M-Audio Microtrack BEATS Edirol R1 - portable recorders
Sebum
included mics it is possible to produce a relatively listenable
recording of a loud rock band in a small practice room without a
tremendous amount of distortion. Here's what the microtrack sounds like
(all tracks but premog):
http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/microtrack.mp3
I don't have the old recording I made in the same environment for the
R1 but it was so much worse, you could not hear anything it was just a
mass of distortion.
For me and my needs, the M-Audio Microtrack is the first and only
reasonably priced, small, portable device that can record loud bands at
close range and produce a listenable recording. The future has arrived!
Enjoy!!!!
Thanks,
Josh in Seattle
Zigakly
spam bullshit. I was willing to pony up the cash and beta test it, but now
I'm definitely waiting a few months for real user reviews to accumulate.
Chevdo
>
>I was really hoping M-Audio wouldn't resort to this sort of "rave review"
>spam bullshit. I was willing to pony up the cash and beta test it, but now
>I'm definitely waiting a few months for real user reviews to accumulate.
>
>
I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
these.
Julian
>I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
>year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
>these.
Yeah, but they're coming now and getting better. eventually they will
be worth buying. oh boy!
Mike Rivers
Chevdo wrote:
> I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
> year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
> these.
Golly, and all youse guys here are telling me that a recorder such as
this would be the answer to all of my prayers (except the big one).
What to do? What to do? I don't remember all this kind of controversy
about both the product and the company when the Jukebox 3 (or the Nagra
4, for that matter) came out. It just worked good, though it never
claimed to make a good recording of a loud band in a small room.
Sebum
Dude, you are a dumbass. I am just a guy in a band who does production
on the side in Seattle. I have nothing to do with M-Audio or Guitar
Center where I purchased my device. I also had to return the first unit
for being dead on arrival. I am a "real user" and my review is that
this is the first device of its kind that is capable of recording a
loud band in a small room and producing something listenable, which is
what I have personally been waiting for all along. If you don't believe
me, go listen to the MP3 I posted, then go do a whois on my domain
name, check out the rest of the websites, do some research into who I
am and then come back and claim I'm some spammer.
Also, go read my previous posts in this newsgroup where I have been
asking for this for years and you will see that I previously commented
on the R1 and other recorders being unsuitable.
Zigakly
maniacal and uninformative review, and you clearly haven't used it or its
competition thoroughly enough to have such a heavy-handed opinion. Put 200
hours on each and then we'll talk.
And frankly recording a loud band in a small room well has very little to do
with the recorder. I could easily do a better recording with a good pair of
mics, decent preamps, and a tape deck than the MicroTrack with its plug-in
stereo mic.
Julian
>And frankly recording a loud band in a small room well has very little to do
>with the recorder. I could easily do a better recording with a good pair of
>mics, decent preamps, and a tape deck than the MicroTrack with its plug-in
>stereo mic.
It does have to do with a R-1 which is what he was talking about to
begin with. Read back a month or so and see a long thread about
people complaining an R-1 does a poor job of recording a loud band in
a small room. I am not advocating ANY opinions in that thread just
pointing out it and putting the OP's comments into context.
Sebum
with preamps and mics and all sorts of other items connected to the
unit then other factors will come into play such as who has the best
converter etc... I just wanted something small that worked out of the
box, and the MT works for this whereas the R1 and others I tested did
not.
Arny Krueger
news:1129737169.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> I just wanted something small that worked out of the box,
> and the MT works for this whereas the R1 and others I
> tested did not.
I think you demonstrated that the MT does a better job under
circumstances that would naturally be avoided by just about
anybody who is interested in making a good recording.
Sebum
songwriters find themselves in on a daily basis. The MT is the ultimate
song idea scratch pad.
Mike Rivers
No, that's the cassette recorder, or maybe the 4-track cassette
recorder/mixer if you're talking about an arrangement scratch pad. The
MT tempts you to do too much and offers too little.
Sebum
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder? There is nothing more convenient on the planet for producing
listenable, downloadable recordings of loud bands in a small practice
space. What is the temptation? All I want is a higher fidelity version
of the voice recorder on my cell phone, or my answering machine, which
I used to use to record song ideas and melodies when they popped into
my head or when my band happened to hit on a cool "jam". Then I'd put a
mic on the speakerphone and record my voicemails into my computer and
then edit and bounce to MP3 and upload. Now I can skip all of these
steps and the end result is much more listenable then what I was
producing before. I'm not talking about releasing these recordings. I'm
talking about convenience, the fastest time between recording and
uploading MP3s, and reasonable intelligibility of the recording. It
beats my cell phone, it beats the iRiver and Nomad units, it beats the
R1. I've tried all of them and for this sole purpose I am describing,
recording band practice and/or song ideas and instantly publishing them
to your bandmates via FTP/MP3, the MT is the best sounding, most
convenient option.
Sebum
isn't up to spec on phantom power??? If you have nice mics I think
you'll want to use a better phantom/preamp/converter anyways and then
you can run into the spdif input on the sucker!!!
Just listen:
http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/novacosas.html
Try this with a walkman, the R1, the iRivers and other sub $500
portable recorders OUT OF THE BOX, NO EXTRA GEAR. Then, calculate how
much time it takes to create and upload an MP3 of the recording, and
then tell me that the MT isn't superior.
Ma...@uwaterloo.ca
Exactly! Who needs a computer workstation, laptop, or a PDA when you can do
this in with a simple all-in-one box. Also, the cool thing is you upgrade to
"real" mics later, either using mic in, or an external preamp. I hope this
product catches on.
The crazy thing is this is only $300 or so. People think nothing of spending
this much on an iPod or other crazy stuff that doesn't even record. So, go
for it!
Richard
Julian
wrote:
>Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
>isn't up to spec on phantom power???
I think it's because people seem to enjoy arguing and taking out their
aggression where they can't get punched in the nose if they behave
like a jerk.
I think you're right. There's nothing even close for the price and
features and the R-1 didn't quite get it, but what the hell do I know?
Julian
Jonny Durango
I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread. But I
think the reason a lot of people have a problem with the MT is because
almost NOTHING works as advertised and a lot of people feel like they
were lied to and used as beta testers.....the phantom power, the noise
specs, the battery life, the S/PDIF inputs...not to mention the whole
host of bugs that are STILL being worked out in the firmware such as L &
R channels switching at random. The R1 may not be as good as the MT, but
at least everything works as advertised and you know what you're getting
when you read the specs and features.
That said, I think the MT is a great little device, especially for the
money. Basically, M-Audio promised a $400 ferrari and delivered a $400
porsche...still a great deal, but pretty dissapointing!
