Cheaper, smaller, better looking AND, more importantly, with the
included mics it is possible to produce a relatively listenable
recording of a loud rock band in a small practice room without a
tremendous amount of distortion. Here's what the microtrack sounds like
(all tracks but premog):

http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/microtrack.mp3

I don't have the old recording I made in the same environment for the
R1 but it was so much worse, you could not hear anything it was just a
mass of distortion.

For me and my needs, the M-Audio Microtrack is the first and only
reasonably priced, small, portable device that can record loud bands at
close range and produce a listenable recording. The future has arrived!
Enjoy!!!!

Thanks,

Josh in Seattle

I was really hoping M-Audio wouldn't resort to this sort of "rave review"
spam bull****. I was willing to pony up the cash and beta test it, but now
I'm definitely waiting a few months for real user reviews to accumulate.

In article , says...

I was really hoping M-Audio wouldn't resort to this sort of "rave review"
spam bull****. I was willing to pony up the cash and beta test it, but now
I'm definitely waiting a few months for real user reviews to accumulate.



I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
these.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:05:55 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
these.

Yeah, but they're coming now and getting better. eventually they will
be worth buying. oh boy!

Chevdo wrote:

I'm getting the impression they're both flaky and I'll be waiting at least a
year for the next generation before even considering picking up something like
these.

Golly, and all youse guys here are telling me that a recorder such as
this would be the answer to all of my prayers (except the big one).

What to do? What to do? I don't remember all this kind of controversy
about both the product and the company when the Jukebox 3 (or the Nagra
4, for that matter) came out. It just worked good, though it never
claimed to make a good recording of a loud band in a small room.

Zigakly wrote:
I was really hoping M-Audio wouldn't resort to this sort of "rave review"
spam bull****. I was willing to pony up the cash and beta test it, but now
I'm definitely waiting a few months for real user reviews to accumulate.

Dude, you are a dumbass. I am just a guy in a band who does production
on the side in Seattle. I have nothing to do with M-Audio or Guitar
Center where I purchased my device. I also had to return the first unit
for being dead on arrival. I am a "real user" and my review is that
this is the first device of its kind that is capable of recording a
loud band in a small room and producing something listenable, which is
what I have personally been waiting for all along. If you don't believe
me, go listen to the MP3 I posted, then go do a whois on my domain
name, check out the rest of the websites, do some research into who I
am and then come back and claim I'm some spammer.

Also, go read my previous posts in this newsgroup where I have been
asking for this for years and you will see that I previously commented
on the R1 and other recorders being unsuitable.

Just jerking your chain dude, I don't mean to put you down, but it was a
maniacal and uninformative review, and you clearly haven't used it or its
competition thoroughly enough to have such a heavy-handed opinion. Put 200
hours on each and then we'll talk.

And frankly recording a loud band in a small room well has very little to do
with the recorder. I could easily do a better recording with a good pair of
mics, decent preamps, and a tape deck than the MicroTrack with its plug-in
stereo mic.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:06:59 GMT, "Zigakly" wrote:

And frankly recording a loud band in a small room well has very little to do
with the recorder. I could easily do a better recording with a good pair of
mics, decent preamps, and a tape deck than the MicroTrack with its plug-in
stereo mic.

It does have to do with a R-1 which is what he was talking about to
begin with. Read back a month or so and see a long thread about
people complaining an R-1 does a poor job of recording a loud band in
a small room. I am not advocating ANY opinions in that thread just
pointing out it and putting the OP's comments into context.

Tis cool my noble recordist bretheren. And yes, if you want to bother
with preamps and mics and all sorts of other items connected to the
unit then other factors will come into play such as who has the best
converter etc... I just wanted something small that worked out of the
box, and the MT works for this whereas the R1 and others I tested did
not.

"Sebum" wrote in message
oups.com


I just wanted something small that worked out of the box,
and the MT works for this whereas the R1 and others I
tested did not.

I think you demonstrated that the MT does a better job under
circumstances that would naturally be avoided by just about
anybody who is interested in making a good recording.

