Re: M-Audio Microtrack 2496 recordings

6 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Karl W. Lohninger

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 12:58:51 PM10/2/05
to
But doesn't the AKG 480 series ask specifically for 48V phantom - unlike the
460s which were spec'd for 15V to 48V......? Did you furnish phantom power
via the Microtrack? Would you be able to compare with a similar recording
setup but applied 48V phantom.....? Would be interesting.

Karl

On 10/2/05 9:30 AM, in article 3qag8gF...@individual.net, "Chel van
Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:

> Today I made, as promissed, some real recordings with the Microtrack.
>
> Two microphones AKG C480B with CK62ULS capsules (comparable with Schoeps
> CMS 6 + MK 2, but better ;-) + Microtrack 2496. Recorded at 48/24, peak
> level -7dB
> Normalised and converted to 48/16
>
> Hall was not very quiet, some noise from airconditioners and outside.
> Piano bench needs fixing. Piano (Sauter) and acoustics were not perfect.
>
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/piano2.wav (size 34M)

Pooh Bear

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 1:15:09 PM10/2/05
to

"Karl W. Lohninger" wrote:

> But doesn't the AKG 480 series ask specifically for 48V phantom

Supply voltage: P 48 (phantom power to DIN 45 596 at 48 Vą4 V)

Note +- 4V !

http://www.akg.com/mediadatabase/psfile/datei/73/c480b_ck614055c45da05bf.pdf

Graham

Message has been deleted

Karl W. Lohninger

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 1:48:29 PM10/2/05
to
Well, that's the point. 48V +-4V equals 44V to 52V phantom power - nowhere
close to the 30V delivered by the Microtrack.

When I deliver 15V phantom (except 48V) via my mixer to my 480s it's gonna
sound quite different....;-(

Karl


On 10/2/05 10:15 AM, in article 4340159D...@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear"

Jonny Durango

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 5:11:19 PM10/2/05
to
Thanks a ton for the recording.....beautiful work on the piano!

>
> Hall was not very quiet, some noise from airconditioners and outside.
> Piano bench needs fixing. Piano (Sauter) and acoustics were not perfect.
>

Anyhow, I think this speaks volumes for the argument that the real-life
physical noise-floor is often louder than the electronic self-noise of a
device, making it almost irrevelant. Anyway, great recording IMHO....if
they can fix this 30v bug I'll definately buy one!

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

soundgun

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 5:52:03 PM10/2/05
to
Sold!
That is a pretty remarkable recording considering the size and cost of
the recording device, and using it's internal preamps and phantom power
supply. It certainly exposes any flaws with the room or piano, and
reproduces the full pitch and dynamic range of the instrument quite
well. Would love to have heard it with the mics a good deal closer to
tune out the room a bit, but it sounds natural.
You'd need to record in a truely isolated studio space to expose the
noise floor of any part of this device, which is the last place you are
likely to use it!
Bravo M-Audio...
George Whittam

Message has been deleted

Dave

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 7:57:00 PM10/2/05
to
Hi Chel,

Thanks for posting your recording...very nice. Would you agree that the
Microtrack sounds pretty good for a less-than-$500 device? Perfect choice of
dynamic piano music to put the Microtrack through it's paces. The heavy
bottom end of the piano came through nicely without fuzzing out.

Hmmm, I wonder if you could use a Microtrack with a wireless system? Could
you plug a lav into the Microtrack, and feed it's live output to a
transmitter, giving you a dropout free, isolated backup track, at a
recording resolution the same as the main recorder? Would feeding the sound
through a Microtrack cause a delay in the delivery of the wireless signal to
the main mixer/recorder? I guess it might be a pain for pausing recording in
between takes but maybe a good safety in case of wireless dropouts?

Cheers,

Dave


"Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:3qag8gF...@individual.net...


> Today I made, as promissed, some real recordings with the Microtrack.
>
> Two microphones AKG C480B with CK62ULS capsules (comparable with Schoeps
> CMS 6 + MK 2, but better ;-) + Microtrack 2496. Recorded at 48/24, peak
> level -7dB
> Normalised and converted to 48/16
>

> Hall was not very quiet, some noise from airconditioners and outside.
> Piano bench needs fixing. Piano (Sauter) and acoustics were not perfect.
>

> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/piano2.wav (size 34M)
>
> --
> Chel van Gennip
> Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com


ku...@nv.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 1:57:03 AM10/3/05
to

Dave wrote:
>
> I wonder if you could use a Microtrack with a wireless system? Could
> you plug a lav into the Microtrack, and feed it's live output to a
> transmitter, giving you a dropout free, isolated backup track, at a
> recording resolution the same as the main recorder? Would feeding the sound
> through a Microtrack cause a delay in the delivery of the wireless signal to
> the main mixer/recorder? I guess it might be a pain for pausing recording in
> between takes but maybe a good safety in case of wireless dropouts?

Check out <http://theultimatewireless.com/>

Message has been deleted

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 6:40:31 AM10/3/05
to

Dave wrote:

> Would you agree that the
> Microtrack sounds pretty good for a less-than-$500 device?

There are plenty of things that cost less than $500 that will make a
good recording, given a good source. I don't think anyone has (yet)
quibbled with the MicroTrack about its ability to record. It might be a
great choice for someone who has never owned a portable recorder and is
just getting geared up.

For those of us who are looking for a replacement for what might be our
third or fourth generation portable recording equipment, we're looking
for other than its ability to make good piano recordings.

I wouldn't directly discourage anyone from buying one of these, I just
want to emphasize that it's not just about sound quality. Media,
operating convenience, continous operating time, and necessary
accessories should be important considerations. If all I wanted to do
was record a concert from my seat or record my band's rehearsal, I'm
sure it would do just fine as long as the batteries hold out and you
have enough gigabytes to store the show. But if, in order to record a
whole weekend event, I have to carry a computer, a power supply for the
recorder, a mic preamp or phantom power supply, and who knows what
else, I'm going to look for a more completely integrated solution.

> Hmmm, I wonder if you could use a Microtrack with a wireless system? Could
> you plug a lav into the Microtrack, and feed it's live output to a
> transmitter, giving you a dropout free, isolated backup track, at a
> recording resolution the same as the main recorder?

Why wireless? I guess your intent is to use the MicroTrack as the mic
preamp for both itself and the "main" recorder? Why not just connect
them with a cable?

> Would feeding the sound
> through a Microtrack cause a delay in the delivery of the wireless signal to
> the main mixer/recorder?

Almost certainly - not because of the wireless transmission, but
because of the throughput delay of the recorder - unless it has a
"direct input monitor" mode. Someone who has one could check this out
easily (unless they're feeding it from an externa A/D converter, in
which case, according to Len's report, you don't get a monitor output).

