More On M-Audio MicroTrack 24/96: S/PDIF, Mono, Playback
Len Moskowitz
recorders this past Monday. I've been posting my impressions to the
PenComputingAudio group on Yahoo, and thought that this groups might
appreciate them too. -- LM]
As I work my way through what the MicroTrack 24/96 can do, I've found
some more interesting and unexpected things:
First, as I noted before, its phantom power voltage is 30 Volts and not
the usual 48. I haven't measured how many milliAmps per channel it can
supply.
When recording an S/PDIF data stream, MicroTrack 24/96 is currently
limited to making 16-bit recordings. That really clinches my initial
impression that it's really a 16-bit recorder. Its Mic and Line inputs
are limited to roughly 16-bit dynamic range (despite the option to
record that to file in a 24-bit format), and the digital input is also
16-bit only. Perhaps the next firmware release will extend it to
24-bit?
Also, while the level meters operate when recording from the S/PDIF
input, the headphone output (and presumably the Line outputs too, since
they are probably driven from the same analog signal source) does not.
So you can't monitor on headphones while recording from a S/PDIF source.
(You can monitor on 'phones when recording from the TRS and 1/8-inch
analog inputs.)
Another surprise is that MicroTrack 24/96 is currently a stereo-only
recorder. It can not record in mono, though there are indications that
it will be added in a future release of the firmware.
There are a fair number of bugs, most of which do not "sink the ship",
but are pretty weird and annoying. Like what? Like imagine you
recorded three files from the S/PDIF input. You simply can't get it to
play back the first file in the file system. If you try to play back
the first file, it simply won't play. If that weren't enough, it also
causes a condition that you then can't play *any* of the files. But if
you first play back the second or third file, it works fine unless you
then try to play the first: that breaks it and you have to cycle power
to get it back.
The workaround (not surprisingly) is to record a few short files and
then delete the first file -- then you'll always be able to play the
rest of the files.
Weird.
There are others like that. And then there are the ones that can sink
the ship. Like the one that I haven't quite figured out yet. It makes
the file system act like the CF card has no more space for recording.
If you check the time remaining for recording, it's a negative number.
But when you check the directory to list the files that are there, there
aren't any files! If you've made a recording, it's gone and in some
cases unsalvageable. The only way I've found to get back into business
is to reformat the card in a PDA or a PC and start over.
I'm keeping M-Audio informed of what I find.
I'll post more as I dig deeper.
--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
mosk...@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Jonny Durango
Thanks a ton for this review. I've been waiting for months for this
exact type of info.
Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
revisions. What I'm mostly worried about is the sound quality itself.
Any impressions on the overall sound quality as compared to the R1 or
PMD660?
One major flaw seems to be the weak phantom power. IMHO, this could be
grounds for a recall....while I realize that phantom power specs are
often overrated by a few volts, there is a huge difference between 30v
and 48v. I really doubt 30v would provide enough capacitance to properly
drive most condenser mics.
Anyhow, any word on the overall sound quality, or better yet, some .wav
or flac clips would be great! Thanks a ton Len!
Jonny Durango
Arny Krueger
news:em25j1droi6ciulo8...@4ax.com
> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when
> trying to make my own supply. They produced in the
> neighborhood of 24 - 50v depending on what mic you
> plugged in.
The spec for phantom power specifies a fairly-large
current-limiting resistor - 5,600 ohms as I recall.
That means that a mic that draws say 1 milliamp, will have a
phantom voltage at its input, that is 5.6 volts less than
the open-circuit phantom voltage from an ideal phantom
supply.
IOW, the range of voltages you found does not necessarily
reflect on the mic preamps - they could all be stone perfect
and simply performing within spec.
Mike Rivers
more recorder that I don't really need but it looks pretty cool" but it
sounds like it's still a fur peace away from being ready for all but
the most horny.
The phantom power voltage question came up on the Ampex list and
someone reported talking to a product manager who confirmed that it was
48V. M-Audio has offered up other units with non-standard phantom
powering. I wonder if it even powers their own condenser mics?
Oh, well. Another new product that I can ignore for a while.
Mike Rivers
Jonny Durango wrote:
> Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
> revisions.
Has our existence come to this, that we EXPECT bugs? Shame on you,
Johnny! I guess we've pretty much come to expect bugs in software,
particularly when that software isn't sure what environment it will be
running in, but this is a piece of hardware that functions as a piece
of hardware. It can, and should, be completely predictable. There's no
excuse for any of the things that Len reported, except perhaps for the
low voltage phantom power (clearly not a bug) which was cleverly absent
from any of the advance literature.