Yes, and also under the circumstances that 99% of musicians and
songwriters find themselves in on a daily basis. The MT is the ultimate
song idea scratch pad.

Sebum wrote:
Yes, and also under the circumstances that 99% of musicians and
songwriters find themselves in on a daily basis. The MT is the ultimate
song idea scratch pad.

No, that's the cassette recorder, or maybe the 4-track cassette
recorder/mixer if you're talking about an arrangement scratch pad. The
MT tempts you to do too much and offers too little.

With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder? There is nothing more convenient on the planet for producing
listenable, downloadable recordings of loud bands in a small practice
space. What is the temptation? All I want is a higher fidelity version
of the voice recorder on my cell phone, or my answering machine, which
I used to use to record song ideas and melodies when they popped into
my head or when my band happened to hit on a cool "jam". Then I'd put a
mic on the speakerphone and record my voicemails into my computer and
then edit and bounce to MP3 and upload. Now I can skip all of these
steps and the end result is much more listenable then what I was
producing before. I'm not talking about releasing these recordings. I'm
talking about convenience, the fastest time between recording and
uploading MP3s, and reasonable intelligibility of the recording. It
beats my cell phone, it beats the iRiver and Nomad units, it beats the
R1. I've tried all of them and for this sole purpose I am describing,
recording band practice and/or song ideas and instantly publishing them
to your bandmates via FTP/MP3, the MT is the best sounding, most
convenient option.

Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
isn't up to spec on phantom power??? If you have nice mics I think
you'll want to use a better phantom/preamp/converter anyways and then
you can run into the spdif input on the sucker!!!

Just listen:

http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/novacosas.html

Try this with a walkman, the R1, the iRivers and other sub $500
portable recorders OUT OF THE BOX, NO EXTRA GEAR. Then, calculate how
much time it takes to create and upload an MP3 of the recording, and
then tell me that the MT isn't superior.

"Sebum" writes:

With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder? There is nothing more convenient on the planet for producing
listenable, downloadable recordings of loud bands in a small practice
space. What is the temptation? All I want is a higher fidelity version
of the voice recorder on my cell phone, or my answering machine, which
I used to use to record song ideas and melodies when they popped into
my head or when my band happened to hit on a cool "jam". Then I'd put a
mic on the speakerphone and record my voicemails into my computer and
then edit and bounce to MP3 and upload. Now I can skip all of these
steps and the end result is much more listenable then what I was
producing before. I'm not talking about releasing these recordings. I'm
talking about convenience, the fastest time between recording and
uploading MP3s, and reasonable intelligibility of the recording. It
beats my cell phone, it beats the iRiver and Nomad units, it beats the
R1. I've tried all of them and for this sole purpose I am describing,
recording band practice and/or song ideas and instantly publishing them
to your bandmates via FTP/MP3, the MT is the best sounding, most
convenient option.

Exactly! Who needs a computer workstation, laptop, or a PDA when you can do
this in with a simple all-in-one box. Also, the cool thing is you upgrade to
"real" mics later, either using mic in, or an external preamp. I hope this
product catches on.

The crazy thing is this is only $300 or so. People think nothing of spending
this much on an iPod or other crazy stuff that doesn't even record. So, go
for it!

Richard

On 19 Oct 2005 18:56:57 -0700, "Sebum"
wrote:

Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
isn't up to spec on phantom power???

I think it's because people seem to enjoy arguing and taking out their
aggression where they can't get punched in the nose if they behave
like a jerk.

I think you're right. There's nothing even close for the price and
features and the R-1 didn't quite get it, but what the hell do I know?

Julian

Sebum wrote:
Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
isn't up to spec on phantom power??? If you have nice mics I think
you'll want to use a better phantom/preamp/converter anyways and then
you can run into the spdif input on the sucker!!!

Just listen:

http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/novacosas.html

Try this with a walkman, the R1, the iRivers and other sub $500
portable recorders OUT OF THE BOX, NO EXTRA GEAR. Then, calculate how
much time it takes to create and upload an MP3 of the recording, and
then tell me that the MT isn't superior.