--
Jonny Durango
"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"
Mike Rivers
Sebum wrote:
> With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
> and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
> listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
> recorder?
That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.
But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site. But if
you choose to dump all your garbage on the web site and let your fans
pick through it, I guess that's OK too. Depnds on what your fans want.
Do you know?
> There is nothing more convenient on the planet for producing
> listenable, downloadable recordings of loud bands in a small practice
> space. What is the temptation? All I want is a higher fidelity version
> of the voice recorder on my cell phone, or my answering machine, which
> I used to use to record song ideas and melodies when they popped into
> my head or when my band happened to hit on a cool "jam".
I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
even a listen or some editing. You might really embarass yourself, or
give away a great money-making hit.
> I'd put a
> mic on the speakerphone and record my voicemails into my computer and
> then edit and bounce to MP3 and upload.
Obviously you aren't really into the computer recording technology. I'd
think that you would be, having a band, a web site, practice sessions,
and so on. You're not the first one to use a telephone answering
machine to capture a song idea, but you might be the first one to put
those captures on your web site. Music fans get off on all sorts of
garbage that might be history some day.
> I'm not talking about releasing these recordings. I'm
> talking about convenience, the fastest time between recording and
> uploading MP3s, and reasonable intelligibility of the recording.
If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
worse. But do what you like.
Mike Rivers
Sebum wrote:
> Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
> isn't up to spec on phantom power???
No. It's because it's a dream that almost came true, but there are too
many lurking nightmares, some of which aren't yet known.
> If you have nice mics I think
> you'll want to use a better phantom/preamp/converter anyways and then
> you can run into the spdif input on the sucker!!!
But if you want a compact, portable recorder, you don't want a lot of
external stuff. We can put up with external mics, and maybe a power
cord, but the less haywire the better. You talk about the convenience
of putting casual MP3 recordings up on your web site. I'm talking about
the convenience of making high quality recordings. We can have that
convenience if only the manufacturers would allow us to pay for it.
Some do, but at the moment what we have to pay is too much for many of
us, so we either have to compromise with less capability, more haywire,
or wait for the next great thing to come along.
> http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/novacosas.html
It needs more cowbell. I guess someone's singing something there, but I
couldn't undestand a word. It's a good batch of noise, however,
probably what you sound like live.
> Try this with a walkman, the R1, the iRivers and other sub $500
> portable recorders OUT OF THE BOX, NO EXTRA GEAR.
Well, assuming you add mics to the recorder that doesn't come with
them, I see no reason why a Walkman cassette or R1 couldn't make a
recording that sounds about like that. I know that many small recorders
are designed for lower sound level inputs and there's no attenuation
ahead of the mic preamp. You can indeed get distortion with a recorder
like that even if you set the level so the meters aren't hitting the
pin. This is a problem that's easily solved, however, and at less cost
than buying a new recorder. The R1, with its built-in mics, doesn't
really offer the opportunity to attenuate the signal in the right
place, however, so I can see that this may be a "loud band in a small
room" problem.
While the MicroTrak might be the best solution for you, it's not the
best solution for everyone. It's one thing to be enthusiastic about
your new gadget and how well it works for you in your single
application. But it's not a reason to trash the competition in general.
rrst...@icqmail.com
product in its class for a decent price, however, it does bother me
that I feel like I am paying for things that don't really work, for
example the Phantom power. Why do I want to be paying for a
non-standard 30v phantom power? There is no way I would pay money fo
this as a standalone feature, so why do I want to put some money into
this feature just because it is bundled with some other features? I
would much rather just pay $250 for an Microtrack without any phantom
power than pay $350 for a microtrack with 30v phantom power. Then you
always have the principle of calling it phantom power, but it not
really being phantom power. I am still really on the fence with this
product. As I said, it is the only product at this cost which can do
some decent recordings (from what I hear), but I imagine that other
companies are going to start coming out with similiar products, and
hopefully ones that have standard features and don't have as many bugs.
So for me the question is, do I need a device like this right now, or
do I want to wait until other products come out which implement things
in a standard fashion or at least don't make me pay for non-standard
features. I would be really cool to have a device like this since I do
have some things I want to use it for, but not sure it is worth the
price at the moment. It is interesting to see how much talk this item
has generated, I would say there is definately a market for items like
this would do make me think that others similiar items will be coming
out.
Still pondering the microtrack,
Andrew V. Romero
Sebum
microtrack and to my bandmates. I don't link it from the home page!!!!
It's just so me and my bandmates can hear our "daily" mixes. Also, you
don't even get to hear the "jams" cuz I didn't post the URL to them.
Those only go out to my bandmates.
I actually am way into the computer recording thing. I have a Presonus
Digimax LT, Motu 828 and Logic Pro on a 1.67Mhz Powerbook. I also have
about 15 mics of decent quality and have been experimenting for years
to achieve better recordings. The thing is, setting that shit up takes
time so I save that for once we've got the songs down and ready to
record in their final state. Until then I am busy booking shows,
promoting, mixing the last batch of finished songs etc... The MT saves
time and produces a better, more easily distributable (to a select few)
recordings than my cell phone or other pocket recorders.
Sebum
the "input gain" all the way down AND switching it onto "line level"
input. Somehow it still takes signal from the mic on this setting. If
this is a firmware bug then I am NOT going to upgrade my firmware
because on the "mic" setting, even with the gain all the way down it's
still overly distorted. Even on "line level" and in those recordings on
my site, the meters are constantly in the red. Can someone suggest a
sub $100 pair of stealthy mics that have an even lower output and would
be even better for the "loud band in a small room" application and
would take the 5v plug in power supplied by the MT and produce an even
better recording than the mics it comes with???
Mike Rivers
Sebum wrote:
> The MT isn't even ideal for me. I can only get it to work by lowering
> the "input gain" all the way down AND switching it onto "line level"
> input. Somehow it still takes signal from the mic on this setting.
Since the 1/4" jacks are active for both mic and line inputs,
apparently the "Line Input" setting is (like on many devices today)
just a mic input with 20 or so of attenuation. This is good because it
reduces the chance that the microphone signal will clip the input stage
ahead of the gain control. I doubt that it's a firmware bug.
> on the "mic" setting, even with the gain all the way down it's
> still overly distorted.
This is typical of small recorders (the Jukebox 3 included). The
distortion occurs ahead of the gain control, so all you're doing when
you turn that down is keep fro clipping an already distorted signal
digitally. They do it the way they do in order to keep parts cost down
and figure you can always add an attenuator in line with the mic if
necessary to get the signal into the right ballpark.
> Can someone suggest a
> sub $100 pair of stealthy mics that have an even lower output and would
> be even better for the "loud band in a small room" application and
> would take the 5v plug in power supplied by the MT and produce an even
> better recording than the mics it comes with???