Message has been deleted

Arny Krueger

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 8:21:47 AM10/3/05
to
"Karl W. Lohninger" <XXs...@XXirisartist.com> wrote in
message news:BF655FD9.13DD6%XXs...@XXirisartist.com

> But doesn't the AKG 480 series ask specifically for 48V
> phantom - unlike the 460s which were spec'd for 15V to
> 48V......? Did you furnish phantom power via the
> Microtrack? Would you be able to compare with a similar
> recording setup but applied 48V phantom.....? Would be
> interesting.

This is obviously one of those sitautions where we get to
compare the theoretical and specified performance of
equipment to what happens when the rubber hits the road, IOW
some poor schmuck tries to make a real world recording.

If someone really wants to understand this situation, they'd
compare recordings of really loud live sources made with
various mics and various phantom voltages.

Under the covers there are two models of condensor mic power
supplies that are being discussed.

One model has condensor mics working like they have
regulated power supplies. This means they have the same
basic ability to handle SPLs once some certain minimum
phantom voltage is reached. Of course, a spec sheet isn't
going to necessarily give you that voltage accurately.

The second model has condensor mics working like they have
unregulated power supplies. This means that they will have
maximum undistorted SPL capacity that changes with the
voltage of the phantom power supply.

Thirdly, we suspect that there is some minimum phantom
voltage below which the mic won't work at all. From
experiece, we know that this is some number greater than
zero, because its pretty universal and obvious that
condensor mics don't work without some phantom voltage
applied.

Looking under the covers of mics and reading their
schematics, its pretty obvious that condensors vary all over
the map.

Any recording device that provides a low phantom voltage
will therefore provide its owners with a lifetime of happy
and unhappy experiences. If you really want to be sure,
you'll always carry a standard phantom supply with you just
in case.


Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 8:45:45 AM10/3/05
to

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> If you want to record a whole weekend event, it is better not to try it
> totally battery driven. A single 4GB flashcard will last for 6 hours at
> 44.1/16. For about $100 you have a external USB drive that can copy the
> data directly from your Microtrack, 4GB in about 10 minutes.

Please, let's not start this discussion again. We had it a while back -
same arguments on both sides. Please accept that this simply won't work
for me. I have too many other things to think about than renewing my
recording medium. I'm used to removing used media, replacing it with
blank media, and continuing my recording ASAP.

I don't expect that a set of batteries will last for a whole weekend of
continuous recording, but I'd like to be able to run all day without
changing batteries and have them recharge overnight. That would be
acceptable. And if there are batteries in the recorder, batteries in
the computer or flash card data drive, batteries in a phantom power
supply or outboard mic preamp, surely they won't all die at the same
time. This is a large management problem that I wouldn't need to deal
with if only the recorder would do everything I want. Isn't that
simple? Can't you understand and accept that?

> I don't feel the need for external preamps or phantom.

I suppose there are times when I could get away without it. After all,
30 years ago I used to carry a cassette recorder and one dynamic mic
and made some decent informal recordings. But why spend $500 on a
recorder knowing that there are microphones that I would like to use
with it which will either not work at all or not work to their full
specifications without an extermal power supply?

> I know you think you need extra personel to do the 10 minute copying once
> every 6 hours. This extra personel could help you carying the 1 pound of
> equipment.

You're welcome to come along (at your own expense - I have no budget to
pay you) and be my roadie.

Martin Harrington

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 9:05:55 AM10/3/05
to
I have a feeling this discussion has been hijacked by a group of people not
involved in recording Audio for Film and TV.
For us, at this time, the MT is a non event.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128343545.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Richard Crowley

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 9:24:14 AM10/3/05
to
"Martin Harrington" wrote ...

> I have a feeling this discussion has been hijacked by a group
> of people not involved in recording Audio for Film and TV.

Note that this thread is cross-posted to rec.audio.pro
and rec.audio.tech. The topic is of mutual interest to
all three newsgroups and we all benefit from the cross-
discipline discussion.

> For us, at this time, the MT is a non event.

And many people NOT involved in recording Audio for Film
and TV have come to the same conclusion, and for many of
the same reasons.

Message has been deleted

Arny Krueger

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 12:03:16 PM10/3/05
to
"Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
news:3qcvshF...@individual.net

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:21:47 +0200, Arny Krueger wrote:
>

>> Any recording device that provides a low phantom voltage
>> will therefore provide its owners with a lifetime of
>> happy and unhappy experiences. If you really want to be
>> sure, you'll always carry a standard phantom supply with
>> you just in case.
>

> I don't think the Microtrack is aiming to be the general
> purpose professional recorder.

Agreed. For one thing, it seems to be quite short of tracks!

> To me it seems quite
> strange to go on route with a trunck full of microphones
> $1000,- to $3000,- each and this recorder.

Agreed. This recorder is likely to be mated with a user's
mic of choice for extended periods of time.

> To go on route
> with this recorder and two microphones for a specific job
> seems reasonable.

Exactly. The question then becomes whether the list of
suitable mics is too short. The answer to that question
already seems "no".

> This could be for recording live
> performances like I do, but it could be for recording
> sound on location, e.g. the sea, a river, birds etc. too.

Agreed. I personally see it as a smaller, far easier to
record with, more expensive, but storage-constrained NJB3.

It plays music and has a headphone jack, right? ;-)


eawck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 5:52:46 PM10/3/05
to
Mike Rivers wrote:

> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
> > If you want to record a whole weekend event, it is better not to try it
> > totally battery driven. A single 4GB flashcard will last for 6 hours at
> > 44.1/16. For about $100 you have a external USB drive that can copy the
> > data directly from your Microtrack, 4GB in about 10 minutes.
>
> Please, let's not start this discussion again. We had it a while back -
> same arguments on both sides. Please accept that this simply won't work
> for me. I have too many other things to think about than renewing my
> recording medium. I'm used to removing used media, replacing it with
> blank media, and continuing my recording ASAP.

Are you inventing excuses here for some reason, or are you serious?
Because professional photographers have solved this problem by the
simple expedient of buying as many CF cards as they can fill in a day
(or whatever). At night they make their double-copy to a pair of
high-speed CF->HD devices. It takes a half hour or so (my experience)
to handle about 10GB of data.

> I don't expect that a set of batteries will last for a whole weekend of
> continuous recording, but I'd like to be able to run all day without
> changing batteries and have them recharge overnight. That would be
> acceptable.

This is exactly what photographers do.

> And if there are batteries in the recorder, batteries in
> the computer or flash card data drive, batteries in a phantom power
> supply or outboard mic preamp, surely they won't all die at the same
> time. This is a large management problem that I wouldn't need to deal
> with if only the recorder would do everything I want. Isn't that
> simple? Can't you understand and accept that?

