On 29 Sep 2005 17:59:28 -0700, "RD Jones" wrote:


Jonny Durango wrote:

My feelings exactly.....great product with great potential, but I get
the feeling it was pushed out the door too early. I also wouldn't be
surprised if M-Audio lost a lot of good engineers when it was acquired
by Avid, although I couldn't confirm this.

-------------------8-------------------------------
rd

-- Hmm, this was the way I've thinging of this the last night, too...
wondering if nowadays marketing was the most important department
instead of engineering and quality assurance ones. For instance, it
would cost nothing if they stated that given the dimensions of the
device, the maximum voltage of phantom power was 30V and for some
microphone models, an external supply was needed. Instead, they simply
stated 48V -- one of phantom power standards -- and look what they've
done. Now this _is_ bad because now their specs are not conforming to
the real capabilities of the device and under circumstances, it may be
suable -- I'm serious. This is not the way anybody ought sell a
professional product, but unfortunately, I've seen such things
elsewhere. What I want is much less marketing and more engineering and
QA, and especially, a serious approach to technical documentation, my
dear manufacturers.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Isn't this really a moot argument.
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.
It's amazing how this group loses the point of the original statement so
easily.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chel van Gennip wrote:

With current technology I don't see any reason for such a high phantom
voltage or power.

Are you suggesting that we should be prepared to buy new microphones to
go with our new low-powered recorders? And if so, that's likely to
limit our choices. We may not like what's available.

Besides that many (most?) microphones are designed to
work well with a wide range of voltages e.g. 9-52V.

Some, yes. I'm not convinced by your statement that many or most are. I
know that I have at least three here that won't work at 30V, at least
not to their full level of performance.

In this world it is
not strange to use a design that will work and has benefits.

It's unfortunately becoming stranger to provide backward compatability,
and that's what this is about. No problem for people with plenty of
money to spend, and no problem for those with no previous investment.
But there are others to consider.

BTW, the IEC
standard will cost about 1W power, that is quite a lot for a small
battery
driven recorder.

Correct, for a pair of worst case mics, and that's indeed a concern.
It's been suggested that one could use an external phantom power supply
to accommodate mics that the Micro Trak won't power. This partially
defeats the advantage of self-containd mic power since it's another
box, another set of batteries, and another pair of cables and
connectors for the signal to go through. If I had to use external power
I'd rather have a box (or belt) with D-cells to get enough current to
power the mics and recorder, and make sure it will keep running for the
whole gig. A Nagra uses a bundle of D-cells, but it will run all day on
them. And while it won't fit in a jacket pocket, it won't easily get
yanked by a cable and fall off the table.

Most probably a negative.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"-¦-R?b?rto¤" wrote in message
...
On 29 Sep 2005 13:16:54 -0700, schreef:

digidesign owns m-audio now. or does it?

It does. But i'm not sure if that is positive, or negative.

R

RD Jones wrote:

The mics I used as examples that wouldn't work well
(or at all) with the 30v are old out-of-production
models and it's reasonable to assume that very few
might actually be used with the MT.

This is true. There are a small handful of us who are looking for a
replacement for whatever portable reocrder we're using now (with the
mics we have now). However, this includes the "taper" crowd, who often
have very good mics that require full 48V power. I've been known to use
my KM84s with my Jukebox 3, but with an outboard preamp ahead of it.

But the majority of the potential customers will be people who don't
presently own any decent mics or any mics at all. They won't be
accessorizing it with $1000 Shoepps mics, they'll be looking at the
Audio Technica stereo mics or something like that. M-Audio sells mics
now, so maybe they have something upscale from the mini mic that they
provide with the Micro Trak.

What bothers me most is not specifically M-Audio's design, but that the
buyers will need to know one more thing that they shouldn't have to
worry about. Andy any educating that M-Audio might attempt is going to
look like they're making excuses for their product. Mackie's powered
mixers supplied 15V for mic powering. It was in the manuals and slick
spec sheets, and I don't know that anyone ever asked about it.