That's a lot to ask for under $100, but check the Core Sound web site
http://www.core-sound.com They have a lot of tools for people who
record music that's too loud on recorders that have too high input
sensitivity.
james
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
>> and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
>> listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
>> recorder?
>
>That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
>some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
>recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.
You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
that you don't care if they have.
>But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
>that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
>up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.
It's your call what he "should" do?
The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
justify it.
>But if
>you choose to dump all your garbage on the web site
You're calling his work "garbage", and that's completely inappropriate.
>I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
>value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
>even a listen or some editing.
Why do you equate a web site with promotion, or even with disclosure?
>If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
>worse.
Incorrect.
Bill Ruys
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1129815215.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sebum wrote:
>> With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
>> and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
>> listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
>> recorder?
>
> That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
> some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
> recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.
>
You just can't accept that the product works well for him, can you Mike? If
you bothered to really read his post, you'd see that he doesn't put the
songs on the website for fans, it's for his bandmates.
For a unit in that class with built-in mics, he's getting pretty good
results. Traditional compact cassette recorders with built-in mics would
generally sound much worse (speaking from experience). Also he'd have to
potentially spend hours making copies for his bandmates, or playback into
his PC to make MP3s. So for him, it's fit for purpose.
I make similar recordings during my band's band practices with a pair of
rode NT5 mics, into a pre-amp, into a laptop's built-in sound card. They
are purely scratch recordings so that we can analyse how we're constructing
songs, and also remember neat ideas that came out during a jam.
Listening to the MP3s in the link, I can see that this unit would be much
less hassle than lugging a laptop, preamp and mics around.
Bill.
Bob Cain
rrst...@icqmail.com wrote:
> I am excited about the microtrack seeing as it if possibly the only
> product in its class for a decent price, however, it does bother me
> that I feel like I am paying for things that don't really work, for
> example the Phantom power.
You are assuming it won't work when in fact it will work
quite well with all but a few mics. That calls for
qualifying it for a mic (or a mic for it) but not a blanket
statement that it doesn't work.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Julian
wrote:
>
>Sebum wrote:
>> With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
>> and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
>> listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
>> recorder?
>
>That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
>some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
>recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.
Mike,
Didn't you read the line immediately preceding yours? He says for his
"bandmates" to listen to, not his fans.
Julian
Julian
> So for me the question is, do I need a device like this right now, or
>do I want to wait until other products come out which implement things
>in a standard fashion or at least don't make me pay for non-standard
>features. I would be really cool to have a device like this since I do
>have some things I want to use it for, but not sure it is worth the
>price at the moment. It is interesting to see how much talk this item
>has generated, I would say there is definately a market for items like
>this would do make me think that others similiar items will be coming
>out.
I guess it comes down to do you want / need it right now, or can you
wait???
Julian
Mike Rivers
james wrote:
> You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
> that you don't care if they have.
>
> >But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
> >that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
> >up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.
>
> It's your call what he "should" do?
If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."
> The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
> justify it.
But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
his fans could hear them. But apparently he doesn't care enough about
how they sound or how this example of his work is produced and
presented. With a good job, he might build new fans. With a poor job,
he might lose the interest of the fans he has. Yes, today a web site IS
a big deal for a musician who wants to promote his work.
> You're calling his work "garbage", and that's completely inappropriate.
I listened. That was my opinion. You can call it what you want.
> >I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
> >value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
> >even a listen or some editing.
>
> Why do you equate a web site with promotion, or even with disclosure?
You're right. I didn't look at his web site. He might be posing in his
underwear for all I know. I guess I just assumed that since he did
mention his fans, the web site was there as some sort of promotion, if
only to let them know that the band actually rehearses.
> >If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
> >worse.
>
> Incorrect.
How not? It's not packaged, it doesn't have printed notes or photos,
and it doesn't directly generate income, but it's out of the cage. If
someone wants to record a song that he gets from a web site posting of
a band rehearsal, it's been "published" in the definition of the
copyright law (at least in the US) and therefore the author must grant
a license under the compulsory license provision. That sure sounds like
"released" to me.
Mike Rivers
Bill Ruys wrote:
> You just can't accept that the product works well for him, can you Mike? If
> you bothered to really read his post, you'd see that he doesn't put the
> songs on the website for fans, it's for his bandmates.
Sorry, I missed the part about being for his bandmates. Still, I heard
his example recording and I didn't think it was very good. You could
hear the chords and tell that they were pretty much in time, but you
couldn't hear the vocals. Is that what he wants his bandmates to know?
Perhaps if he had placed the mic so that it did pick up the vocal, he
would have been back to the overload situation. It's still a
compromise, maybe the best he can afford or justify, but I don't think
it worked well in this instance.
I might find that it works well recording an acosutic fiddle and banjo
jam session but the damn thing is so small, sticking two 1/4" phone
plugs into the jacks to connect external mics doubles the size of the
recorder and makes it an awkward shape. So that's not so hot either. I
expect this is why it comes with a miniature microphone.
> For a unit in that class with built-in mics, he's getting pretty good
> results. Traditional compact cassette recorders with built-in mics would
> generally sound much worse (speaking from experience).
I agree, but I've made some excellent recordings with a Sony TCD-5
cassette recorder and some decent mics. But that cost twice as much as
the MicroTrak, and about 20 years earlier.
> Also he'd have to
> potentially spend hours making copies for his bandmates, or playback into
> his PC to make MP3s. So for him, it's fit for purpose.
So then his bandmates have to take the time to download the songs. You
don't really gain much here. When I argue about the fuss of having to
transfer flash card recordings to a PC, I always get the argument that
the task is fast and trivial. You can't argue both ways.
The accessory that I want if I were to be forced to use a recorder like
this is a unit about the size of a portable CD player that has a flash
card slot in it, and firmware to make a Red Book compliant CD from it
(as well as a data CD if that's your choice). While he's packing his
stuff, he could be making CDs of the night's session for the band and
hand them disks that they could play in their cars on the way home.
> I make similar recordings during my band's band practices with a pair of
> rode NT5 mics, into a pre-amp, into a laptop's built-in sound card. They
> are purely scratch recordings so that we can analyse how we're constructing
> songs, and also remember neat ideas that came out during a jam.
Fair enough.
> Listening to the MP3s in the link, I can see that this unit would be much
> less hassle than lugging a laptop, preamp and mics around.
Just looking at the MicroTrak, I can see that it's less hassle than
lugging a laptop, preamp, and mics. But listening, I can hear that it
hasn't yet made the grade. Perhaps he'll get better at mic placement
(the recorder might have to go on a mic stand) and do better work. It's
not about the "fidelity" - I have no reason yet to question that. I
can't hear enough to know if there are any serious problems.