Actually I don't: no one I know brings a computer into the field, let
alone the HD's. They are left elsewhere, if they are brought at all,
and are usually powered by the mains in a hotel room or from a vehicle.

As for the phantom supply and/or pre-amp supply, presumably you already
have a solution for that problem? It is completely orthogonal to
media, storage, etc.

> > I don't feel the need for external preamps or phantom.
>
> I suppose there are times when I could get away without it. After all,
> 30 years ago I used to carry a cassette recorder and one dynamic mic
> and made some decent informal recordings. But why spend $500 on a
> recorder knowing that there are microphones that I would like to use
> with it which will either not work at all or not work to their full
> specifications without an extermal power supply?

Since you asked:

Because said recorder is similar in price to (say) a PDaudio gizmo and
a PDA, but with a vastly more convenient/robust user interface
(firmware willing)? The "phantom power" issue is an absolute,
complete, yawn because none of the microphones of interest to me need
it, and if one day I do need one, the pre-amp has it's own supply? All
I need is a box that collects up the bits from a pre-amp, "displays"
them to a pair of headphones, and saves them to a CF card. (It's that
second last feature that M-Audio needs to prove by a firmware hack
before my credit-card hits the counter ... unless someone else can
suggest a less expensive alternative that is of comparable
functionality to the MT.)

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 6:23:31 PM10/3/05
to

eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Are you inventing excuses here for some reason, or are you serious?
> Because professional photographers have solved this problem by the
> simple expedient of buying as many CF cards as they can fill in a day
> (or whatever).

Serious as a heart attack. A 1 GB flash card can hold more photographs
than an active photographer can take in a month. A 1 GB flash card
records an hour of stereo audio at 48 kHz, 24-bit resolution. A little
difference there, don't you think?

> At night they make their double-copy to a pair of
> high-speed CF->HD devices. It takes a half hour or so (my experience)
> to handle about 10GB of data.

After spending a day in the sun at a festival stage, at night I soak in
the hot tub, have a nice dinner and go to bed. That half hour or so
isn't going to happen, at least not at what I get paid for these gigs.

> > I don't expect that a set of batteries will last for a whole weekend of
> > continuous recording, but I'd like to be able to run all day without
> > changing batteries and have them recharge overnight. That would be
> > acceptable.
>
> This is exactly what photographers do.

I don't remember cross-posting this to a photo newsgroup. Will a set of
batteries last a day in a recorder, and phantom power unit? You don't
know that, do you? I can manage to stick batteries in a charger before
I go to bed (though I'll bet some times I'll forget), but I don't want
to mess with flash cards and data.

> Actually I don't: no one I know brings a computer into the field, let
> alone the HD's. They are left elsewhere, if they are brought at all,
> and are usually powered by the mains in a hotel room or from a vehicle.

To me, anything away from home is "the field." But there are people who
set up a computer next to the PA console and record the show on it
(direct to the internal or an external hard drive).

> As for the phantom supply and/or pre-amp supply, presumably you already
> have a solution for that problem?

Only in knowing that for certain mics, I'd have to provide one, and I
don't have it already so I don't know about battery capacity.

> It is completely orthogonal to media, storage, etc.

That's a red herring if I ever smelled one. Of course it has nothing to
do with media, storage, etc, but it has everything to do with getting
the recording, which, also, do media, storage, and etc.

> Because said recorder is similar in price to (say) a PDaudio gizmo and
> a PDA, but with a vastly more convenient/robust user interface
> (firmware willing)?

Check your arithmetic, or your system engineering. If you want to talk
CoreSound products, you need the PDAudio Gizmo (PDAudio-CF), a PDA, a
Mic2496 (the mic preamp + A/D converter) and your choice of software. I
believe the M-Audio costs less, and it's all in one piece (with
exception of phantom power if you need more than what it provides.

> The "phantom power" issue is an absolute,
> complete, yawn because none of the microphones of interest to me need
> it

Well I don't care if you don't need it. I want it and my system isn't
complete without it. There microphones that I own, and some that I
might want to buy, that require it. This is Burger King and I want it
MY WAY. I don't want to be restricted because the manufacturer chose
not to adhere to an industry standard.

> and if one day I do need one, the pre-amp has it's own supply? All
> I need is a box that collects up the bits from a pre-amp, "displays"
> them to a pair of headphones, and saves them to a CF card.

Your needs are different than mine. That's no reason to argue with me
and suggest that I'm asking for something that's not necessary.

vdub...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 6:38:47 PM10/3/05
to
Mike,


With all due respect, I have two CF to HD devices (Wolverine and
Flashtrax) and think the photo guys have already sussed much of this
out. I took them both with 4 large cards rafting this summer for
shooting nonstop, took 40 gigs worth, and I wouldn't hesitate to use
the same set up for audio. Backing up the cards is fast. You can
yank one out of the recorder whenever you want, pop it in the
Wolverine, stick another card in, and then put the first in the stack
of blanks. My boxes are only 40 gig, but I'd have no qualms about
purchasing the 120 or larger versions and doing a remote using CF
cards.


BTW, an "active" photographer wouldn't take a month to fill a gig card.
More like an hour. : )

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 6:43:44 PM10/3/05
to
<vdub...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>BTW, an "active" photographer wouldn't take a month to fill a gig card.
> More like an hour. : )

Hey, I know some folks who take a month just to use both sides of a 2-sheet
film holder....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

eawck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 7:16:24 PM10/3/05
to
Mike Rivers wrote:

> eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Are you inventing excuses here for some reason, or are you serious?
> > Because professional photographers have solved this problem by the
> > simple expedient of buying as many CF cards as they can fill in a day
> > (or whatever).
>
> Serious as a heart attack. A 1 GB flash card can hold more photographs
> than an active photographer can take in a month. A 1 GB flash card
> records an hour of stereo audio at 48 kHz, 24-bit resolution. A little
> difference there, don't you think?

Canon 1DMkII ISO 400 raw images click in at about 7.5 - 9.5 megabytes
each. This "active photographer" filled 5 GB of cards in the last few
days, and I don't even get paid to do this; I've seen people fill
twice as much in one day. I own 10GB of cards; many professionals
I've spoken with have much more.

Are you saying that audio people are not like this?

> > At night they make their double-copy to a pair of
> > high-speed CF->HD devices. It takes a half hour or so (my experience)
> > to handle about 10GB of data.
>
> After spending a day in the sun at a festival stage, at night I soak in
> the hot tub, have a nice dinner and go to bed. That half hour or so
> isn't going to happen, at least not at what I get paid for these gigs.

Then buy more cards and do it even later. Again, this is SOP in
imaging, and would work fine for audio, unless someone can present
evidence to the contrary.

