they're not in any denial about the fact that
most such signal information is garbage).
The CMC 6xt amplifier unfortunately doesn't provide a valid means for
testing whether or not (as some people suspect, while others merely
assume) it sounds better if we record such high-frequency information,
since its response in the top half-octave below 20 kHz isn't exactly
flat. When compared with the standard CMC 6-- amplifier it can still
sound slightly different on some material, even if one filters the
output of both amplifiers equally at, say, 20 kHz.
Another thing to consider is that by 20 kHz (or actually quite a bit
lower than that), condenser microphone capsules of anything like the
usual 3/4" diameter or larger can't possibly operate on the pressure
gradient principle any more. Thus no practical microphone capsule can
maintain its normal directional pattern up to such high frequencies. If
you look at the directional response of the Schoeps Colette capsules
that can be used on the CMC 6xt, no matter whether they are cardioid,
supercardioid, wide cardioid or omni in the range below 20 kHz, they
all have the same narrow directional characteristic in the region above
20 kHz. But that's typical of all studio condenser microphone capsules
regardless of the manufacturer--even a smaller microphone would have
these problems at such high frequencies.
--best regards
wildt®ax
frank.
Ben Bradley
<jonnydurango1B...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
>>>Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
>>>1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
>>>"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced
>>
>>
>> Why did I start reading this group? ;-D
>>
>> I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
>> recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
>> playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
>> card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
>> them balanced.
The 'impedance balancing' will actually work in this case
(presuming the Tannoys have real balanced inputs, which I would think
they do). While the signal output from the Delta only appears on the
"+" output, any noise picked up in the cable will appear on both the
"+" and the "-" lines equally, and will be cancelled in the input
circuit of the monitors.
>>
>> Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
>> MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
>> that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
>> the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
>> about the Tannoys....
I was lurking in this group for about a year, then I bought an AKG
C3000, and within weeks started seeing a bunch of comments about what
a piece of crap it is... I have no doubt there were earlier such
comments, but I wasn't paying attention.
> ...
>btw, tannoys SUCK!!
>
>j/k =)
>
>ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010
According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
dimmers while recording a live performance.
norman...@comcast.net
"Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:3q5dtaF...@individual.net...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:20 +0200, Martin Harrington wrote:
>
>> thing? We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
>
>
> --
> Chel van Gennip
> Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
If I were to buy the M-Audio it would be because I don't need any other
piece of equipment to make a recording (except the mikes, of course.)
Has anyone here actually bought one of these, and is there a user review
somewhere?
Norm Strong
norman...@comcast.net
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128108725.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's a good point. I would not want to use this recorder with phantom
powered mikes. I'd probably opt for a pair of back electret mikes with 1/2"
diaphragms.
Tim Martin
"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:raetj19mfojbhhjeu...@4ax.com...
> According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
> mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
> balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
> problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
> in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
> dimmers while recording a live performance.
The current M-audio online info does not say the Delta 66 has balanced
inputs; it does say the 1010 has balanced/unbalanced analog I/O.
Perhaps the info has changed since you bought your Delta 66.
By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not balanced?
Tim
Tim Martin
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c9KdnRPggaZ...@comcast.com...
> Has anyone here actually bought one of these, and is there a user review
> somewhere?
Yes, there's a thread here "More on Microtrack 24/96"; Len Moskovitz has
one, has made several comments, and has provided some of the first .wav
files he recorded (I believe he said these were recorded under
less-than-ideal conditions.)
Catch the thread fast if your news server deletes week-old posts..
Tim.
John Blankenship
John Blankenship
John Blankenship
Oleg Kaizerman
Oleg Kaizerman
Ben Bradley
<tim27...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:raetj19mfojbhhjeu...@4ax.com...
>
>> According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
>> mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
>> balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
>> problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
>> in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
>> dimmers while recording a live performance.
>
>The current M-audio online info does not say the Delta 66 has balanced
>inputs; it does say the 1010 has balanced/unbalanced analog I/O.
Perhaps it never spelled it out, but it seems it was implied, and
certainly I and probably many other people ASSUMED it was balanced.
I have two .pdf manuals on my hard disk, one delta66.pdf, 517k, dated
(at least on my computer) Sept. 29, 2000, the other
delta66_manual.pdf, 1,643k, dated 1/12/02. On page 3 of both files
under "Product Features & Specifications" it says: "4x4 analog I/O
accepts balanced or unbalanced connections on 1/4” TRS jacks." This
doesn't say one way or another whether it's balanced.
On page 23 (both files) it states: "Plug the outputs 1 & 2 of the
pre-amp into the Delta 66’s analog inputs 1 & 2. Both are balanced
outputs and inputs (respectively), so use a high quality TRS cable."
This appears to be an actual claim or statement that the Delta 66
inputs are balanced.
>Perhaps the info has changed since you bought your Delta 66.
>
>By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not balanced?