During the short time that I was working for Mackie, I got them to be a
sponsor at the Folk Alliance conference that year. I was manning the
Mackie booth and someone came up to me saying she had one of those
Mackie powered mixers, and asked why her new mic that was highly
recommended didn't sound very good with it. She didn't even know the
model mic she had, but she pulled it out of her backpack - a Neumann
KSM105. I explained phantom powering to her, told her that her mixer
wasn't a good match for her mic, and recommended that she get an
outboard power supply. Unlike your typical r.a.p. reader, she didn't
get indignant, thanked me for the honest non-marketing answer, and a
month or so later, I got an e-mail message from her saying that she got
the Audio Technica power supply that I suggested and was really pleased
with her mic and mixer.

So, sure, it's possible to educate people, but you can't expect all of
them to take it so well.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:00:15 -0700, Jonny Durango wrote:

LOL! Here's an original photo showing the 48V switch

http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/F...r_files/90.jpg

Thanks cmoorevt!

They probably call it '48v' because it would confuse the hell out
of many people if it said '30v'.
'48v' has become synonymous with 'phantom power'.

For me though, it's very irritating as I was thinking of getting one. I
now don't know if any of my mics will work properly with it.

I forget if it was this thread or another one that someone posted a
picture of the mt w/ switch marked "48V" but they've apparently changed
that.
http://www.m-audio.com/images/global...ck_UG_EN01.pdf
scroll to page 6

It's very ambiguous: they don't say anywhere in the manual or any of
the marketing material 30 or 48v, just phantom power.
"Phantom power for powering condenser microphones"
I guess it doesn't really matter... but it does make it seem a lot
cheaper.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:08:08 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Edi Zubovic" wrote ...
--- I'm following this thread with interest. Now I am thinking about
this issue and my opinion is that microphones should be able to work
OK at 30 V if designed properly

Maybe you're thinking only of electret-capsule microphones,
not externally-polarized ones?

and, will the Microtrack 24/96 be
able, without major design changes, to supply full 48 V to 2
microphones given its batteries? --

Seems dubious. If I had the choice, I'd rather have longer battery
life and 30v of phantom. If I want to use the good mics that require
48v, I'll likely use something a bit more substantial to record on.

Seems to me the objections here are mainly over the "false-
advertising" where M-Audio apparently thought that "48v"
was just a *name* rather than the spec for phantom power.

I don't believe that, I think they know the specs very well.
They've been making and selling audio products for years, they've
apparenly made a lot of money at it. I've had no problem researching
the 48V Phantom Power spec with nothing more advanced than Google,
surely they can too. Perhaps there's some official spec on it that you
can pay for, but you don't need that to know the source voltage should
actually be 48V +/- 10 percent, or even (and easily done) 5 percent.
Having it at 30V (37 percent low) clearly saves cost, and also extends
rated battery life, which even more people would complain about if
that were too short, or if it were 'wrong' on the spec sheet. It's in
their favor to use the lowest voltage that "powers all the mics in
some guy's closet", and I have no doubt they intentionally designed it
that way.

Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced (FWIW, I was
apparently the first on RAP to discover this, and I was surprised Arny
hadn't already found it). The output could at least be claimed to be
"impedance balanced" (both + and - have the same "driving" impedance
to ground) but the inputs are clearly not balanced. The "+" input
detects signal, the "-" input has a resistor to ground which does
nothing except provide a return path for a balanced transformer
output.

Many manufacturers do technically sleazy things to save money on
products, especially in the "semi-pro" product range. This is not a
surprise, and it's almost not a dissapointment - a cynical person (pr
perhaps even a "realist") learns to expect such things. If you want
"True ISO-Rated 48-Volt Phantom Power[TM]" you have to spend more, in
batteries as well as up-front product cost.


It does show some bone-headedness on their part (and their
goofy "where the needle lands" response just made it worse.)

If they had just correctly called it 30v phantom power, we
would be back concentrating on the real issues. But this is
Usenet where we will flog any topic long past its due.

I like the 'freedom' of Usenet that we can discuss these things,
even though it gives tr**ls the opportunity to make dozens of useless,
insulting posts a day. Plonk at will.