> > > I don't expect that a set of batteries will last for a whole weekend of
> > > continuous recording, but I'd like to be able to run all day without
> > > changing batteries and have them recharge overnight. That would be
> > > acceptable.
> >
> > This is exactly what photographers do.
>
> I don't remember cross-posting this to a photo newsgroup.

So? Think of it as a learning experience: maybe someone else can
teach you something.

> Will a set of
> batteries last a day in a recorder, and phantom power unit? You don't
> know that, do you? I can manage to stick batteries in a charger before
> I go to bed (though I'll bet some times I'll forget), but I don't want
> to mess with flash cards and data.

The operation is very simple. You insert a card. You push a button.
A few minutes later, the copier says "give me another card". Repeat
until you are done. You can eat your "nice dinner" while this is
happening.

> > Actually I don't: no one I know brings a computer into the field, let
> > alone the HD's. They are left elsewhere, if they are brought at all,
> > and are usually powered by the mains in a hotel room or from a vehicle.
>
> To me, anything away from home is "the field." But there are people who
> set up a computer next to the PA console and record the show on it
> (direct to the internal or an external hard drive).

To me, anything within a few hours of the electrical mains is "home".
No laptop in the field -- completely unnecessary, a deadweight and a
power suck of epic proportions. I thought you audio people dealt with
similar situations -- all that talk of batteries and the like. Thanks
for educating me.

> > As for the phantom supply and/or pre-amp supply, presumably you already
> > have a solution for that problem?
>
> Only in knowing that for certain mics, I'd have to provide one, and I
> don't have it already so I don't know about battery capacity.
>
> > It is completely orthogonal to media, storage, etc.
>
> That's a red herring if I ever smelled one. Of course it has nothing to
> do with media, storage, etc, but it has everything to do with getting
> the recording, which, also, do media, storage, and etc.

Yes, "getting the recording". But you are _already_ "getting the
recording" right now, am I correct? Therefore, you "have a solution",
do I speak falsely? The point is that this solution, whatever it may
be (you've been awfully vague), will _continue to work_ as your
"phantom supply and/or pre-amp supply", whether you record onto CF
cards or just scratch the bits onto birch bark.

> > Because said recorder is similar in price to (say) a PDaudio gizmo and
> > a PDA, but with a vastly more convenient/robust user interface
> > (firmware willing)?
>
> Check your arithmetic, or your system engineering. If you want to talk
> CoreSound products, you need the PDAudio Gizmo (PDAudio-CF), a PDA, a
> Mic2496 (the mic preamp + A/D converter) and your choice of software. I
> believe the M-Audio costs less, and it's all in one piece (with
> exception of phantom power if you need more than what it provides.

Read what I wrote: I already have a preamp/ADC. All I need is the
container into which the bits are stored. Remove the Mic2496 from the
price, and you get into MT price regions +- slop.

> > The "phantom power" issue is an absolute,
> > complete, yawn because none of the microphones of interest to me need
> > it
>
> Well I don't care if you don't need it.

Yo, dude, you asked, I answered. If you don't like the answer, hey,
your problem, not mine.

eawck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 7:43:10 PM10/3/05
to
vdub...@earthlink.net wrote:

> With all due respect, I have two CF to HD devices (Wolverine and
> Flashtrax) and think the photo guys have already sussed much of this
> out. I took them both with 4 large cards rafting this summer for
> shooting nonstop, took 40 gigs worth, and I wouldn't hesitate to use
> the same set up for audio. Backing up the cards is fast.

You can get much faster these days:

http://www.eastgear.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=446

Generally speaking, the faster the copy, the more you can copy on a
single charge of the battery as the load is dominated by the disk
drive.

> You can
> yank one out of the recorder whenever you want, pop it in the
> Wolverine, stick another card in, and then put the first in the stack
> of blanks. My boxes are only 40 gig, but I'd have no qualms about
> purchasing the 120 or larger versions and doing a remote using CF
> cards.

The only qualms I have about HD devices are carrying them around with
me. They are heavy, for one. But worse is that the wrong bump at the
wrong time ... it is scary. Compare this to the CF card itself, which
appears to have no mass at all, and is almost indestructible:

http://news.designtechnica.com/article5140.html

vdub...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 8:11:14 PM10/3/05
to

eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The only qualms I have about HD devices are carrying them around with
> me. They are heavy, for one. But worse is that the wrong bump at the
> wrong time ... it is scary. Compare this to the CF card itself, which
> appears to have no mass at all, and is almost indestructible:
>


Actually, neither of mine are heavy at all, IMO. About the size of a
grilled cheese sandwich and as heavy as three of them.

And as far as bumps, well... I don't mind having just those to have to
treat a little delicately. It is 40 gig compared to the 1 of the
card and then I reuse the card. Can't have everything. I'm still
kissing the ground I don't have to allign anything anymore. I don't
feel like complaining about a $200 box that holds 40 gigs on batteries
that I shouldn't drop! : ) Actually they've been hauled around
in a backback for a year with nary a hiccup. Haven't tried knocking
on them while copying, though.


What's not to love?

Jonny Durango

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 12:41:56 AM10/4/05
to
vdub...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Mike,
>
>
> With all due respect, I have two CF to HD devices (Wolverine and
> Flashtrax) and think the photo guys have already sussed much of this
> out. I took them both with 4 large cards rafting this summer for
> shooting nonstop, took 40 gigs worth, and I wouldn't hesitate to use
> the same set up for audio. Backing up the cards is fast. You can
> yank one out of the recorder whenever you want, pop it in the
> Wolverine, stick another card in, and then put the first in the stack
> of blanks. My boxes are only 40 gig, but I'd have no qualms about
> purchasing the 120 or larger versions and doing a remote using CF
> cards.

I see your point, and for most people I think the "photographer method"
would work. But how then, would you record a 5 hour NON-STOP symphony or
musical festival or lecture series in 24/96 stereo, or even 16/48
stereo? Even if you had a flash card large enough, the MT has a 2GB
limit before you'd have to stop recording and there is no
auto-stop/auto-resume feature like on some of the higher-end devices.

Then again, I think 5 hour non-stop recordings that absolutely MUST be
done @ 24/96 are pretty rare.

>
>
> BTW, an "active" photographer wouldn't take a month to fill a gig card.
> More like an hour. : )
>

Yes but you can't take "snapshots" of audio....the same reason you won't
see videographers using the "photographer method".

vdub...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 1:00:54 AM10/4/05
to

Jonny Durango wrote:
> Then again, I think 5 hour non-stop recordings that absolutely MUST be
> done @ 24/96 are pretty rare.

Yes, and I think even M-Audio would say that that would be cause for a
different box. I think if it gets a few fixes it'll be a great unit
for the interview crowd, the sound capture folks, anyone recording live
events of more modest durations and sample rates. Maybe the kind with
intermissions? : )


I have a great set of camping cookware, but I don't break it out when
I'm not camping...