I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread. But I
think the reason a lot of people have a problem with the MT is because
almost NOTHING works as advertised and a lot of people feel like they
were lied to and used as beta testers.....the phantom power, the noise
specs, the battery life, the S/PDIF inputs...not to mention the whole
host of bugs that are STILL being worked out in the firmware such as L &
R channels switching at random. The R1 may not be as good as the MT, but
at least everything works as advertised and you know what you're getting
when you read the specs and features.

That said, I think the MT is a great little device, especially for the
money. Basically, M-Audio promised a $400 ferrari and delivered a $400
porsche...still a great deal, but pretty dissapointing!

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

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

Sebum wrote:
With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder?

That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.

But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site. But if
you choose to dump all your garbage on the web site and let your fans
pick through it, I guess that's OK too. Depnds on what your fans want.
Do you know?

There is nothing more convenient on the planet for producing
listenable, downloadable recordings of loud bands in a small practice
space. What is the temptation? All I want is a higher fidelity version
of the voice recorder on my cell phone, or my answering machine, which
I used to use to record song ideas and melodies when they popped into
my head or when my band happened to hit on a cool "jam".

I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
even a listen or some editing. You might really embarass yourself, or
give away a great money-making hit.

I'd put a
mic on the speakerphone and record my voicemails into my computer and
then edit and bounce to MP3 and upload.

Obviously you aren't really into the computer recording technology. I'd
think that you would be, having a band, a web site, practice sessions,
and so on. You're not the first one to use a telephone answering
machine to capture a song idea, but you might be the first one to put
those captures on your web site. Music fans get off on all sorts of
garbage that might be history some day.

I'm not talking about releasing these recordings. I'm
talking about convenience, the fastest time between recording and
uploading MP3s, and reasonable intelligibility of the recording.

If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
worse. But do what you like.

Sebum wrote:
Why does everyone want to hate this little thing so much? Because it
isn't up to spec on phantom power???

No. It's because it's a dream that almost came true, but there are too
many lurking nightmares, some of which aren't yet known.

If you have nice mics I think
you'll want to use a better phantom/preamp/converter anyways and then
you can run into the spdif input on the sucker!!!

But if you want a compact, portable recorder, you don't want a lot of
external stuff. We can put up with external mics, and maybe a power
cord, but the less haywire the better. You talk about the convenience
of putting casual MP3 recordings up on your web site. I'm talking about
the convenience of making high quality recordings. We can have that
convenience if only the manufacturers would allow us to pay for it.
Some do, but at the moment what we have to pay is too much for many of
us, so we either have to compromise with less capability, more haywire,
or wait for the next great thing to come along.

http://www.turntofall.com/hiddenz/novacosas.html

It needs more cowbell. I guess someone's singing something there, but I
couldn't undestand a word. It's a good batch of noise, however,
probably what you sound like live.

Try this with a walkman, the R1, the iRivers and other sub $500
portable recorders OUT OF THE BOX, NO EXTRA GEAR.

Well, assuming you add mics to the recorder that doesn't come with
them, I see no reason why a Walkman cassette or R1 couldn't make a
recording that sounds about like that. I know that many small recorders
are designed for lower sound level inputs and there's no attenuation
ahead of the mic preamp. You can indeed get distortion with a recorder
like that even if you set the level so the meters aren't hitting the
pin. This is a problem that's easily solved, however, and at less cost
than buying a new recorder. The R1, with its built-in mics, doesn't
really offer the opportunity to attenuate the signal in the right
place, however, so I can see that this may be a "loud band in a small
room" problem.

While the MicroTrak might be the best solution for you, it's not the
best solution for everyone. It's one thing to be enthusiastic about
your new gadget and how well it works for you in your single
application. But it's not a reason to trash the competition in general.