Kayte wrote:
I forget if it was this thread or another one that someone posted a
picture of the mt w/ switch marked "48V" but they've apparently changed
that.
http://www.m-audio.com/images/global...ck_UG_EN01.pdf
scroll to page 6

It's very ambiguous: they don't say anywhere in the manual or any of
the marketing material 30 or 48v, just phantom power.
"Phantom power for powering condenser microphones"
I guess it doesn't really matter... but it does make it seem a lot
cheaper.


The original link I posted still say "48v phantom power for
studio-quality microphones."

http://www.m-audio.com/images/global...005Catalog.pdf

I guess they don't consider the CMC6 or KM84 studio quality.

--

Jonny Durango

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

Chel van Gennip wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:20 +0200, Martin Harrington wrote:


Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this
thing? We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.


I am.


Yep, me too! Unless of course you'd like to provide me w/ a sonosax or
cooper to prevent such an audio atrocity from occuring =)

--

Jonny Durango

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

Martin Harrington wrote:
Isn't this really a moot argument.
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.

I'd like a portable recorder that I can plug two good mics directly
into and record minimalist stereo. I used to do that with a TASCAM
portable DAT before it died, and a Nagra before that.

Now, technology has gone awry - they've given us a neat, portable
recording device that should be capable of making recordings of at
least Nagra quality, but they made it so small that they had to put
useful buttons on the sides where they're difficult to find. And for
the sake of size and weight, reduced its power supply so that it only
runs a few hours on a set of batteries and won't power perfectly good
microphones.

If you have to carry a mixer, who cares how small and light your
recorder is (within reason, of course).

"Mike Rivers" writes:

Martin Harrington wrote:
Isn't this really a moot argument.
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.

I'd like a portable recorder that I can plug two good mics directly
into and record minimalist stereo. I used to do that with a TASCAM
portable DAT before it died, and a Nagra before that.

Now, technology has gone awry - they've given us a neat, portable
recording device that should be capable of making recordings of at
least Nagra quality, but they made it so small that they had to put
useful buttons on the sides where they're difficult to find. And for
the sake of size and weight, reduced its power supply so that it only
runs a few hours on a set of batteries and won't power perfectly good
microphones.

If you have to carry a mixer, who cares how small and light your
recorder is (within reason, of course).

I agree with this. I still find myself using minidisc (PCM mode) when I need
a portable recorder. It is small, has removeable media, and has a nice remote
with level meters. I use electret mics (AT853, Senn MKE2, AKG CK93 capsules),
so I can power these with a simple "battery box" using a 9V battery. I'm
thinking of moving to the microtrack or the Edirol R1, but I'm not really in a
hurry.

Richard

Jonny Durango wrote:

I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as
"well the mic makes sound, so there's no problem." Unless we raise a
fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.

They're aiming at a market that will be satisfied if "the mics make
sound" with it. And I doubt this can be fixed in firmware.

--
ha

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

"Jonny Durango" wrote:

I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as "well the mic
makes sound, so there's no problem."
Unless we raise a fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.

So, vote with your wallet. Don't buy it.

Just say No to bad gear.

Thank you. And nevermind that in marketing it started out as somebody's
"affordable" wet dream. Leave crap on the shelf.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

I'll put up with a little extra weight in exchange for less haywire and
the ability to use the mics that I want to use, not the subset of mics
that work at low power. And I'd like it to be less expensive than the
Sound Devices 722. A unit of that cost will never pay for itself around
here, and I don't have that kind of money to throw at a device that
I'll only use for my own amusement.

I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
the conversion in that little box is admirable.

--
ha

Also the Oktava 318 - works fine with my Behringer mixers (48v);
nothing at all when plugged into my Yamaha EM660 (15v). In all
fairness, Yamaha specifies the actual voltage when referring to phantom
power.

Don

Richard Crowley wrote:

If I had the choice, I'd rather have longer battery
life and 30v of phantom.