I think he's too easy to satisfy. Would he purchase a CD with a mix
that muddy?
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> james wrote:
>
>> You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
>> that you don't care if they have.
>>
>> >But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
>> >that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
>> >up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.
>>
>> It's your call what he "should" do?
>
> If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
> basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."
>
>> The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
>> justify it.
>
> But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
> his fans could hear them.
Ummmm... no he didn't... Here is a direct quote:
"With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to."
--
Aaron
hank alrich
> It's not packaged, it doesn't have printed notes or photos,
> and it doesn't directly generate income, but it's out of the cage. If
> someone wants to record a song that he gets from a web site posting of
> a band rehearsal, it's been "published" in the definition of the
> copyright law (at least in the US) and therefore the author must grant
> a license under the compulsory license provision. That sure sounds like
> "released" to me.
Correct, he has released the material. Done deal.
--
ha
james
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
>basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."
My reading comprehension is probably not as finely tuned as yours,
but I understood that he was putting the material up, for the benefit of
the other musicians with whom he was collaborating.
>> The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
>> justify it.
>
>But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
>his fans could hear them.
So evidently he's got fans. Do you? I had fans once, in the 80s, but I
suspect they were more fans of cheap beer and of something to do on
Tuesday nights, than my band :-)
Mike Rivers
james wrote:
> In article <1129896750.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> My reading comprehension is probably not as finely tuned as yours,
> but I understood that he was putting the material up, for the benefit of
> the other musicians with whom he was collaborating.
All right, ferchrissake! Gimme a break!. I read "web site" and in my
mind I envisioned that this was either his personal web site or his
band's web site and he wanted as many people visiting that web site as
would would take the time, to hear the recordings of his rehearsals. He
may have said (in his initial message) "Of couse I wouldn't put these
recordings under a link that could be accessed by the general public,
I'm just using the web space as a parking place so that my bandmates
can download the recordings." I guess I just read too fast.
If he wants to share bad recordings with his band mates, I guess that's
none of my business, or anyone else's business but his band mates. So
why rave about it here. Would anyone here be proud of the sound of
those recordings? I wouldn't. It might serve a purpose, but the only
advantage I can see over any other technology is that the product gets
to the listener faster.
David Satz
few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
Neumann, would be among those. And where dynamic range is concerned,
even most of the mikes that are usable won't perform as well as if they
were properly powered.
--I think I've asked this before, but has anyone here measured the
input overload point (voltage) of this unit's mike inputs yet?
--best regards
Bob Cain
David Satz wrote:
> Bob, I really can't agree that "it will work quite well with all but a
> few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
> yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
> Neumann, would be among those. And where dynamic range is concerned,
> even most of the mikes that are usable won't perform as well as if they
> were properly powered.
In your experience how, other than lowering the max SPL,
does lower voltage affect the operation of these mics you
mention?
Julian
>Bob, I really can't agree that "it will work quite well with all but a
>few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
>yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
>Neumann, would be among those.
David,
Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
this?
Julian
Mike Rivers
Julian wrote:
> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
> this?
Because (until someone tells us that the analog circuitry or A/D
converter really sucks) the recorder is probably good enough so that it
won't get in the way of making a good recording. I can make good
recordings on my Jukebox 3 - not fabulous recordings, but pretty good,
good enough so that the difference between a good mic (and outboard
preamp) and a crummy mic that will plug straight in is noticable and
worth while.
Julian
wrote:
>
Mike,
It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
expect that such a recorder should exist.
Julian
Here's a review I found on line that says it all:
"THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA
OR
ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!
It is a $400.00 miniature stereo digital recorder with some very nice
features that can be compared to (but not necessarily replace) units
costing 2-3 times as much. "
hank alrich
> It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
> dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
> expect that such a recorder should exist.
People who already have KM84's and want portable recroding often do
that, and in the case, it makes perfect sense. Feeding a lttle recorder
with good mics should't be a problem, if the recorder's designers knew
enough to design a phantom supply that meets spec.
> "THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA
> OR
> ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!
You're late; we've been through this. Smart people think that if your
quote is the case, perhaps M-Audio ought not to tout the device as a pro
recorder right in their own hype, at the starting gate. They put
themselves in the position of having pros suggest proper P48 is expected
when designing and marketing pro gear. Talk to M-Audio about their
marketing baloney and leave alone those who are pointing it out.
--
ha
norman...@comcast.net
"Julian" <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:db1ll1tlqjsr0i7cd...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2005 05:13:08 -0700, "Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Julian wrote:
>>
>>> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
>>> this?
>>
>>Because (until someone tells us that the analog circuitry or A/D
>>converter really sucks) the recorder is probably good enough so that it
>>won't get in the way of making a good recording. I can make good
>>recordings on my Jukebox 3 - not fabulous recordings, but pretty good,
>>good enough so that the difference between a good mic (and outboard
>>preamp) and a crummy mic that will plug straight in is noticable and
>>worth while.
>
> Mike,
>
> It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
> dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
> expect that such a recorder should exist.
>
> Julian
It makes all the sense in the world if you have the mikes and a $400
recorder, and you need a recording.
Julian
wrote:
>People who already have KM84's and want portable recroding often do
>that, and in the case, it makes perfect sense. Feeding a lttle recorder
>with good mics should't be a problem, if the recorder's designers knew
>enough to design a phantom supply that meets spec.
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT FOR A $400 DEVICE THAT RUNS OFF
BATTERIES???? THIS IS ABSURD!
>You're late; we've been through this. Smart people think that if your
>quote is the case, perhaps M-Audio ought not to tout the device as a pro
>recorder right in their own hype, at the starting gate.
I haven't seen any of their marketing, but that's besides the point.
Anyone who believes this is a pro recorder regardless of the marketing
is daft.
I'm not going to go back and read every message in this thread but I
don't think anyone claimed it IS a pro recorder. Just a bunch of
whimpering that is isn't.
Julian
Julian
>It makes all the sense in the world if you have the mikes and a $400
>recorder, and you need a recording.
It would be nice, but I still say it is too much to expect of a tiny
portable recorder to supply real 48V phantom running off small
batteries. Are there any other similar powered tiny recorders in this
price range that you can?
Julian
Kurt Albershardt
>>> dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
>>> expect that such a recorder should exist.
>>
>> that, and in the case, it makes perfect sense. Feeding a lttle recorder
>> with good mics should't be a problem, if the recorder's designers knew
>> enough to design a phantom supply that meets spec.
>
> WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT FOR A $400 DEVICE THAT RUNS OFF
> BATTERIES????