V

Lorin David Schultz

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 4:22:33 AM10/4/05
to
<ku...@nv.net> wrote:
>
> Check out <http://theultimatewireless.com/>


Wow. Combined mic and ifb with onboard recording? Wow.

I don't even want to know how much it costs.

--
"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

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 4:32:36 AM10/4/05
to
<eawck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...] The "phantom power" issue is an absolute, complete, yawn

> because none of the microphones of interest to me need it

Then you're part of a really small group of people who are not
interested in a really, really vast array of both desirable and commonly
used microphones. The phantom power issue would make it a total
non-starter for me. If I have to carry a mixer or preamp anyway, it
sorta defeats the point of having a pocket-sized recorder.

Lorin David Schultz

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 4:39:25 AM10/4/05
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> Any recording device that provides a low phantom voltage will
> therefore provide its owners with a lifetime of happy and unhappy
> experiences. If you really want to be sure, you'll always carry a
> standard phantom supply with you just in case.

No, if you really want to be sure, you buy a device that isn't crippled
right out of the box. You choose not to buy inferior kit.

If you record with condenser mics, the Microtrack is probably not a good
choice.

Martin Harrington

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 5:34:39 AM10/4/05
to
You're loosing the plot.
this group, (R.A.M.P.S), is predominantly a professional location recording
forum...using mixing equipment every day.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message
news:E6r0f.43$ir4.12@edtnps90...

Lorin David Schultz

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 6:50:44 AM10/4/05
to
"Martin Harrington" <len...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> You're loosing the plot.
> this group, (R.A.M.P.S), is predominantly a professional location
> recording forum...using mixing equipment every day.
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com

I'm not losing the plot at all, Martin.

First, please note that r.a.m.p.s. is not the only group to which this
discussion is being posted. I'm reading it on rec.audio.pro.

Second, I *do* location production sound (among other things), so I
understand where the device in question fits into the grand scheme, and
that is the crux of my point. If I have to carry a mixer or power
supply or ANY other device, I'm already past the point of there being
any benefit to a little pocket recorder. A little handheld recorder
*might* have useful applications, but *not* if you gotta start lugging
around peripherals to make it useable.

I'm saying that the MT is not really all that useful to an audio pro as
it presently stands, but that it could be handy in certain circumstances
if it worked well without peripherals.

R¤ €b€rt°•

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 7:05:32 AM10/4/05
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:50:44 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> schreef:


>I'm saying that the MT is not really all that useful to an audio pro as
>it presently stands, but that it could be handy in certain circumstances
>if it worked well without peripherals.

This is the same sort of gear that likes to flirt with the
''professional'' market as FCP, or a Edirol 4 track.
Great for Budget Bob & Discountboy, but from what i read in various
forums, more buggy then Windows ME.
I think Beta is not even the proper word in this case :-)

R

--
Http://www.xs4all.nl/~tuig/index.html

wildt®ax

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 7:20:36 AM10/4/05
to
I think the 24/96 isn´t flirting with the pro market. It´s the pros
that are trying to find the holy grail of portable audio in the 400$
segment. I don´t think that anyone in the consumer or prosumer segment
are going to complain about 30V phantom or TRS inputs etc.


frank.

Message has been deleted

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 10:04:14 AM10/4/05
to

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> At least the combination MT2496 + AKG C480B + capsule works perfect.

If the refrence that someone pointed to for that mic is correct (and
since it's an AKG document, I see no reason why it shouldn't be), while
the mic may work well for your application your definition of "perfect"
might not be the same as AKG's. But I guess you'll never know that
until you run into a circumstance where it isn't quite so perfect. In
the mean time, there's no reason why you can't or shouldn't use what
works for you.

But quit saying that it's right, because it isn't.

John Blankenship

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 11:13:49 AM10/4/05
to

Frank,

Even though your second sentence may be correct, your first sentence is
wrong. Right at the head of the M-Audio page it lists:

"MicroTrack 24/96 - Professional 2-Channel Mobile Digital Recorder"

I think we're fully justified in challenging that assertion.

John Blankenship, C.A.S.
Indianapolis
(email: my initials at mw daht net)

fra...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 11:25:10 AM10/4/05
to
I would say the MT is as good as an SN Nagra. I think quieter, less
distortion from my tests with it and my experience with Nagra.

Frdz

Message has been deleted

eawck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 5:35:54 PM10/4/05
to
Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> If I have to carry a mixer or preamp anyway, it
> sorta defeats the point of having a pocket-sized recorder.

So if you "have to carry a mixer or pre-amp", you are suggesting that
the size of the recorder is therefore immaterial? Most people I know
what _everything_ to be as small as possible.

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 6:03:01 PM10/4/05
to

eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> So if you "have to carry a mixer or pre-amp", you are suggesting that
> the size of the recorder is therefore immaterial? Most people I know
> what _everything_ to be as small as possible.

I want the recorder to be big enough so that it won't slide off the
table if someone pulls on a cable. I'm not interested in a recorder
that I can sneak into a concert in my underwear.

eawck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 7:53:20 PM10/4/05
to
Mike Rivers wrote:

But wouldn't a light, small, recorder be better in that if it did slide
off the table it would still continue to record while dangling from its
cabling? In any case, my environment doesn't come with a table, let
alone a concert. But I am thankful that the needs of the bootleggers
are similar to mine.

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 7:56:31 PM10/4/05
to

But you don't want it to be so big that it takes two teamsters to carry the
transport box and another to carry the electronics unit?

Richard Crowley

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 7:53:14 PM10/4/05
to
"Mike Rivers" wrote ...

> I want the recorder to be big enough so that it won't slide off the
> table if someone pulls on a cable. I'm not interested in a recorder
> that I can sneak into a concert in my underwear.

I'm sure that Mr. Moskowitz wouldn't offer his generous return
policy on equipment if he thought you were concealing it inside
your undergarments! Eeeewww! LOL! :-)


pr...@prep.synonet.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 8:40:54 PM10/4/05
to
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> writes:

> Serious as a heart attack. A 1 GB flash card can hold more
> photographs than an active photographer can take in a month. A 1 GB
> flash card records an hour of stereo audio at 48 kHz, 24-bit
> resolution. A little difference there, don't you think?

Better boost you drugs then, a 1GB card is done in 30min-1hr
with a 1Ds. That is if you are not pushing your shooting rate. It
is not that big a deal for a morning session to use 2-3 4GB cards
per camera.


--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 9:29:11 PM10/4/05
to

pr...@prep.synonet.com wrote:

> Better boost you drugs then, a 1GB card is done in 30min-1hr
> with a 1Ds.

What language is this? Something about photography? When I was taking
photos, I took one photo and it was the right one. I guess today's
photographers have learned that it's better to shoot a lot first and
ask questions (like "which one do you like?") later.