I think I was doing the mathematics on the connections on the DB-15
connector to the breakout box. Balanced connections for four in's and
four out's (eight balanced signals) would need 16 connections for
signals, and then a 17th line for a common ground for them all. This
led to using a screwdriver on the breakout box. I thought perhaps the
breakout box would have active circuitry to do the conversions between
balanced and unbalanced (this would be a Good Idea, and it may be
possible to make an actual PC board using SMT parts that fits in it
that does this). But then I saw it was all passive circuitry. Tracing
the PC board, and also sending and receinving signals to the tips and
rings of plugged-in TRS phono plugs, all confirmed that only the tips
send or receive signals.
>
>Tim
>
Oleg Kaizerman
that's the butyl when you can hook normal internal battery( 6.6 amp)
the mt crap not only cant supply normal voltage but also die after 2.5 hours
and don't forget you need recharge it at least 6 hours to get another 2.5
while in 744 you just swap the batteries in few seconds .
bad desighn for people who dont care or just dont understand
--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
> will need another device. Even the 744 is about 8 times heavier than the
> microtrack, but it will let you work about 1.5 hour with your microphones
> on its battery.
Jonny Durango
> But yes, trading in 30V phantom power for a troop withdrawal from Iraq
> sounds like a fair deal!!
>
> Frank.
>
Could we maybe get a new president too?
Tim Martin
> On page 23 (both files) it states: "Plug the outputs 1 & 2 of the
> pre-amp into the Delta 66's analog inputs 1 & 2. Both are balanced
> outputs and inputs (respectively), so use a high quality TRS cable."
> This appears to be an actual claim or statement that the Delta 66
> inputs are balanced.
Yes, I'd agree; I'd interpret that to mean the inputs are balanced.
> >By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not
balanced?
>
> I think I was doing the mathematics on the connections on the DB-15
> connector to the breakout box. Balanced connections for four in's and
> four out's (eight balanced signals) would need 16 connections for
> signals, and then a 17th line for a common ground for them all.
Ah, that's a bit of a giveaway ... :-)
Tim
Pawel Kusmierek
>response unless your audience is something other than human beings
Yes, they are clearly not numan beings.
Ben Bradley Oct 1, 12:45 pm
>The 'impedance balancing' will actually work in this case
>(presuming the Tannoys have real balanced inputs, which I would think
>they do).
Thanks, this solves at least one of my problems.
>the 1010 really does have balanced I/O.
Actually, I have not decided yet whether to get 66/44 or 1010. 1010
would be useful for some future projects, not only for the current one.
However, much depends on the cost of the final recording solution,
which I have not decided on yet. I haven't called SoundDevices for
their prices yet but I guess that they are beyond my budget.
By the way, I found that Marantz PMD671 recorder's A-weighted signal to
noise ratio of the MIC input is 65 dB. Isn't it extremely bad?
John Blankenship
Oleg Kaizerman
Jonny Durango
>
>>btw, tannoys SUCK!!
>>
>>j/k =)
>>
>>ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010
>
>
> According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
> mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
> balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
> problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
> in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
> dimmers while recording a live performance.
>
Before I got my 1010 I had a 66 that worked just fine....I also never
got any complaints and it was a great little soundcard. Nonetheless, I
have noticed that my 1010 sounds cleaner and slightly less harsh. Some
of this might be due to my engineering skills improving over time, but I
think if you put the 1010 and the 66 side-by-side you would notice a
slight difference in sonic characteristics. Either way, they are both
great interfaces!
Jonny Durango
<snip>
Great post David!! (as usual).....I guess I've just read so many great
things about the CMC6+MK41 that I would be wary of messing with such
great success, especially with the issues surrounding "extended freq.
response" mics that you mention. Nonetheless, Schoeps is probably one of
the most respected mic manufacturers around and I'm sure their "xt" line
is great for it's purpose.
David Satz
of one of their microphones; see the reply on:
http://www.neumann.com/forums/view.php?site=neumann&bn=neumann_mictec&key=1128417659
.
--best regards
Kurt Albershardt
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> If I want to use the good mics that require 48v, I'll likely use
>> something a bit more substantial to record on.
>
>
> Well, me too, but at this point we have to spend about twice as much as
> the MT (thinking Marantz PMD671 here) and I don't know any more about
> that than I do about the MT at this point.
The PMD671 is a 24-bit device and it appears (at least for now) that the
MicroTrack 2496 is a 16-bit device. The PMD660 price is quite ,
competitive with that of the MicroTrack, no?
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Why did I start reading this group? ;-D
>
> I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
> recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
> playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
> card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
> them balanced.
>
> MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
> that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
> the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
> about the Tannoys....
Welcome! Notions disabused regularly, and mostly for the good...
Kurt Albershardt
> hank alrich wrote:
>
>> I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
>> Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
>> we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
>> the conversion in that little box is admirable.
>
>
> Of course, if he recorded four tracks, only two of them used the preamps
> on the 744T, so did he use those two plus two others, or did he send all
> four channels from a mixer? If he used 2+2 what preamps did he use for
> the other two and how did they compare with the on-board preamps?
In fact, for this particular event, the internal preamps were not
utilized at all (due to a subsequently corrected preamp noise problem.)
Channels 1 & 2 were fed by a pair of CCM-41's into a Grace Lunatec V2.
Channels 3 & 4 were fed by board aux submixes of (mostly) vox and
instruments respectively.