At a minimum, I expect that it will meet its published specs.
Mike Rivers
Well, no, but we had hope for this one and it didn't pan out. It's so
close and they just didn't go all the way. Kind of silly. If it cost
$100 more and did what I expect, I'd buy it. Well, no, I wouldn't
because I want at least 20 GB of recording capacity in a whack, but
maybe someone else who can live with a few hours' capacity would buy
it.
But I'm not yet ready to pay $2,000 more than what the MicroTrak costs.
I have a less expensive solution that I have been living with and can
continue to live with for a while yet.
Apparently the price was set and they did what they could in order to
meet it. If that meant supplying only 30V rather than 48V (and frankly
I don't see why this would matter), then that was their choice. I
expect that they made it use a flash card rather than a hard drive both
for cost (they don't have to buy the flash cards, you do) and because
that's probably what most people want nowadays. I don't know what other
things I might not like about it, but there's enough to keep me away,
"professsional" or not.
james
Julian <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
>dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
>expect that such a recorder should exist.
If you had a high budget and a requirement for a small portable recorder
what would you use instead?
Nobody would expect you to buy expensive mics for this purpose, but why
wouldn't you use them if you had them?
james
Julian <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT FOR A $400 DEVICE THAT RUNS OFF
>BATTERIES???? THIS IS ABSURD!
Shhh, you'll get my dog barking.
Early reports are that the preamp is noisy enough to make it useless for
environmental recording.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> If you had a high budget and a requirement for a small portable recorder
> what would you use instead?
Assuming I could get by with four or less channels, a Sound Devices
7-Series. If I needed more, most likely a Deva.
David Satz
the best of the "cheap" stuff will represent a better and better
compromise as time goes on, no? In my experience the choice of
microphone, the way it is used and where it is placed can make far more
difference than the quality of a recorder to the overall sound quality.
Back in the 1970s I made many, many recordings with good microphones
(Schoeps and Neumann) and cheap cassette recorders; as long as the
microphones are powered correctly, loaded correctly and not overloading
the inputs of the recorder, it's well worth using good ones, even with
inferior recorders.
I'm not aware that this "cheap little box" is a bad sounding
recorder--only that it's shown certain initial operational kinks, some
of which have been cleared up already with new firmware, and that its
phantom powering is no good for any microphones that I personally would
want to use. That may well be all right, though--a Sonosax SX-M2 preamp
that supplies correct phantom powering could serve as an analog front
end, as long as the line inputs on the MicroTrack are balanced and
reasonably well arranged, or if they're unbalanced, the "Beyer" version
of the Sonosax should do the trick. So I'm waiting for further
information.
--best regards
David Satz
recorder, so the "whining" as you call it does have a solid basis
there. As for proper 48 Volt phantom powering from a small,
battery-operated unit, that has been available from numerous products
for about thirty years now and hardly represents any kind of
technological breakthrough.
Finally, while it's a bit of a stretch, with intelligent compromises
it's certainly in the realm of the possible that a decent, usable
recorder (not the best in the world for all purposes, but still quite
usable for some things that professionals need to do) could be
available at around the price of this one nowadays. One risks being
unreasonable by rejecting that possibility out of hand.
--best regards
hank alrich
> WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT FOR A $400 DEVICE THAT RUNS OFF
> BATTERIES???? THIS IS ABSURD!
No, your response is absurd.
The answer is that I expect things to meet their published spec at the
time they are released to the public. I guess you're the public and you
don't care if you pay for dog food and get cat shit. That's your call.
--
ha
David Satz
mainly as part of the discussion of the MicroTrack with its
30-something Volt phantom powering. I don't want to repeat myself too
much (as I've often said ...).
The main problem is that with many modern condensers--and not only
Schoeps, but definitely including Schoeps--the maximum undistorted SPL
that the microphone can handle will decrease _far more precipitously
than the supply voltage_, once that voltage is below the standard
tolerance limit of +/- 4 Volts. The DC converters in these mikes are
designed to operate within certain parameters--namely, those given in
the standard. There is no good reason for microphone manufacturers to
do otherwise--they are governed by these standards and they have every
right to expect others to live up to them as well.
A 5 Volt drop in the power supply might cause a 10 dB decrease in the
maximum SPL of a microphone, but we're talking here about a supply
that's more like 15 to 20 Volts under par. That's not a problem that
will go away if we pretend to ignore it. Sometimes on this topic I
would almost like to take people by the shoulders and shake them a
little, in a friendly way of course. It is, pardon my French, simply
freaking insane to expect microphones to work correctly if they aren't
powered, connected, and loaded correctly.
When you think about how obsessive some people get about microphones
sometimes, stressing all kinds of stuff that hardly matters or doesn't
matter at all, it is amazing that they can be so cavalier about these
things that really do affect sound quality and reliability. But I guess
some people like to imagine that they're such delicate geniuses, it
would hamper their creativity if they had to admit that microphones
work on the basis of physical principles that don't cater to human
whims. They (I mean the microphones, but also people for that matter)
have relatively inflexible physical requirements in order to work
properly, and proper powering is one of those requirements.
It's not so very hard to get it right, and it's very well worth getting
right. But since people seem to be so unaware of this (particularly in
the United States), I've often wondered how many folks may have
connected a condenser microphone to a preamp or recorder that they
didn't realize had substandard powering, and decided on the basis of
the sound they got that the microphone wasn't very good without ever
realizing that they had never actually heard what the microphone was
capable of.
--best regards
Kurt Albershardt
>
> In my experience the choice of microphone, the way it is used and
> where it is placed can make far more difference than the quality of a
> recorder to the overall sound quality.
...on which most of us would likely concur.
> Back in the 1970s I made many, many recordings with good microphones
> (Schoeps and Neumann) and cheap cassette recorders
My early '80s TC-D5 was mostly fed by the output of my pair of
RE-15s--but it was occasionally treated to U87's and even the odd pair
of 4038's (with preamps.) I never had any problem discerning the
benefits of those then-unaffordable mics I borrowed or rented.
james
Fair enough -- I wondered what was out there in that kind of price range.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Julian
>Julian, unfortunately M Audio themselves released this unit as a pro
>recorder,
I've just been to their web site. I see the word pro exactly once.
Since it records pro format 24/96 that is much smaller of a stretch
than most marketing you see.
>As for proper 48 Volt phantom powering from a small,
>battery-operated unit, that has been available from numerous products
>for about thirty years now and hardly represents any kind of
>technological breakthrough.
But it would mean a more expensive battery system. This thing charges
off USB. It was a design trade off. So, I still say, what the fuck
do you expect for $400?