Oops, there's a little software bug in your car. The anti-lock brakes
lock up when you press Radio Button 5 when moving at speeds between 37
and 42 mph. How would that be?
David Satz
> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when trying to
> make my own supply. They produced in the neighborhood of 24 - 50v
> depending on what mic you plugged in. One mic runs off two 9v
> batteries for many hours so I'm not sure how critical phantom voltage
> really is. Be nice to know.
spud, as Arny Krueger pointed out there are dropping resistors in
series with the phantom voltage supply, so it is normal for the voltage
at the socked to drop a certain amount when a microphone is connected.
Since those resistors are supposed to be 6.8 kOhms and each one
conducts half the current, the voltage drop should be 3.4 Volts for
each mA that the microphone draws. Meanwhile, the overall tolerance
limit is plus or minus 4 Volts. So for example, if a microphone draws 4
mA from the supply, 3.4 times 4 gives a 13.6 Volt drop across the
supply resistors, and 48 minus 13.6 is 34.4 Volts. The voltage at the
XLR socket should be within four Volts of that amount when the
microphone is connected. (When the microphone isn't connected, it
should be between 44 and 52 Volts, of course.)
If a microphone is plugged in and the resulting voltage falls below
that range, the microphone's performance, especially its overload limit
but also other parameters, could well be affected--in some cases quite
severely. A supply that's only 20% below the tolerance range, for
example, could cause some microphones to start clipping 10 dB sooner
than their specs would indicate. That isn't something you want to find
out during a live recording.
Certain types of microphone can tolerate a rather wide range of supply
voltages. But most traditional, externally-polarized condensers can't,
and that includes most of the really good ones.
--best regards
Arny Krueger
news:1127397516....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> spud wrote:
>
>> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when
>> trying to make my own supply. They produced in the
>> neighborhood of 24 - 50v depending on what mic you
>> plugged in. One mic runs off two 9v batteries for many
>> hours so I'm not sure how critical phantom voltage
>> really is. Be nice to know.
>
> spud, as Arny Krueger pointed out there are dropping
> resistors in series with the phantom voltage supply, so
> it is normal for the voltage at the socked to drop a
> certain amount when a microphone is connected.
>
> Since those resistors are supposed to be 6.8 kOhms and
> each one conducts half the current, the voltage drop
> should be 3.4 Volts for each mA that the microphone
> draws.
Ahh yes, my error. The two resistors are in parallel from
the standpoint of the phantom current.
<snip remaining good stuff>
Len Moskowitz
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"spud" <its...@oyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:em25j1droi6ciulo8...@4ax.com
>
>> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when
>> trying to make my own supply. They produced in the
>> neighborhood of 24 - 50v depending on what mic you
>> plugged in.
>
>The spec for phantom power specifies a fairly-large
>current-limiting resistor - 5,600 ohms as I recall.
6.8K
Arny Krueger
news:dgudu4$ce9$1...@reader1.panix.com
> In article <ypSdnYtloMn...@comcast.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "spud" <its...@oyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:em25j1droi6ciulo8...@4ax.com
>>
>>> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when
>>> trying to make my own supply. They produced in the
>>> neighborhood of 24 - 50v depending on what mic you
>>> plugged in.
>>
>> The spec for phantom power specifies a fairly-large
>> current-limiting resistor - 5,600 ohms as I recall.
>
> 6.8K
OK, so how many other details can I get wrong?
;-)
Len Moskowitz
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> 6.8K
>
>OK, so how many other details can I get wrong?
>
>;-)
You don't get many wrong, Arny. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of us
all.
--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.core-sound.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
mosk...@core-sound.com
David Satz
for non-standard phantom powering. Please don't conclude, or lead
others to conclude, that many other high-quality microphone
manufacturers are following a similar approach. Some are, especially in
electret microphones. But in general, most serious international
manufacturers of traditional condenser microphones assume standard
phantom powering according to DIN EN 61938 in their designs.
For example, in transformerless Neumann microphones such as the KM 180
series, a DC/DC converter is used to obtain the polarization voltage
for the capsule. This circuit uses an oscillator whose frequency varies
with the supply voltage. If the supply voltage is too low, the
converter won't reach its intended output voltage. The sensitivity of
the microphone will decrease along with the maximum SPL. Meanwhile the
equivalent noise level rises, and the frequency of the oscillator
itself can even fall into the audible range, or perhaps just into the
range of some people's preamps and A/D converters if they go for
extended frequency response and high sampling rates.