> is not that big a deal for a morning session to use 2-3 4GB cards
> per camera.

Obviously this photographer has a better paying gig than someone who
volunteers at a folk festival.

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 9:30:56 PM10/4/05
to

eawck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> But wouldn't a light, small, recorder be better in that if it did slide
> off the table it would still continue to record while dangling from its
> cabling?

Some people can come up with a silly answer for anything. Will the
plugs stay in?

Martin Harrington

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 10:33:54 PM10/4/05
to
You see, that's the difference between RAMPS members, (location recordists),
and the other groups.
We are often in situations where we are likely to have the recorder and/or
mixer fall and be dangling by the cables, or worse.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128475856....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Marty

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 1:21:20 AM10/5/05
to

EXCUSE ME!!!!!

I've been reading this thread with great amusement, and though I love a
good laugh and a spirited technical discussion, I think we need to put
this little machine in perspective!

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.

Look, if your recording requires the performance and quality of true
condenser (48V Phantom) mics, you don't want to use these preamps
anyway. You can't really expect them to do justice to a high quality
mic. If you're going to record an entire weekend show, then your setup
shouldn't restrict you to this size recorder - unless you are doing a
bootleg recording, in which case I (personally) have no sympathy.

I see this as a well priced pocket size recorder with better than
average specs and capabilities suitable for wild sound, transcription,
demo tracks, interviews, even backup recordings. I don't see it
replacing a Nagra-S, an FR-2, a 722, etc.

Not that a true professional recorder at this size with sufficient power
to run two 48V Ph mics for 8 hours on a single charge to a single memory
device wouldn't be great, but this product was just not designed with
that in mind. It is what it is. If you can make it work for you, great.
If not, what's the point of trashing it for what it's not?

Marty Atias
ATS Communications
http://ATSComms.com

Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 2:51:28 AM10/5/05
to
R¤ €b€rt°• wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:50:44 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
> <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> schreef:
>
>
>> I'm saying that the MT is not really all that useful to an audio pro as
>> it presently stands, but that it could be handy in certain circumstances
>> if it worked well without peripherals.
>
>
> This is the same sort of gear that likes to flirt with the
> "professional" market as FCP, or a Edirol 4 track.


Having recently spent some time with FCP5, I must beg to differ on that
part of your argument.


Zigakly

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 2:57:13 AM10/5/05
to
> I wouldn't directly discourage anyone from buying one of these, I just
> want to emphasize that it's not just about sound quality. Media,
> operating convenience, continous operating time, and necessary
> accessories should be important considerations. If all I wanted to do
> was record a concert from my seat or record my band's rehearsal, I'm
> sure it would do just fine as long as the batteries hold out and you
> have enough gigabytes to store the show. But if, in order to record a
> whole weekend event, I have to carry a computer, a power supply for the
> recorder, a mic preamp or phantom power supply, and who knows what
> else, I'm going to look for a more completely integrated solution.

"portable recorder" and "completely integrated solution" are two phrases
that have never belonged in the same sentence, except in prayer. Now that
there has been over a decade of online forums illustrating in graphic detail
the excruciating desires of an undeniably viable market for such devices,
and a mainstream manufacturer has stuck its nose out to address the issue to
a moderate-yet-unprecidented degree at a breakthrough price, I think it's a
little cheap to discredit it for not being the messiah of portable
recorders. The Wright Brothers' plane wasn't exactly the Concorde either,
yet it got a more than mediocre reception.

> > Hmmm, I wonder if you could use a Microtrack with a wireless system?

Talk about unreasonable expectations... name one analog wireless interface
worth recording...


Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 2:59:22 AM10/5/05
to
Mike Rivers wrote:
> pr...@prep.synonet.com wrote:
>
>> Better boost you drugs then, a 1GB card is done in 30min-1hr
>> with a 1Ds.
>
> What language is this? Something about photography? When I was taking
> photos, I took one photo and it was the right one. I guess today's
> photographers have learned that it's better to shoot a lot first and
> ask questions (like "which one do you like?") later.


I used to consider myself lucky if I got one real keeper shot off a roll
of 36 (which my motor drive could eat in about five seconds had I held
the button down that long.)

On a backpacking trip or with color my standards were quite different...


Marty

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 3:00:53 AM10/5/05
to

Let me add that (though I have not yet seen the actual unit) that record
level control can't be terribly convenient, so wouldn't it be best to
put the MT behind a MixPre or 302 mixer at line level?

Lorin David Schultz

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 3:47:44 AM10/5/05
to
"Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>
> At least the combination MT2496 + AKG C480B + capsule works perfect.


No, it doesn't. It may *work* but not "perfectly."

My power amp will work with only 90VAC, but it hums very slightly and
doesn't deliver full power. The fact that I get decent playback through
the monitors means it works though, right?

Same thing in your situation. It works, and may work well enough for
your intended application, but you are NOT getting full performance from
your mics.

Lorin David Schultz

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 4:00:47 AM10/5/05
to
<eawck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So if you "have to carry a mixer or pre-amp", you are suggesting that
> the size of the recorder is therefore immaterial?

Well, not "immaterial" but certainly "less significant." If I'm
stuffing the recorder in actor's back pocket or something, size and
weight are really high on the list of priorities. If I have to take a
"kit" anyway, it doesn't make all THAT much difference whether the
recorder is the size of a pack of smokes or as big as a book. Either is
easy enough to move around from place to place.

> Most people I know what _everything_ to be as small as possible.

Sure, but that's only one consideration among many. Reliability,
operational convenience, flexibility of applications and suitability to
task are obviously just as important. Sometimes you trade off a little
of one to gain a little of another. I'm willing to sacrifice a little
size and weight penalty to get greater reliability, flexibility and
utility.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 7:26:07 AM10/5/05
to

Zigakly wrote:

> "portable recorder" and "completely integrated solution" are two phrases
> that have never belonged in the same sentence, except in prayer.

Well, we didn't used to have to think of putting them in the same
sentence, because solutions were much better integrated than they were
today. Nobody ever thought to copy a reel of tape to some other medium
while on the gig so he could use the tape again the next day. Nor did
we have to pay $100 for an hour's worth of tape to record a stereo
program. (OK, so we did, for 2" tape)

The 1/4" input jacks (if the're good jacks, not a sloppy fit or with a
weak spring - any comments on this yet?) are an improvement over mini
jacks. I'm willing to accept using an adapter. But as far as the
phantom powering voltage, they could, and should have done better. I've
been accustomed to using an external front end with other recorders
that I've owned, but I'd like to be abel to get away from that.

As I've said, there are plenty of choices among microphones that will
work to their full specified capability from a 30V power supply. It
just bothers me that there are also many that I have that I can't use
with that power.