>
>Finally, while it's a bit of a stretch, with intelligent compromises
>it's certainly in the realm of the possible that a decent, usable
>recorder (not the best in the world for all purposes, but still quite
>usable for some things that professionals need to do) could be
>available at around the price of this one nowadays. One risks being
>unreasonable by rejecting that possibility out of hand.
I expect one will be available for not much more in the future.
Julian
Bob Cain
Which are plenty good enough to capture the nuances of about
any mic whose characteristics aren't lost at 30 V.
Complaining about what modern integrated elecronics do to a
microphone compared to what even very good speakers in rooms
do to them in rooms is what is really absurd.
Nobody who's spent a lot of money is willing to believe you
don't have to any more.
Julian
wrote:
>If that meant supplying only 30V rather than 48V (and frankly
>I don't see why this would matter),
People are saying they are having trouble getting the specified
battery life. It only records for 3 or 4 hours according to spec. It
would record even less with 48 V. That would mean increasing the
cost and I understand that would be the way you would design it, but
they made a decision to keep the price where they did. I can't
comment on whether they will sell more by having 48 phantom or keeping
the price down.
>I don't know what other
>things I might not like about it, but there's enough to keep me away,
>"professsional" or not.
I'm not buying one anytime soon either. Still it looks more like the
kind of recorder I would buy than the R-1. Isn't that what the thread
was about Microtrack beats R-1?
Julian
Julian
wrote:
>
>Early reports are that the preamp is noisy enough to make it useless for
>environmental recording.
That's too bad. What is the S/N at a decent amount of preamp gain?
Julian
Julian
wrote:
>The answer is that I expect things to meet their published spec at the
>time they are released to the public. I guess you're the public and you
>don't care if you pay for dog food and get cat shit. That's your call.
Nice imagery. You're a real poet.
Does anyone have any hard data on how far they are below published
specs or is it just blowing of hot air from eating all that cat shit?
Julian
Chevdo
says...
No Hank, you expect whatever your rec.audio.pro heros tell you to expect.
That's why you expect the M-audio device to operate according to published
spec, but you don't expect the Behringer tube-preamp to be the real
tube-preamp Behringer advertises it to be.
You don't express an opinion about anything until after one of your heros
expresses his opinion. Then you chime in and lend your always dependable
support.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> People are saying they are having trouble getting the specified
> battery life.
This situation is not unique to the MicroTrack.
> It only records for 3 or 4 hours according to spec. It would record
> even less with 48 V. That would mean increasing the cost and I
> understand that would be the way you would design it, but they made a
> decision to keep the price where they did.
But they specified it as having 48 Volt phantom power.
> it looks more like the kind of recorder I would buy than the R-1.
> Isn't that what the thread was about Microtrack beats R-1?
...based on using the internal mics to record high at SPLs.
The jury is still quite definitely out on which of the two is a better
choice. The MicroTrack has only been on the market for a few weeks and
still needs significant bugs fixed in its firmware. The R-1 lacks some
requested features (still doesn't record in mono) but at this point can
be said to have proven itself a reasonably reliable device for casual
recordings. Together with the PMD660, I am confident these will inspire
a second round of highly portable, affordable solid state recorders that
more of us will embrace.
Kurt Albershardt
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:06:32 GMT, walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>
>> The answer is that I expect things to meet their published spec at the
>> time they are released to the public.
>
> specs
About 18 Volts.
Julian
wrote:
>> Does anyone have any hard data on how far they are below published
>> specs
>
>About 18 Volts.
Not true. They did not publish 48 volts.
Julian
wrote:
>But they specified it as having 48 Volt phantom power.
I did not see anywhere 48V was claimed on their web site. The word
pro was used exactly once.
>The jury is still quite definitely out on which of the two is a better
>choice. The MicroTrack has only been on the market for a few weeks and
>still needs significant bugs fixed in its firmware. The R-1 lacks some
>requested features (still doesn't record in mono) but at this point can
>be said to have proven itself a reasonably reliable device for casual
>recordings.
One thing I dislike about the R-1 is the close spaced omnis. People
are complaining about them too.
> Together with the PMD660, I am confident these will inspire
>a second round of highly portable, affordable solid state recorders that
>more of us will embrace.
I am confident too. IMO the Microtrack is very close, but not quite.
but then again, the price of flash needs to come down too.
Julian
Mike Rivers
Julian wrote:
> People are saying they are having trouble getting the specified
> battery life. It only records for 3 or 4 hours according to spec. It
> would record even less with 48 V. That would mean increasing the
> cost and I understand that would be the way you would design it, but
> they made a decision to keep the price where they did.
Also the size, and I realize that's important to a lot of people. I'd
be happier with something the size of the TASCAM (or my TASCAM portable
DAT) that I could put on the table and it wouldn't slide off if someone
brushed a cable. A different design might give longer life with four D
cells rather than two AA cells, but of course the case would have to be
larger. (The TASCAM uses eight or ten AA cells, a whole lot to carry
both ways (politically correct disposal, of course.)
> I can't
> comment on whether they will sell more by having 48 phantom or keeping
> the price down.
I can. They'd probaby sell 100 more than the way it is now. I'm sure
they figured that out, too, and decided that 100 lost customers wasn't
a big deal compared to the thousands that they hope to sell as it is.
There are a small handful of us who are willing to accept using
consumer products in pro applications if the work, but it wouldn't take
over the video, film, and broadcast industry if the only change was to
up the phantom power voltage.
> I'm not buying one anytime soon either. Still it looks more like the
> kind of recorder I would buy than the R-1.
Well, yeah, but I would use it for a different purpose than the
recorder I really want to buy. It fits different sized pockets.
> Isn't that what the thread was about Microtrack beats R-1?
Yes, but I've yet to be convinced that either is worth bothering with.
So it doesn't matter to me. You could tell me that a Behringer B2 beats
a MXL 603 and I'd still use my KM84s.
norman...@comcast.net
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:djf85...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Nobody who's spent a lot of money is willing to believe you don't have to
> any more.
I think this remark should be embroidered and hung on the wall as a constant
reminder.
I paid $880 for my computer back in Sep 2001. It had a keyboard and a
mouse, but no display. It had an 80GB hard drive, 512kB RAM and a 1200MHz
processor. It was a pretty good deal at the time.
I'm now considering a new computer. It comes with a 2300MHz processor,
keyboard, mouse--AND a 17" TFT display. It has a 160Gb hard drive, 1GB RAM,
on-board video with 256kb RAM. 6 USB 2.0 inputs, a multipurpose memory card
input on the front, a dual layer DVD burner, 4 PCI slots, etc. etc. etc.
Price: $820! There's also a package of more or less useful software with
it.