This isn't something to fart around with. If a microphone clips or is
noisy during a recording, you're in serious trouble; why invite that?
Why spend thousands of dollars on microphones and undermine them to
save a lousy few bucks in the power supply? It's nice if a microphone
can tolerate wider deviations than the standard allows, but only a
power supply which conforms to the standard can be presumed to support
all 48-Volt phantom-powered microphones correctly.
--best regards
Richard Crowley
> I tested a few production preamps for phantom power when trying to
> make my own supply. They produced in the neighborhood of 24 - 50v
> batteries for many hours so I'm not sure how critical phantom voltage
> really is. Be nice to know.
Electret condenser mics use the phantom voltage only to
run the impedance converter circuit, so most of them can
tollerate a very wide range of voltage supply.
OTOH, the more "traditional" condenser mics use the
phantom supply to polarize the microphone capsule.
Lower phantom voltage directly translates to significant
changes in how the microphone performs.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> Jonny Durango wrote:
>
>> Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
>> revisions.
>
> Has our existence come to this, that we EXPECT bugs? Shame on you,
> Johnny! I guess we've pretty much come to expect bugs in software,
> particularly when that software isn't sure what environment it will be
> running in, but this is a piece of hardware that functions as a piece
> of hardware.
Firmware IS software.
--
Aaron
Tim Martin
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1127394079.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oops, there's a little software bug in your car. The anti-lock brakes
> lock up when you press Radio Button 5 when moving at speeds between 37
> and 42 mph. How would that be?
Better:
Vendor: "Hello ... is that Tim ... we're having a problem with your card
payment, it seemed to go through, so we hiopped the goods; but when we look
in out account, the money isn't there."
Tim: "Yes, that's a bug in my card payment software. The first payment gets
lost; the second or third payment go through OK, unless you try to obtain
the first payment, when *none* of the payments will go through ... oh, you
know already?"
Tim
Tim
hank alrich
> Jonny Durango wrote:
> > Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
> > revisions.
> Has our existence come to this, that we EXPECT bugs? Shame on you,
> Johnny! I guess we've pretty much come to expect bugs in software,
> particularly when that software isn't sure what environment it will be
> running in, but this is a piece of hardware that functions as a piece
> of hardware. It can, and should, be completely predictable. There's no
> excuse for any of the things that Len reported, except perhaps for the
> low voltage phantom power (clearly not a bug) which was cleverly absent
> from any of the advance literature.
Manufacturers bring this shit to market well ahead of when it's actually
a finished product, and they rely on salivating indiscriminate
purchasers to fund their bug-fix cycle. That's after failing to bother
with proper phantom power supply design and implementation, or to have
24 bits in the device instead of just in the marketing literature.
Economies of scale suggest that nowadaze sucker births exceed one per
minute, by a substantial margin; correspondingly, the price of sucker
bait is falling precipitously as companies ramp-up to meet demand.
> Oops, there's a little software bug in your car. The anti-lock brakes
> lock up when you press Radio Button 5 when moving at speeds between 37
> and 42 mph. How would that be?
Just break open one of the Windoze and jump.
--
ha
hank alrich
> "Mike Rivers" wrote...
> > Oops, there's a little software bug in your car. The anti-lock brakes
> > lock up when you press Radio Button 5 when moving at speeds between 37
> > and 42 mph. How would that be?
> Better:
> Vendor: "Hello ... is that Tim ... we're having a problem with your card
> payment, it seemed to go through, so we hiopped the goods; but when we look
> in out account, the money isn't there."
> Tim: "Yes, that's a bug in my card payment software. The first payment gets
> lost; the second or third payment go through OK, unless you try to obtain
> the first payment, when *none* of the payments will go through ... oh, you
> know already?"
Badadah BAM!
Tim Martin, folks; he'll be here all week.
Excellent.
--
ha
hank alrich
Thanks, David. When one's recording fails, excuses for mediocrity in kit
won't fix it.
And there's likely more to excellent phatom power supplying, as I heard
David Jospehson at AES in SF last year ask Grant Carpenter about the
noise floor of the Gordon preamp's phantom supply. Aaaaah, the details!