I haven't seen the schematic, but I suspect that the 30V phantom power
doesn't save batteries as much as it saves pennies (=parts), and that's
why they made it that way.

If I want to use the good mics that require
48v, I'll likely use something a bit more substantial to record on.

Well, me too, but at this point we have to spend about twice as much as
the MT (thinking Marantz PMD671 here) and I don't know any more about
that than I do about the MT at this point. And to get a hard disk that
I want rather than flash card for storage, we're talking $1600 or so
for an Edirol R4 (though that does give 4 channels) or $1000 more yet
for a Sound Devices. So pricewise, the MicroTrack looks mighty
attractive.

Seems to me the objections here are mainly over the "false-
advertising"

That's what the uproar is about (this isn't unusual when it comes to
high tech product marketing) but still, it does limit the choice of
microphones without having to add another box (and another power cord
or set of batteries). I'm willing to put up with adapters for the
cables, and I trust a two 1/4" jacks more than one stereo mini jack,
but It's still rather have XLR inputs for the sake of robustness. A lot
of board-mounted 1/4" jacks don't have a lot of grip, but then
board-mounted XLR-F connectors don't have latches, either. Like I said,
the technology has gone awry.

If they had just correctly called it 30v phantom power, we
would be back concentrating on the real issues.

No, we'd be bitching that 30V doesn't meet any standard for phantom
power.

But this is
Usenet where we will flog any topic long past its due.

Yup.

And that seems to be the level of the main "phantom" protagonists on this
thread.
As I said before, no "professional" recordist will be using this thing
without a front end.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Jonny Durango wrote:

I really hope M-Audio doesn't try to play this off as
"well the mic makes sound, so there's no problem." Unless we raise a
fuss about it though, I'm afraid they will.

They're aiming at a market that will be satisfied if "the mics make
sound" with it. And I doubt this can be fixed in firmware.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

snip

board-mounted XLR-F connectors don't have latches, either.

They do if you ( the manufacturer ) specify them !

It's often presumed by designers that most users prefer the convenience of
latch free disconnection.

Latches cost extra too.

Graham

Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced

Why did I start reading this group? ;-D

I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
them balanced.

Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
about the Tannoys....

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Has anyone checked the phantom resistors? If they were less
than the usual 6.8K then for the higher current mics you
could end up with as much or more voltage after the drop
across them.

48 V/10 mA/6.8K leaves 14 V at pins 2 and 3. 4250 Ohm
resistors would yield the same voltage at 30 V/10 mA.

Well yes, but only at 10mA. What about a mic that needs higher than 30V, at
low current?

Personally I think people are expecting too much from such a device. I'd
live with that limitation quite happily. However M-Audio *should* have
quoted 30V in the specs, not 48V.

MrT.

Martin Harrington wrote:
As I said before, no "professional" recordist will be using this thing
without a front end.

professionalism is subjective (hence the quotations) =P

--

Jonny Durango

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

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced


Why did I start reading this group? ;-D

I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
them balanced.

Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
about the Tannoys....


I hope I didn't give the impression that I think the xt capsule
bad.....i've never tried it, in fact I would guess it sounds great! At
least as good as it's older cousin the MK41......I just don't think
there's any need for 40k freq. response unless your audience is
something other than human beings....but that's a whole different
argument that has been addresses here about a billion times (see recent
thread of 192khz recording for a taste)....

btw, tannoys SUCK!!

j/k =)

ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010

--

Jonny Durango

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

snip

board-mounted XLR-F connectors don't have latches, either.


They do if you ( the manufacturer ) specify them !

It's often presumed by designers that most users prefer the convenience of
latch free disconnection.

Latches cost extra too.

Graham


My Denecke PS2 has latches....they're kind of a pain, but not as much as
having a connector fall out during recording!

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

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

Mr.T wrote:

Personally I think people are expecting too much from such a device.

You mean we shouldn't expect that a recorder that's more expensive than
a toy should work with any microphone that's more expensive than a toy?


I'd live with that limitation quite happily.