I am excited about the microtrack seeing as it if possibly the only
product in its class for a decent price, however, it does bother me
that I feel like I am paying for things that don't really work, for
example the Phantom power. Why do I want to be paying for a
non-standard 30v phantom power? There is no way I would pay money fo
this as a standalone feature, so why do I want to put some money into
this feature just because it is bundled with some other features? I
would much rather just pay $250 for an Microtrack without any phantom
power than pay $350 for a microtrack with 30v phantom power. Then you
always have the principle of calling it phantom power, but it not
really being phantom power. I am still really on the fence with this
product. As I said, it is the only product at this cost which can do
some decent recordings (from what I hear), but I imagine that other
companies are going to start coming out with similiar products, and
hopefully ones that have standard features and don't have as many bugs.
So for me the question is, do I need a device like this right now, or
do I want to wait until other products come out which implement things
in a standard fashion or at least don't make me pay for non-standard
features. I would be really cool to have a device like this since I do
have some things I want to use it for, but not sure it is worth the
price at the moment. It is interesting to see how much talk this item
has generated, I would say there is definately a market for items like
this would do make me think that others similiar items will be coming
out.

Still pondering the microtrack,
Andrew V. Romero

No, it's not really "released" other than to R.A.P. in a post about the
microtrack and to my bandmates. I don't link it from the home page!!!!
It's just so me and my bandmates can hear our "daily" mixes. Also, you
don't even get to hear the "jams" cuz I didn't post the URL to them.
Those only go out to my bandmates.

I actually am way into the computer recording thing. I have a Presonus
Digimax LT, Motu 828 and Logic Pro on a 1.67Mhz Powerbook. I also have
about 15 mics of decent quality and have been experimenting for years
to achieve better recordings. The thing is, setting that **** up takes
time so I save that for once we've got the songs down and ready to
record in their final state. Until then I am busy booking shows,
promoting, mixing the last batch of finished songs etc... The MT saves
time and produces a better, more easily distributable (to a select few)
recordings than my cell phone or other pocket recorders.

The MT isn't even ideal for me. I can only get it to work by lowering
the "input gain" all the way down AND switching it onto "line level"
input. Somehow it still takes signal from the mic on this setting. If
this is a firmware bug then I am NOT going to upgrade my firmware
because on the "mic" setting, even with the gain all the way down it's
still overly distorted. Even on "line level" and in those recordings on
my site, the meters are constantly in the red. Can someone suggest a
sub $100 pair of stealthy mics that have an even lower output and would
be even better for the "loud band in a small room" application and
would take the 5v plug in power supplied by the MT and produce an even
better recording than the mics it comes with???

Sebum wrote:
The MT isn't even ideal for me. I can only get it to work by lowering
the "input gain" all the way down AND switching it onto "line level"
input. Somehow it still takes signal from the mic on this setting.

Since the 1/4" jacks are active for both mic and line inputs,
apparently the "Line Input" setting is (like on many devices today)
just a mic input with 20 or so of attenuation. This is good because it
reduces the chance that the microphone signal will clip the input stage
ahead of the gain control. I doubt that it's a firmware bug.

on the "mic" setting, even with the gain all the way down it's
still overly distorted.

This is typical of small recorders (the Jukebox 3 included). The
distortion occurs ahead of the gain control, so all you're doing when
you turn that down is keep fro clipping an already distorted signal
digitally. They do it the way they do in order to keep parts cost down
and figure you can always add an attenuator in line with the mic if
necessary to get the signal into the right ballpark.

Can someone suggest a
sub $100 pair of stealthy mics that have an even lower output and would
be even better for the "loud band in a small room" application and
would take the 5v plug in power supplied by the MT and produce an even
better recording than the mics it comes with???

That's a lot to ask for under $100, but check the Core Sound web site
http://www.core-sound.com They have a lot of tools for people who
record music that's too loud on recorders that have too high input
sensitivity.

In article .com,
Mike Rivers wrote:

With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder?

That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
that you don't care if they have.

But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.

It's your call what he "should" do?

The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
justify it.

But if
you choose to dump all your garbage on the web site

You're calling his work "garbage", and that's completely inappropriate.

I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
even a listen or some editing.