--
ha
David Satz
properly when the phantom supply voltages are non-standard. And I don't
mean to downgrade the importance of AKG or Shure. Your microphones may
indeed work with the piece of recording equipment which is the subject
of this thread. If so, you may consider yourself lucky, if you like.
But then again, they may not. We have mainly been talking about
open-circuit voltage, but some AKG mikes with the 9 - 52 Volt
arrangement (such as the old, original C 451) draw as much as 6 mA
apiece. I wouldn't assume that so much current is necessarily available
for each microphone from this new device. I've seen plenty of portable
preamps that can't even put out 4 mA per microphone input--the supply
drops out of regulation first.
When the standard is followed, P48 microphones are correctly powered by
P48 inputs, end of story. It is a very bad idea to release new
equipment with non-standard phantom powering, because so many people
have the types of microphone which depend on conformance to the
standard.
--best regards
Oleg Kaizerman
to build better powering circuit might be one of these things( with allot
others ) which bring not develop the product at all
might be that the mkh or sanken users wouldn't love it ,but if they can
afford the mikes- they obviously can afford the dienekey ps-2 :-)
best
--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
Mike Rivers
Chel van Gennip wrote:
> This design, together with AKG's statement "many AKG condenser microphones
> can be powered anywhere from 9 volts to 52 volts", make me think that the
> 30V will not give problems for me. I do think Shure and AKG are "serious
> international manufacturers of traditional condenser microphones"
Well, let us know what you think of your Micro-Trak when you decide to
upgrad to something like a Shoeppes. But then there isn't much point to
that if you're only doing 16-bit recording. I'm sure your AKG mic will
do fine.
I'm not knocking your choice of mics, I'm knocking your calm acceptance
of a device that limits your choice of mics. But then I guess I'm happy
with a PC even though it won't run Mac software.
Oleg Kaizerman
--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1127421956.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Oleg Kaizerman
Jonny Durango
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
>>Jonny Durango wrote:
>
>
>>>Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
>>>revisions.
>
>
>>Has our existence come to this, that we EXPECT bugs? Shame on you,
>>Johnny! I guess we've pretty much come to expect bugs in software,
>>particularly when that software isn't sure what environment it will be
>>running in, but this is a piece of hardware that functions as a piece
>>of hardware. It can, and should, be completely predictable. There's no
>>excuse for any of the things that Len reported, except perhaps for the
>>low voltage phantom power (clearly not a bug) which was cleverly absent
>>from any of the advance literature.
>
>
> Manufacturers bring this shit to market well ahead of when it's actually
> a finished product, and they rely on salivating indiscriminate
> purchasers to fund their bug-fix cycle. That's after failing to bother
> with proper phantom power supply design and implementation, or to have
> 24 bits in the device instead of just in the marketing literature.
>
> Economies of scale suggest that nowadaze sucker births exceed one per
> minute, by a substantial margin; correspondingly, the price of sucker
> bait is falling precipitously as companies ramp-up to meet demand.
>
Yep that pretty much sums it up....I'm afraid this is nothing more than
a low quality-control consumer device marketted as a semi-pro piece of
equipment. Sorry M-Audio, but my $ is going for an Edirol R1 or Oade PMD660!
Here are some noise specs....not very impressive and the left channel
1/4" TRS input behaves very strangely (again, poor quality control):
http://home.rustradio.org/~rdvdijk/microtrack/
I was really hoping this would be the cat's ass, but it looks more like
the stuff that's comes out of said ass.
Jonny Durango
Len Moskowitz
Jonny Durango <jonnydurango1B...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here are some noise specs....not very impressive and the left channel
>1/4" TRS input behaves very strangely (again, poor quality control):
>
>http://home.rustradio.org/~rdvdijk/microtrack/
These are labelled as "16-bit" -- what does that mean in the context of
these charts?
Might you explain how you made these measurements?
Thanks!
Per Karlsson
up the voltage on the capsule, so depending on how they are built a
lower phantom voltage may cause anything from no difference to no sound.
Scott Dorsey
Or, a lower voltage might cause the DC-DC converter oscillator to drop down
into the audible range and make horrible squealing noises. I think the old
AKG C412 was famous for this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Firmware IS software.
Firmware can't be separated from its hardware substrate; even though
it be machine instructions and data, it isn't 'software' in the
commonly used sense of the word.
http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html
"Hardware met Software on the road to Changtse. Software said:
``You are Yin and I am Yang. If we travel together we will become
famous and earn vast sums of money.'' And so they set forth
together, thinking to conquer the world.