How they can do this is a mystery to me--and I'm an engineer!
Norm Strong
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box
> like this?
In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
better any single device is, the better the whole.
Also, the microphone makes, by far, the MOST significant difference, to
the point that it usually swamps other considerations.
That's why.
--
"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)
Lorin David Schultz
What happened to you being too busy with "work" to spend your time
"wanking" here? "Real" pros and all that, remember?
Get to work. We're beneath you. Don't bother.
Kurt Albershardt
> "Julian" <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box
>> like this?
>
>
> In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
> better any single device is, the better the whole.
Assuming you're going for transparency and accuracy, any device which
follows another in the chain can only hope to not make the sound worse.
It won't magically restore that which was removed (or not captured) by
the preceding device. So devices at the front of the chain are more
important than devices further back.
Being at the front of the chain,
Lorin David Schultz
>
> I did not see anywhere 48V was claimed on their web site.
It's been removed in response to complaints. The photos of the unit
originally showed the switch being labelled "48V."
> The word pro was used exactly once.
Well, that's only one too many times then, isn't it?
You're obviously coming in late and have missed much of the discussion
about this device. The complaints are not that it's not something it
was never meant to be, the complaints are that it isn't even what it
CLAIMED to be. Phantom power isn't the only issue. There are also
firmware bugs. Try recording a 24 bit signal via the digital input.
Check the level meters. See what else you can find that doesn't work.
From there the discussion evolved into what people would really like in
a device like this. How that constitutes "whining" is beyond me.
Scott Dorsey
>"Julian" <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box
>> like this?
>
>In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
>better any single device is, the better the whole.
The reason we have standards in the industry is so that you can, in
theory, plug anything into anything, no matter how cheap or how expensive
it is.
I get very irritated by things like the "PC microphone standard" with
the 1/8" TRS connector and the levels that don't match anything else
in the world. It's becoming more and more popular, and it's making it
hard for people with cheap equipment to graduate to anything better
because they wind up having to replace the mike and sound card at the
same time.
You'd be surprised at the amount of weird mix and match stuff. I saw
a demo at the AES show with a very expensive Vector Research cd player,
two Aragon stereo amplifiers, and then, hiding between them, a cheap
Rane PA crossover. That kind of thing goes on in the real world.
You wouldn't _believe_ the weird stuff people bring into festivals that
they want plugged into the sound system. It's enough that I have a box
of various transformer adaptors for that sort of thing.
>Also, the microphone makes, by far, the MOST significant difference, to
>the point that it usually swamps other considerations.
It's true. I always recommend people put most of their money into
microphones because they get more for the dollar that way than anything
else (other than acoustical work).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Michael R. Kesti
>Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>>
>>In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
>>better any single device is, the better the whole.
<snip>
>>Also, the microphone makes, by far, the MOST significant difference, to
>>the point that it usually swamps other considerations.
>
>It's true. I always recommend people put most of their money into
>microphones because they get more for the dollar that way than anything
>else (other than acoustical work).
In general, it's the transducers (mics, speakers, and phono cartridges
that convert acoustic/mechanical energy to elecrical signals and back)
that provide the highest bang to buck ratio when purchasing audio system
components. The electronics between the transducers are far easier and
cheaper to both design and manufacture.
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain
hank alrich
> "Bob Cain" wrote...
> > Nobody who's spent a lot of money is willing to believe you don't have to
> > any more.
> I think this remark should be embroidered and hung on the wall as a constant
> reminder.
That people who haven't driven good stuff think cheap stuff delivers the
same ride. A lot of this theorectical backseat driving falls apart when
the rubber has to actually meet the road.
> I paid $880 for my computer back in Sep 2001.
That is just so relevant to microphone powering. Get a clue, y'all.
--
ha
hank alrich
> walk...@thegrid.net
> says...
> >Julian wrote:
> >
> >> WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT FOR A $400 DEVICE THAT RUNS OFF
> >> BATTERIES???? THIS IS ABSURD!
> >No, your response is absurd.
> >The answer is that I expect things to meet their published spec at the
> >time they are released to the public. I guess you're the public and you
> >don't care if you pay for dog food and get cat shit. That's your call.
> No Hank, you expect whatever your rec.audio.pro heros tell you to expect.
> That's why you expect the M-audio device to operate according to published
> spec, but you don't expect the Behringer tube-preamp to be the real
> tube-preamp Behringer advertises it to be.
That's because it's just one more inexpensive faux "tube" preamp like
its predecessors, and hence, I do not expect it to meet my own standards
of acceptable preamplification. I have no use for it, personally.
> You don't express an opinion about anything until after one of your heros
> expresses his opinion. Then you chime in and lend your always dependable
> support.
Right, you've got this covered. Mind you, I'm not in the market for
anything from M-Audio.
--
ha
Bob Cain
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> Also, the microphone makes, by far, the MOST significant difference, to
> the point that it usually swamps other considerations.
What about the speaker/room at the end of the chain? Talk
about swamping other considerations.
Richard Crowley
> Lorin David Schultz wrote:
>
>> Also, the microphone makes, by far, the MOST significant difference,
>> to the point that it usually swamps other considerations.
>
> What about the speaker/room at the end of the chain? Talk about
> swamping other considerations.
The physical/electrical trandsucers at BOTH ends are far
more critical than the electronics inbetween.
Julian
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>> The word pro was used exactly once.
>
>Well, that's only one too many times then, isn't it?
It does record 24/96 which is pro standard not consumer standard. I
think they get to use the word pro once for that reason.
>You're obviously coming in late and have missed much of the discussion
I've scanned through every message in this thread. I can't say I read
every word of every message. Mostly I remember the OP saying he liked
this better than an R-1 and a bunch of other people said he was
stupid.
>There are also
>firmware bugs. Try recording a 24 bit signal via the digital input.
>Check the level meters. See what else you can find that doesn't work.
There have been very few detailed descriptions of firmware bug
specifics. The only one I can remember without re-reading the over 70
messages is someone saying that L and R mysteriously got reversed. I
never claimed to defend their firmware bugs either so that is not even
my issue. I just defended the design concept for the money. I've
never seen a machine with so much for so little.
>From there the discussion evolved into what people would really like in
>a device like this. How that constitutes "whining" is beyond me.
Expecting it all for $400 is an unrealistic expectation IMO. If it
cost $1,000 or $2,000, then I'd call this realistic discussion not
whining. M-Audio is a high level consumer manufacturer. They aren't
known for top of the line pro gear. I think it is unreasonable to
expect more of them.
People posted a lot of criticism of the unit without specific claims
or specifications to back it up. Now more details are coming to light
and I can better see why some people are down on the machine.