If that was the only limitation for me, I'd probably allow that
anything I'd use it for wouldn't require the best of my mics and I
could compromise. But with all the other things standing betweem me and
the recorder, I guess I shouln't worry about phantom powering and start
worrying about where gasoline prices are heading, or when we're going
to get the US troops out of Iraq.

I wich I had US gasoline prices. During Katrine we had to pay 1.50=80
per liter. That=B4s 1/4th of a gallon!!!!!

But yes, trading in 30V phantom power for a troop withdrawal from Iraq
sounds like a fair deal!!

Frank.

Jonny, the Schoeps "xt" isn't a capsule; it's a special version of the
CMC 6-- amplifier circuit with response up to ca. 50 kHz. The MK 41
(supercardioid/hypercardioid) which you mentioned is a type of Colette
capsule which could be used with that amplifier, but so could any other
Colette capsule (MK --) from the past six or eight years that has
"axial orientation" (i.e. not side-addressed).

Schoeps is a small company, and they're generally willing to consider
the custom manufacture of variant product types even in relatively
small quantities. Then they sometimes market these variant products to
the public if there seems to be enough interest. For many years Schoeps
has offered the option of setting the low-frequency rolloff of their
CMC-series amplifiers to something lower than the usual 20 or 30 Hz.
The way their microphones are built, it's just one part change and a
bit of custom engraving so that the amplifier can be correctly
identified. That option isn't requested very often, but it remains in
the catalog for those who may want it. The CMC 6xt, which is only a
little more complicated, was similarly designed in response to some
more recent customer requests, I believe from Japan, and was then
offered to the general public.

Neither variant represents, so far as I can tell, any official
statement of opinion by Schoeps that it's necessary, important or even
advantageous to record information beyond the range of human hearing.
They don't sell dogma; they sell microphones. On the contrary, they are
completely aware of the problems that out-of-band garbage can cause
(and unlike some folks, they're not in any denial about the fact that
most such signal information is garbage).

The CMC 6xt amplifier unfortunately doesn't provide a valid means for
testing whether or not (as some people suspect, while others merely
assume) it sounds better if we record such high-frequency information,
since its response in the top half-octave below 20 kHz isn't exactly
flat. When compared with the standard CMC 6-- amplifier it can still
sound slightly different on some material, even if one filters the
output of both amplifiers equally at, say, 20 kHz.

Another thing to consider is that by 20 kHz (or actually quite a bit
lower than that), condenser microphone capsules of anything like the
usual 3/4" diameter or larger can't possibly operate on the pressure
gradient principle any more. Thus no practical microphone capsule can
maintain its normal directional pattern up to such high frequencies. If
you look at the directional response of the Schoeps Colette capsules
that can be used on the CMC 6xt, no matter whether they are cardioid,
supercardioid, wide cardioid or omni in the range below 20 kHz, they
all have the same narrow directional characteristic in the region above
20 kHz. But that's typical of all studio condenser microphone capsules
regardless of the manufacturer--even a smaller microphone would have
these problems at such high frequencies.

--best regards

no. digidesign, m-audio and pinnacle are devisions of AVID.

frank.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:51:19 -0700, Jonny Durango
wrote:

Pawel Kusmierek wrote:
Remember the M-Audio Delta 44 (and 66, the model I have) that has
1/4" phone TSR I/O connections and was advertised as balanced, or
"balanced compatible" or some crap. It's NOT balanced


Why did I start reading this group? ;-D

I was planning to get a MicroTrack with Schoeps MK41/CMC6 xt mic for
recording and a Delta card with Tannoy Reveal 6D active monitors for
playback. I chose Delta specifically to make sure that the long
card-to-speaker connections won't pick up too much noise - I wanted
them balanced.

The 'impedance balancing' will actually work in this case
(presuming the Tannoys have real balanced inputs, which I would think
they do). While the signal output from the Delta only appears on the
"+" output, any noise picked up in the cable will appear on both the
"+" and the "-" lines equally, and will be cancelled in the input
circuit of the monitors.