Presently they met Firmware, who was dressed in tattered
rags and hobbled along propped on a thorny stick. Firmware said
to them: ``The Tao lies beyond Yin and Yang. It is silent and still
as a pool of water. It does not seek fame, therefore nobody
knows its presence. It does not seek fortune, for it is
complete within itself. It exists beyond space and time.''
Software and Hardware, ashamed, returned to their homes."
Mike Rivers
eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Firmware can't be separated from its hardware substrate; even though
> it be machine instructions and data, it isn't 'software' in the
> commonly used sense of the word.
You're just saying that because you don't have anything useful to say
about the subject. How about EEPROMs or EPROMs, or flash memory? I
consider the BIOS in my computer to be firmware, but I updated it by
sending it data from a file. If the classical definition hasn't changed
in 25 years, certainly the interpretation has changed. It happens a lot
these days.
Richard Crowley
> Firmware can't be separated from its hardware substrate;
That seems like a very narrow view of the question. Any of
us who has written, uploaded, tested, revised, etc. firmware
would find this a very remarkable pronuncement.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
No doubt...
--
Aaron
eawck...@yahoo.com
> eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Firmware can't be separated from its hardware substrate; even though
>> it be machine instructions and data, it isn't 'software' in the
>> commonly used sense of the word.
>
> You're just saying that because you don't have anything useful to say
> about the subject.
I'm saying that because you can't take the firmware for a
defibrillating pacemaker and expect it to work well in a cellphone.
The subtrates are wildly incompatible.
> How about EEPROMs or EPROMs, or flash memory? I
> consider the BIOS in my computer to be firmware, but I updated it by
> sending it data from a file. If the classical definition hasn't changed
> in 25 years, certainly the interpretation has changed. It happens a lot
> these days.
If the code is tightly coupled to the hardware it runs on, it is
'firmware'. Try uploading your computer's BIOS into a digital camera
and see what happens.
Mike Rivers
eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Firmware can't be separated from its hardware substrate
> I'm saying that because you can't take the firmware for a
> defibrillating pacemaker and expect it to work well in a cellphone.
> The subtrates are wildly incompatible.
By "substrate" do you mean the programmable device, the chip? If you're
talking about different applications, sure, many of them use different
components. You can't put a 20 uF filter capacitor from an Ampex AG440
in the front end of a mic preamp to block phantom power either - their
"substrates" are wildly incompatible.
But there's no reason why a company that makes several different kinds
of widgets can't (and may even does, for economy) use the same
programmable devices in each one, just loading different code in each.
Of course the firmware ROM for the toaster won't work in the microwave
oven, but the chip might fit the socket.
> > How about EEPROMs or EPROMs, or flash memory?
> If the code is tightly coupled to the hardware it runs on, it is
> 'firmware'. Try uploading your computer's BIOS into a digital camera
> and see what happens.
I'll bet that if I clicke on "Word" I couldn't surf the Internet
either. What's your point? You're being absurd.
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Of course the firmware ROM for the toaster won't work in the microwave
> oven, but the chip might fit the socket.
That the "chip may fit in the socket" (etc) is beside the point. You
can't "upload" toaster firmware into a microwave oven and expect it to
act like a toaster. This is the essential quality of "firmware": it
is bound tightly to the underlying hardware it controls. As I said, it
can't be "separated" from it. The Airbus A320 firmware is completely
useless without the aircraft to run it. M-Audio isn't selling the
Microtrack 24/96 firmware in stores: as is, who would buy it?
> > > How about EEPROMs or EPROMs, or flash memory?
>
> > If the code is tightly coupled to the hardware it runs on, it is
> > 'firmware'. Try uploading your computer's BIOS into a digital camera
> > and see what happens.
>
> I'll bet that if I clicke on "Word" I couldn't surf the Internet
> either. What's your point? You're being absurd.
I started this by pointing out that firmware is not software in the
normal sense that 'software' is used. I stated the primary reason:
you can't separate firmware from the hardware (e.g., it isn't sold
separately), and have after your challenge provided a few examples.
Now if it is "absurd" to defend one's position, then so be it.
eawck...@yahoo.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware
"In computing, firmware is software that is embedded in a hardware
device. [...] The term was originally coined to indicate a functional
replacement for hardware on low cost microprocessors."
Why are you surprised?