As far as the bugs and annoyances, either they'll be fixed or they
won't. I'm not one to buy something as soon as it comes out,
particularly if it's not quite right. I'll wait to see if things get
fixed, and during that time perhaps either I'll resolve to live with
the problems or I'll cool off on the idea.

> Now that
> there has been over a decade of online forums illustrating in graphic detail
> the excruciating desires of an undeniably viable market for such devices,
> and a mainstream manufacturer has stuck its nose out to address the issue to
> a moderate-yet-unprecidented degree at a breakthrough price, I think it's a
> little cheap to discredit it for not being the messiah of portable
> recorders.

It's actually a pretty small market. The vast portion of the population
is not interested in recording and is happy to let someone else do it.
However, there is a substantial portion of that small market (as well
as the even smaller market that I fall in) that have really top shelf
microphones and have always carried their own preamps. They tend to be
more gearheads than audio professionals, and aren't likely to give up
their $2,000 preamps even if they could plug their $2,000 mics directly
into a recorder. So maybe it's not such a bad decision on the part of
the marketing department. But they could be a little more up front
about it, and at least picked a voltage that has been considered a
"standard" in the past - like 24V.

M-Audio deals on many levels, but they continue to exist because they
have always pushed the envelope on the low end of the scale - good MIDI
interfaces and synchronization devices at a low cost, a good General
MIDI synth card at a low cost, inexpensive MIDI and audio interfaces
connecting with USB and Firewire, low cost hardware to support the low
cost version of ProTools. They also make a couple of sound cards that
are sold in the consumer market and not to the MI market at all. And,
yes, they offer a lot of features for a little money.

> Talk about unreasonable expectations... name one analog wireless interface
> worth recording...

There are plenty of wireless microphone systems that are recorded every
day. But I didn't really understand the question that prompted this
comment.

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 8:25:42 AM10/5/05
to
In article <mYG0f.7565$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

Martin Harrington <len...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>You see, that's the difference between RAMPS members, (location recordists),
>and the other groups.
>We are often in situations where we are likely to have the recorder and/or
>mixer fall and be dangling by the cables, or worse.

Of course. That's why the Tuchel connectors on my Nagra lock into place
with a screw-down ring.

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 8:36:06 AM10/5/05
to
In article <3qhlorF...@individual.net>,

Chel van Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>I want the equipment small, light and simple enough so I can collect it
>quickly after a concert and keep it with me, so we don't need extra
>personel to guard the expensive equipment. With the MT2496, microphones,
>and the JVC MC500E flash camcorder, together 800gr, this is quite easy.

Take the other extreme. With the Ampex, you don't have to guard it,
because it's too heavy to steal.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Marty

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 12:51:32 PM10/5/05
to
EXCUSE ME!!!!!

I've been reading this thread with great amusement, and though I love a
good laugh and a spirited technical discussion, I think we need to put
this little machine in perspective!

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.

Look, if your recording requires the performance and quality of true
condenser (48V Phantom) mics, you don't want to use these preamps
anyway. You can't really expect them to do justice to a high quality

mic. Wouldn't you want to put this recorder behind limething like a 302
mixer and feed line level?

If you're going to record an entire day's show, then your setup

shouldn't restrict you to this size recorder - unless you are doing a
bootleg recording, in which case I (personally) have no sympathy.

I see this as a well priced pocket size recorder with better than
average specs and capabilities suitable for wild sound, transcription,
demo tracks, interviews, even backup recordings. I don't see it
replacing a Nagra-S, an FR-2, a 722, etc.

Not that a true professional recorder at this size with sufficient power
to run two 48V Ph mics for 8 hours on a single charge to a single memory
device wouldn't be great, but this product was just not designed with
that in mind. It is what it is. If you can make it work for you, great.
If not, what's the point of trashing it for what it's not?

Marty Atias
ATS Communications
http://ATSComms.com


Mike Rivers wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>
>>Would you agree that the
>>Microtrack sounds pretty good for a less-than-$500 device?
>
>
> There are plenty of things that cost less than $500 that will make a
> good recording, given a good source. I don't think anyone has (yet)
> quibbled with the MicroTrack about its ability to record. It might be a
> great choice for someone who has never owned a portable recorder and is
> just getting geared up.
>
> For those of us who are looking for a replacement for what might be our
> third or fourth generation portable recording equipment, we're looking
> for other than its ability to make good piano recordings.


>
> I wouldn't directly discourage anyone from buying one of these, I just
> want to emphasize that it's not just about sound quality. Media,
> operating convenience, continous operating time, and necessary
> accessories should be important considerations. If all I wanted to do
> was record a concert from my seat or record my band's rehearsal, I'm
> sure it would do just fine as long as the batteries hold out and you
> have enough gigabytes to store the show. But if, in order to record a
> whole weekend event, I have to carry a computer, a power supply for the
> recorder, a mic preamp or phantom power supply, and who knows what
> else, I'm going to look for a more completely integrated solution.
>
>

>>Hmmm, I wonder if you could use a Microtrack with a wireless system? Could
>>you plug a lav into the Microtrack, and feed it's live output to a
>>transmitter, giving you a dropout free, isolated backup track, at a
>>recording resolution the same as the main recorder?
>
>
> Why wireless? I guess your intent is to use the MicroTrack as the mic
> preamp for both itself and the "main" recorder? Why not just connect
> them with a cable?
>
>
>>Would feeding the sound
>>through a Microtrack cause a delay in the delivery of the wireless signal to
>>the main mixer/recorder?
>
>
> Almost certainly - not because of the wireless transmission, but
> because of the throughput delay of the recorder - unless it has a
> "direct input monitor" mode. Someone who has one could check this out
> easily (unless they're feeding it from an externa A/D converter, in
> which case, according to Len's report, you don't get a monitor output).
>

hank alrich

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 6:32:30 PM10/5/05
to
Marty wrote:

> THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA OR
> ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!

Then maybe they shouldn't proclaim its prosfessionality right in their
own marketing blather.

Your caps key is stuck; dither.

--
ha

Jonny Durango

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 8:10:32 PM10/5/05
to
Marty wrote:
> THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA
OR > ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!

That doesn't mean they can call it a 24-bit recorder with SPDIF and 48V
phantom, when the SPDIF doesn't work properly nor will it do 24-bits and
there is only 30V of phantom.

To repeat the some of the last words of a very close friend who was
complaining of the terrible stroganof @ the hospital, "You can call it
whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true."

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

Bob Cain

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 4:07:39 AM10/6/05
to

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> Same thing in your situation. It works, and may work well enough for
> your intended application, but you are NOT getting full performance from
> your mics.