Now, after just few days of reading the group, I learned that
MicroTrack is bad for many reasons, that it won't work with Schoeps,
that Schoeps MK41 is excellent but the xt amplifier is not, and that
the Delta is not balanced. OK, now I'm ready to hear something bad
about the Tannoys....

I was lurking in this group for about a year, then I bought an AKG
C3000, and within weeks started seeing a bunch of comments about what
a piece of crap it is... I have no doubt there were earlier such
comments, but I wasn't paying attention.

...

btw, tannoys SUCK!!

j/k =)

ps: I think Delta interfaces are great and still use my 1010

According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
dimmers while recording a live performance.

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:20 +0200, Martin Harrington wrote:

Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this
thing? We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.

I am.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

If I were to buy the M-Audio it would be because I don't need any other
piece of equipment to make a recording (except the mikes, of course.)

Has anyone here actually bought one of these, and is there a user review
somewhere?

Norm Strong

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

Martin Harrington wrote:
Isn't this really a moot argument.
Really.....who's going to put one of their mics directly into this thing?
We'd all be using a mixer as a front end.

I'd like a portable recorder that I can plug two good mics directly
into and record minimalist stereo. I used to do that with a TASCAM
portable DAT before it died, and a Nagra before that.

Now, technology has gone awry - they've given us a neat, portable
recording device that should be capable of making recordings of at
least Nagra quality, but they made it so small that they had to put
useful buttons on the sides where they're difficult to find. And for
the sake of size and weight, reduced its power supply so that it only
runs a few hours on a set of batteries and won't power perfectly good
microphones.

If you have to carry a mixer, who cares how small and light your
recorder is (within reason, of course).

That's a good point. I would not want to use this recorder with phantom
powered mikes. I'd probably opt for a pair of back electret mikes with 1/2"
diaphragms.

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...

According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
dimmers while recording a live performance.

The current M-audio online info does not say the Delta 66 has balanced
inputs; it does say the 1010 has balanced/unbalanced analog I/O.

Perhaps the info has changed since you bought your Delta 66.

By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not balanced?

Tim

Chel van Gennip wrote:
Well, when the Schoeps introduced the CMC ("Colette") series microphones,
they used about tripple the current specified in the phantom standard
then. But, "it worked with most pre-amps". That is not so differet from
the M-Audio concept, they supply less power to stretch battery life, but
it works with many (most?) microphones.

For you, maybe that's true. But both the Schoeps and the 48v.
Sennheisers will not perform to full specs with only 30v. For most of
us who do movie production sound (this is:
rec.arts.movies.production.sound, btw), these two makes of mics are used
in a huge percentage of our daily work.

There are many other 48v. mics (probably most) that will not perform
with full specs when underpowered, but that won't stop many amateurs
from thinking otherwise just because they "work."

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



wrote in message
...

Has anyone here actually bought one of these, and is there a user review
somewhere?

Yes, there's a thread here "More on Microtrack 24/96"; Len Moskovitz has
one, has made several comments, and has provided some of the first .wav
files he recorded (I believe he said these were recorded under
less-than-ideal conditions.)

Catch the thread fast if your news server deletes week-old posts..

Tim.

Mike Rivers wrote:
Now, technology has gone awry - they've given us a neat, portable
recording device that should be capable of making recordings of at
least Nagra quality, but they made it so small that they had to put
useful buttons on the sides where they're difficult to find. And for
the sake of size and weight, reduced its power supply so that it only
runs a few hours on a set of batteries and won't power perfectly good
microphones.

If you have to carry a mixer, who cares how small and light your
recorder is (within reason, of course).

Good points.

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



I think Kurt use the 302 for this manner


--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland


"John Blankenship" "John Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .
hank alrich wrote:
I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
the conversion in that little box is admirable.

Of course, if he recorded four tracks, only two of them used the preamps
on the 744T, so did he use those two plus two others, or did he send all
four channels from a mixer? If he used 2+2 what preamps did he use for
the other two and how did they compare with the on-board preamps?