Why do you equate a web site with promotion, or even with disclosure?

If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
worse.

Incorrect.

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

Sebum wrote:
With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder?

That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.


You just can't accept that the product works well for him, can you Mike? If
you bothered to really read his post, you'd see that he doesn't put the
songs on the website for fans, it's for his bandmates.

For a unit in that class with built-in mics, he's getting pretty good
results. Traditional compact cassette recorders with built-in mics would
generally sound much worse (speaking from experience). Also he'd have to
potentially spend hours making copies for his bandmates, or playback into
his PC to make MP3s. So for him, it's fit for purpose.

I make similar recordings during my band's band practices with a pair of
rode NT5 mics, into a pre-amp, into a laptop's built-in sound card. They
are purely scratch recordings so that we can analyse how we're constructing
songs, and also remember neat ideas that came out during a jam.

Listening to the MP3s in the link, I can see that this unit would be much
less hassle than lugging a laptop, preamp and mics around.

Bill.

wrote:
I am excited about the microtrack seeing as it if possibly the only
product in its class for a decent price, however, it does bother me
that I feel like I am paying for things that don't really work, for
example the Phantom power.

You are assuming it won't work when in fact it will work
quite well with all but a few mics. That calls for
qualifying it for a mic (or a mic for it) but not a blanket
statement that it doesn't work.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

On 20 Oct 2005 06:33:35 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


Sebum wrote:
With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to. How the hell could I do that this easily with a tape
recorder?

That application is hardly a "songwriter scratch pad." You must have
some serious fans to want to go to your web site to listen to a
recording of your band practice. I'd wait for the CD or a live gig.

Mike,

Didn't you read the line immediately preceding yours? He says for his
"bandmates" to listen to, not his fans.

Julian

On 20 Oct 2005 08:10:08 -0700, wrote:

So for me the question is, do I need a device like this right now, or
do I want to wait until other products come out which implement things
in a standard fashion or at least don't make me pay for non-standard
features. I would be really cool to have a device like this since I do
have some things I want to use it for, but not sure it is worth the
price at the moment. It is interesting to see how much talk this item
has generated, I would say there is definately a market for items like
this would do make me think that others similiar items will be coming
out.

I guess it comes down to do you want / need it right now, or can you
wait???

Julian

james wrote:

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
that you don't care if they have.

But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.

It's your call what he "should" do?

If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."

The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
justify it.

But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
his fans could hear them. But apparently he doesn't care enough about
how they sound or how this example of his work is produced and
presented. With a good job, he might build new fans. With a poor job,
he might lose the interest of the fans he has. Yes, today a web site IS
a big deal for a musician who wants to promote his work.

You're calling his work "garbage", and that's completely inappropriate.

I listened. That was my opinion. You can call it what you want.

I have no quibble about your desire to record your jams, but I see no
value to immediately posting the recording to your web site without
even a listen or some editing.

Why do you equate a web site with promotion, or even with disclosure?

You're right. I didn't look at his web site. He might be posing in his
underwear for all I know. I guess I just assumed that since he did
mention his fans, the web site was there as some sort of promotion, if
only to let them know that the band actually rehearses.

If you put it up on your web site, it's "released," for better or
worse.

Incorrect.

How not? It's not packaged, it doesn't have printed notes or photos,
and it doesn't directly generate income, but it's out of the cage. If
someone wants to record a song that he gets from a web site posting of
a band rehearsal, it's been "published" in the definition of the
copyright law (at least in the US) and therefore the author must grant
a license under the compulsory license provision. That sure sounds like
"released" to me.

Bill Ruys wrote:

You just can't accept that the product works well for him, can you Mike? If
you bothered to really read his post, you'd see that he doesn't put the
songs on the website for fans, it's for his bandmates.

Sorry, I missed the part about being for his bandmates. Still, I heard
his example recording and I didn't think it was very good. You could
hear the chords and tell that they were pretty much in time, but you
couldn't hear the vocals. Is that what he wants his bandmates to know?
Perhaps if he had placed the mic so that it did pick up the vocal, he
would have been back to the overload situation. It's still a
compromise, maybe the best he can afford or justify, but I don't think
it worked well in this instance.