It is very possible that the only effect the lower voltage
has is to reduce the max SPL before distortion. Within that
lower limit the mic can well offer full performance. Most
circuits I've looked at most definitely will.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Message has been deleted

R¤ €b€rt°•

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 6:18:26 AM10/6/05
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:21:20 GMT, Marty <Ma...@atscomms.com> schreef:


>THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA OR
>ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!

Your caps lock is on.

--
Http://www.xs4all.nl/~tuig/index.html

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 7:00:53 AM10/6/05
to

Marty wrote:

> THE MICROTRACK IS NOT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO BE A SCALED DOWN DEVA OR
> ANY OTHER HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL AUDIO RECORDER!

True, but it's being advertised to a "professional" segment of the
market. Pros have used non-pro equipment in their work for as long as
it's been available, but they know what it will do and what it won't
do. It's important for anyone attracted to the good features of this
recorder understand what it doesn't do so they aren't surprised to
discover features that are important to them (and implied in the
available published data) aren't really there, or aren't there in the
way that we have come to expect.

> 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.

Right - and when you compare them, you see what the differences are. If
those differences are important to your work, you can't use it.
Manufacturers, however, don't advertise "non-features" so it's up to
the customers and the reviewers to discover and reveal them. Some call
it "false advertising" while others just say "no thanks, it's not ready
for me yet."

> Look, if your recording requires the performance and quality of true
> condenser (48V Phantom) mics, you don't want to use these preamps
> anyway. You can't really expect them to do justice to a high quality
> mic.

Why not? I have no reservations about using an inexpensive Mackie mixer
for its preamps when that's a convenient thing to do. I don't expect
top quality built into a $500 recorder, but Mackie quality would
certainly be reasonable these days. I haven't read of any serious
deficiencies in the sound or noise level of the preamps (though maybe
I've let the phantom power voltage narrow my view) but no matter how
good they are, they aren't usable with mics that I already own.

> If you're going to record an entire weekend show, then your setup
> shouldn't restrict you to this size recorder

Maybe, maybe not. It's not really a matter of size, but of the number
of units required to make the recording. If you have to add an outboard
mic preamp, that's another unit (larger than the recorder), another
power supply or power cord, and another pair of cables. Not a big deal,
but more stuff to carry, find space for, connect, and fail.

> I see this as a well priced pocket size recorder with better than
> average specs and capabilities suitable for wild sound, transcription,
> demo tracks, interviews, even backup recordings. I don't see it
> replacing a Nagra-S, an FR-2, a 722, etc.

Nor do I. And you probably get more than 1/5 of a Sound Devices 422 for
1/5 the cost. But sometimes what you don't get is what you really need.
If it was a $600 recorder, could they afford to put 48V phantom
powering in it? Maybe. But would it cost another $100 to make the
S/PDIF input go to the monitor? Or what's the deal with 16 bits? Is it
only 16-bit when going in to the digital input? I forget. Has anyone
measured the effective number of bits based on actual dynamic range?

> It is what it is. If you can make it work for you, great.
> If not, what's the point of trashing it for what it's not?

I agree. And I don't intend to trash it, but I will defend my reasons
for not needing one and attempt to make it clear why I have those
reasons.

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 9:33:00 PM10/6/05
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>I wouldn't directly discourage anyone from buying one of these, I just
>want to emphasize that it's not just about sound quality. Media,
>operating convenience, continous operating time, and necessary
>accessories should be important considerations. If all I wanted to do
>was record a concert from my seat or record my band's rehearsal, I'm
>sure it would do just fine as long as the batteries hold out and you

>have enough gigabytes to store the show. ...

Most of our customers fall into two classes: one wants a simple recorder
that's sound better and is more reliable than an MiniDisc recorder, and
that they can slip into their pocket to record a concert or a
rehearsal. MicroTrack 24/96 meets their needs very well and at a very
acceptable price.

The other wants a portable recorder that provides truly professional
24-bit sound quality, to record a concert, rehearsal, ambience or Foley.
For them, PDAudio coupled with Mic2496 does the job. For the improved
performance, they're willing to pay a higher price than the MicroTrack
24/96.

> ...But if, in order to record a whole weekend event, I have to carry a


>computer, a power supply for the recorder, a mic preamp or phantom
>power supply, and who knows what else, I'm going to look for a more
>completely integrated solution.

Well, with PDAudio hosted on a PDA that has a USB interface (e.g., the
Toshiba PDAs), simply hook up a USB hard drive and one can record for as
many hours as the hard drive will hold. Who says that you must use
flash memory cards?

I know that you (Mike Rivers) don't like using computers or PDAs for
recording, so I expect that this approach won't be for you. But lots of
people are becoming perfectly comfortable with this new technology.


(Visit us at AES, booth 939!)


--
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

Marky A

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 9:40:37 PM10/6/05
to
I would like to point out a misconception about the MicroTrack. Thought
this doesn't seem to be documented, I was able to operate the device
while it was attached to the charger.

To do this,

Plug in the USB to the Microtrack

It will boot up and start to charge

Press the DELETE button, it will boot and be fully functional.

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 10:00:31 PM10/6/05
to

Chel van Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:

>Today I made, as promissed, some real recordings with the Microtrack.
>...
>Hall was not very quiet, some noise from airconditioners and outside.
>Piano bench needs fixing. Piano (Sauter) and acoustics were not
>perfect.

Thanks for the recording.

I hear a bit of hiss at low levels. MicroTrack 24/96 mic pre? Or is
that the air conditioning?

I also hear an upper bass hollowness and a low level one-note-boom.
Room? Mics?

Gotta get that bench fixed!

Message has been deleted

Mike Rivers

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 6:22:25 AM10/7/05
to

Len Moskowitz wrote:

> Most of our customers fall into two classes: one wants a simple recorder
> that's sound better and is more reliable than an MiniDisc recorder, and
> that they can slip into their pocket

> The other wants a portable recorder that provides truly professional


> 24-bit sound quality, to record a concert, rehearsal, ambience or Foley.

And then there's me, who would be perfectly happy with a 16-bit
recording. The recorder part is easy. It's what goes into it and what
it comes out on that I'm fussy about. With good mics into a decent
preamp, you can make a good recording. With a noisy preamp or the wrong
mic, you can make a pristine 24-bit recording of something you don't
want.

> I know that you (Mike Rivers) don't like using computers or PDAs for
> recording, so I expect that this approach won't be for you. But lots of
> people are becoming perfectly comfortable with this new technology.

Mostly, I think by now you understand my desire for as close to a
one-box solution as possible. I don't want extra cables, extra power
supplies, extra batteries, and I don't want to have to be my own system
integrator for something as (formerly) straightforward as a recorder.

Martin Harrington

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 6:38:57 PM10/7/05
to
Mike
I don't understand...If pristine recordings and a single box solution are so
important to you, why quibble about the M-track and just get a SD 722?
To my eyes, it looks like a much better solution.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128680545.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...