Thanks,

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



matter

"Oleg Kaizerman" wrote in message
eenews.net...
I think Kurt use the 302 for this manner


--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland


"John Blankenship" "John Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .
hank alrich wrote:
I'm starting to work with sets of four tracks kurt A recorded to his
Sound Devices 744T at the Indian Valley Community Center Music Festival
we put on (and he mixed) back in August. The quality of the preamps and
the conversion in that little box is admirable.

Of course, if he recorded four tracks, only two of them used the preamps
on the 744T, so did he use those two plus two others, or did he send all
four channels from a mixer? If he used 2+2 what preamps did he use for
the other two and how did they compare with the on-board preamps?

Thanks,

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



On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:08:17 GMT, "Tim Martin"
wrote:


"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
.. .

According to Arny Krueger, who tested his Delta products after I
mentioned the 66 not being balanced, the 1010 really does have
balanced I/O. While my 66 is clearly not balanced, I've not had any
problems or complaints with it in actual use. OTOH I haven't used it
in common "extreme" circumstances such as around high-power light
dimmers while recording a live performance.

The current M-audio online info does not say the Delta 66 has balanced
inputs; it does say the 1010 has balanced/unbalanced analog I/O.

Perhaps it never spelled it out, but it seems it was implied, and
certainly I and probably many other people ASSUMED it was balanced.
I have two .pdf manuals on my hard disk, one delta66.pdf, 517k, dated
(at least on my computer) Sept. 29, 2000, the other
delta66_manual.pdf, 1,643k, dated 1/12/02. On page 3 of both files
under "Product Features & Specifications" it says: "4x4 analog I/O
accepts balanced or unbalanced connections on 1/4” TRS jacks." This
doesn't say one way or another whether it's balanced.
On page 23 (both files) it states: "Plug the outputs 1 & 2 of the
pre-amp into the Delta 66’s analog inputs 1 & 2. Both are balanced
outputs and inputs (respectively), so use a high quality TRS cable."
This appears to be an actual claim or statement that the Delta 66
inputs are balanced.

Perhaps the info has changed since you bought your Delta 66.

By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not balanced?

I think I was doing the mathematics on the connections on the DB-15
connector to the breakout box. Balanced connections for four in's and
four out's (eight balanced signals) would need 16 connections for
signals, and then a 17th line for a common ground for them all. This
led to using a screwdriver on the breakout box. I thought perhaps the
breakout box would have active circuitry to do the conversions between
balanced and unbalanced (this would be a Good Idea, and it may be
possible to make an actual PC board using SMT parts that fits in it
that does this). But then I saw it was all passive circuitry. Tracing
the PC board, and also sending and receinving signals to the tips and
rings of plugged-in TRS phono plugs, all confirmed that only the tips
send or receive signals.


Tim

the 744 can run about 6 hours with 2 phantom mikes
that's the butyl when you can hook normal internal battery( 6.6 amp)
the mt crap not only cant supply normal voltage but also die after 2.5 hours
and don't forget you need recharge it at least 6 hours to get another 2.5
while in 744 you just swap the batteries in few seconds .
bad desighn for people who dont care or just dont understand

--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland

will need another device. Even the 744 is about 8 times heavier than the
microtrack, but it will let you work about 1.5 hour with your microphones
on its battery.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

wildt®ax wrote:
But yes, trading in 30V phantom power for a troop withdrawal from Iraq
sounds like a fair deal!!

Frank.


Could we maybe get a new president too?

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

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

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...

On page 23 (both files) it states: "Plug the outputs 1 & 2 of the
pre-amp into the Delta 66's analog inputs 1 & 2. Both are balanced
outputs and inputs (respectively), so use a high quality TRS cable."
This appears to be an actual claim or statement that the Delta 66
inputs are balanced.

Yes, I'd agree; I'd interpret that to mean the inputs are balanced.

By the way, what caused you to notice the Delta 66 inputs were not
balanced?

I think I was doing the mathematics on the connections on the DB-15
connector to the breakout box. Balanced connections for four in's and
four out's (eight balanced signals) would need 16 connections for
signals, and then a 17th line for a common ground for them all.

Ah, that's a bit of a giveaway ... :-)

Tim