Richard Crowley
Maybe I'm susprised at your definition of "embedded".
James Perrett
>
> Jonny Durango wrote:
>
>> Personally, I almost expected firmware bugs, that can be fixed in later
>> revisions.
>
> Has our existence come to this, that we EXPECT bugs? Shame on you,
> Johnny! I guess we've pretty much come to expect bugs in software,
> particularly when that software isn't sure what environment it will be
> running in, but this is a piece of hardware that functions as a piece
> of hardware. It can, and should, be completely predictable. There's no
> excuse for any of the things that Len reported, except perhaps for the
> low voltage phantom power (clearly not a bug) which was cleverly absent
> from any of the advance literature.
>
> Oops, there's a little software bug in your car. The anti-lock brakes
> lock up when you press Radio Button 5 when moving at speeds between 37
> and 42 mph. How would that be?
>
This sort of thing has been going on for ages - if you take a look in most
workshop manuals you'll see that things have changed and points of failure
have been fixed throughout a model's lifetime - whether it be a car or a
piece of pro audio gear.
Cheers.
James.
Mr.T
<eawck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128027264....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>M-Audio isn't selling the Microtrack 24/96 firmware in stores:
They'll most likely give it away free on their web site when/if an update is
available, just like most other hardware manufacturers.
> > > If the code is tightly coupled to the hardware it runs on, it is
> > > 'firmware'. Try uploading your computer's BIOS into a digital camera
> > > and see what happens.
> >
> > I'll bet that if I clicke on "Word" I couldn't surf the Internet
> > either. What's your point? You're being absurd.
>
> I started this by pointing out that firmware is not software in the
> normal sense that 'software' is used. I stated the primary reason:
> you can't separate firmware from the hardware (e.g., it isn't sold
> separately), and have after your challenge provided a few examples.
> Now if it is "absurd" to defend one's position, then so be it.
Well yes it is absurd, since many manufacturers of hardware devices provide
user upgradeable firmware, and usually free download of firmware updates
from their web sites.
You would be the only person that would expect to use a computer BIOS in
their digital camera, rather than go to the camera manufacturers web site
and download the proper firmware upgrade.
BTW, many digital camera's have user upgradeable firmware available free.
You (usually) simply download it to your memory card and switch the camera
on.
Not too hard for anyone with an internet connection.
However some camera's are only factory upgradeable, and some not at all. As
with everything else, it depends on the manufacturer.
MrT.
Arny Krueger
news:433e3795$0$21879$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
> You would be the only person that would expect to use a
> computer BIOS in their digital camera, rather than go to
> the camera manufacturers web site and download the proper
> firmware upgrade.
Hmm, cell phones often include cameras, as do some PDAs,
right?
And, some cell phones and PDAs run a form of Windows, right?
Do you seriously think that all these Windows-equipped PDAs
and cell phones with cameras don't have computer BIOSes?
Therefore, cameras with computer BIOSs are actually fairly
common, right?
;-)
diap...@gmail.com
to his idiotic misconceptions about what is and isn't software, and get
this thread back on [micro]track?
Has anyone heard from M-Audio if the monitoring/levels feature is going
to be fixed in the next FW release so that the meters and play-through
work in standby/pause mode as described on page 11 item 8 of their
online PDF manual? I emailed tech support about this, and the reply I
got a week later was (verbatim):
"Unfortunately you there is know way to check the levels before the
micro track records. This is not a feature of the device."
-Adam
hank alrich
> Has anyone heard from M-Audio if the monitoring/levels feature is going
> to be fixed in the next FW release so that the meters and play-through
> work in standby/pause mode as described on page 11 item 8 of their
> online PDF manual? I emailed tech support about this, and the reply I
> got a week later was (verbatim):
>
> "Unfortunately you there is know way to check the levels before the
> micro track records. This is not a feature of the device."
Now _that's_ encouraging...
--
ha
Kurt Albershardt
>
> cell phones often include cameras, as do some PDAs, right?
A perfect analogy IMO: The cameras on cellphones are not expected to
perform like real cameras (and are likewise not intended to be used with
300mm fluorite lenses...)
Arny Krueger
news:3qhbavF...@individual.net
However, thinking further about it, I realized that all or
virtually all digital cameras are based on small computers
that run small computer operating systems optimized for the
particular kind of application. These operating systems boot
and run when the device is powered up. There is no doubt a
computer BIOS someplace under the covers of virtually every
digital camera.