It still bugs me that the few times anyone opened their mouth to
defend it they got blasted. The topic of the thread is comparing it
to the R-1 which is not a pro machine. I think it compares favorably
top the R-1 assuming they fix the software.
Julian
Julian
wrote:
I just read your AES report, Mike. Good stuff there.
>Also the size, and I realize that's important to a lot of people. I'd
>be happier with something the size of the TASCAM (or my TASCAM portable
>DAT) that I could put on the table and it wouldn't slide off if someone
>brushed a cable.
I have to agree. That would be my preference as well.
>> Isn't that what the thread was about Microtrack beats R-1?
>
>Yes, but I've yet to be convinced that either is worth bothering with.
>So it doesn't matter to me.
I might get something like this for applications I now use a portable
minidisc for. But I haven't seen a product I would buy yet. I like
that is accepts SPDIF and it uploads with USB and that it accepts
balance audio. That makes it useful for a lot of things. This is
awful close to something I would buy but they have to resolve the
firmware issues first and memory cards need to get MUCH cheaper. Then
I'd buy one.
Julian
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
>better any single device is, the better the whole.
My point is if a recording is important enough to bring out the really
nice mics I wouldn't bring out my little $400 consumer quality
recorder which is what we all know it is no matter what M-Audio
claimed, and I've never seen those claims just read that you and
others are annoyed about them.
Julian
james
Julian <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>That makes it useful for a lot of things. This is
>awful close to something I would buy but they have to resolve the
>firmware issues first and memory cards need to get MUCH cheaper. Then
The only thing, aside from cash flow, that stops me from buying one of
these M-Audio recorders is the persistent reports of problems. Once
that's been dispelled, I'll almost certainly buy one. I have two
cameras that use CF media, and as a result, I have a nice collection
of 1GB cards and no reservations against buying more.
I have a first-generation MD recorder that's beginning to wear out.
It's time. I would have already bought an Edirol R-1, had they been
available (backordered for months when I needed it), and I'd have
already bought this M-Audio recorder, except that I read this:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106478
The thing that bothers me isn't so much the report that it hisses, but
that the level of the noise fluctuates.
Good CF cards (e.g., Rosewill, Kingston, etc.) are still in the $75
range; I've found them as low as $40 in quantity. They aren't, in
practice, a consumable medium. I love 'em.
norman...@comcast.net
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3s22f2F...@individual.net...
> Lorin David Schultz wrote:
>> "Julian" <JulianP...@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box
>>> like this?
>>
>>
>> In any recording chain, all devices contribute to the end result. The
>> better any single device is, the better the whole.
>
>
> Assuming you're going for transparency and accuracy, any device which
> follows another in the chain can only hope to not make the sound worse. It
> won't magically restore that which was removed (or not captured) by the
> preceding device. So devices at the front of the chain are more important
> than devices further back.
It might seem that way, but it isn't true. In fact, it makes no difference
what position a component occupies in an audio chain. Degradation is the
same at every position.
Norm
Chris Hornbeck
>> Assuming you're going for transparency and accuracy, any device which
>> follows another in the chain can only hope to not make the sound worse. It
>> won't magically restore that which was removed (or not captured) by the
>> preceding device. So devices at the front of the chain are more important
>> than devices further back.
>
>It might seem that way, but it isn't true. In fact, it makes no difference
>what position a component occupies in an audio chain. Degradation is the
>same at every position.
I'm uncertain about degradation, but can confidently
say that embarassment is definitely the same at every
position.
Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.
Julian
wrote:
>I have a first-generation MD recorder that's beginning to wear out.
>It's time. I would have already bought an Edirol R-1, had they been
>available (backordered for months when I needed it), and I'd have
>already bought this M-Audio recorder, except that I read this:
>http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106478
Thanks for the link. It still seems sort of incidental. This guy
says noise floor of -72 to -66 dB. PDAudio did measurements at -98dB.
PDAudio also said the A to D was barely 16 bit which is really
disappointing if true.
Julian
Arny Krueger
news:HfidnZAh9q7...@comcast.com
I think the idea that devices early in the chain are more
critical are justified with logic something like this:
(1) Let's say you put a high distortion device at the front
of the chain, and there is another high distortion devices
in the chain. The high distortion device makes distortion,
which it is feared the subsequent high distortion device
will additionally distort. Not only will the sequel device
add its distortion, it will generate more distortion based
on the distortion added in the earlier stage. Furthermore
the distortion of distortion is higher order, which is known
to be generally more audible.
(2) Let's say you put a low distortion device at the front
of the chain, and there are other high distortion devices in
the chain. The remaining high distortion device will only
add *its own* distortion.
BTW, this will really happen. It's measurable, calculable,
modelable and in extreme cases audible. However, its only
significant if the devices have relatively high distortion -
like 10-30% or more. If the devices have less than 1%
distortion, the distortion of the distortion is only a tiny
bit more.
Sebum
Sebum
Richard Crowley
> They should have just left out the phantom power feature.
Then it would have been closer to being just another "me-too"
flash audio recorder.
The main complaint seems to be the claim of "professional"
and especially the label "48V" when the phantom power was
in reality only 30V. If they had just said 30V up front,
we could have spared the internet several gigabytes of
pointless blather.
Mike Rivers
Richard Crowley wrote:
> The main complaint seems to be the claim of "professional"
> and especially the label "48V" when the phantom power was
> in reality only 30V. If they had just said 30V up front,
> we could have spared the internet several gigabytes of
> pointless blather.
These days "professional" has no real meaning. But had they left off
the phantom power entirely we would have asked "why?" and been
countered by just as many "why do you need it?"s. It's the nature of
Usenet.
hank alrich
> Mike, you need to change your tampon.
Why, you need a popsicle?
--
ha
Bob Cain
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> I'm uncertain about degradation, but can confidently
> say that embarassment is definitely the same at every
> position.
LOL! Love it, Chris.
Scott Dorsey
Oh, I disagree. When you see "professional" on the front panel or on
the headline on the data sheet, it is a sure sign that you're looking
at consumer equipment. It is a good indication to run away. If the
equipment really _was_ professional, it wouldn't have to say so.
Mike Rivers
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> When you see "professional" on the front panel or on
> the headline on the data sheet, it is a sure sign that you're looking
> at consumer equipment. It is a good indication to run away. If the
> equipment really _was_ professional, it wouldn't have to say so.
Is that kind of like the small size being labeled "Giant"?
Henry Salvia
I think it's a correlary to Carlin's Law: Anything calling itself "World
Class" isn't.
Henry Salvia
Les Cargill
If women were advertised like audio gear, the world would be a VERY
INTERESTING PLACE.
--
Les Cargill