I might find that it works well recording an acosutic fiddle and banjo
jam session but the damn thing is so small, sticking two 1/4" phone
plugs into the jacks to connect external mics doubles the size of the
recorder and makes it an awkward shape. So that's not so hot either. I
expect this is why it comes with a miniature microphone.

For a unit in that class with built-in mics, he's getting pretty good
results. Traditional compact cassette recorders with built-in mics would
generally sound much worse (speaking from experience).

I agree, but I've made some excellent recordings with a Sony TCD-5
cassette recorder and some decent mics. But that cost twice as much as
the MicroTrak, and about 20 years earlier.

Also he'd have to
potentially spend hours making copies for his bandmates, or playback into
his PC to make MP3s. So for him, it's fit for purpose.

So then his bandmates have to take the time to download the songs. You
don't really gain much here. When I argue about the fuss of having to
transfer flash card recordings to a PC, I always get the argument that
the task is fast and trivial. You can't argue both ways.

The accessory that I want if I were to be forced to use a recorder like
this is a unit about the size of a portable CD player that has a flash
card slot in it, and firmware to make a Red Book compliant CD from it
(as well as a data CD if that's your choice). While he's packing his
stuff, he could be making CDs of the night's session for the band and
hand them disks that they could play in their cars on the way home.

I make similar recordings during my band's band practices with a pair of
rode NT5 mics, into a pre-amp, into a laptop's built-in sound card. They
are purely scratch recordings so that we can analyse how we're constructing
songs, and also remember neat ideas that came out during a jam.

Fair enough.

Listening to the MP3s in the link, I can see that this unit would be much
less hassle than lugging a laptop, preamp and mics around.

Just looking at the MicroTrak, I can see that it's less hassle than
lugging a laptop, preamp, and mics. But listening, I can hear that it
hasn't yet made the grade. Perhaps he'll get better at mic placement
(the recorder might have to go on a mic stand) and do better work. It's
not about the "fidelity" - I have no reason yet to question that. I
can't hear enough to know if there are any serious problems.

I think he's too easy to satisfy. Would he purchase a CD with a mix
that muddy?

Mike Rivers wrote:

james wrote:

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that people might want things
that you don't care if they have.

But to answer your question, you could (and should) select a few songs
that you played well, play them into your computer's sound card, clean
up the beginnings and endings, and post those on your web site.

It's your call what he "should" do?

If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."

The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
justify it.

But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
his fans could hear them.

Ummmm... no he didn't... Here is a direct quote:

"With the MT, I can go home after band practice, connect my MT to my PC,
and copy MP3s directly via FTP to our website for my bandmates to
listen to."

--
Aaron

Mike Rivers wrote:

It's not packaged, it doesn't have printed notes or photos,
and it doesn't directly generate income, but it's out of the cage. If
someone wants to record a song that he gets from a web site posting of
a band rehearsal, it's been "published" in the definition of the
copyright law (at least in the US) and therefore the author must grant
a license under the compulsory license provision. That sure sounds like
"released" to me.

Correct, he has released the material. Done deal.

--
ha

In article .com,
Mike Rivers wrote:

If he wants me to be a fan and to visit his web site, then yes. It's a
basic principle of marketing. "The customer is always right."

My reading comprehension is probably not as finely tuned as yours,
but I understood that he was putting the material up, for the benefit of
the other musicians with whom he was collaborating.

The website isn't a big deal these days. You don't need "fans" to
justify it.

But he did say he wanted to post his band rehearsal recordins so that
his fans could hear them.

So evidently he's got fans. Do you? I had fans once, in the 80s, but I
suspect they were more fans of cheap beer and of something to do on
Tuesday nights, than my band :-)

james wrote:
In article .com,

My reading comprehension is probably not as finely tuned as yours,
but I understood that he was putting the material up, for the benefit of
the other musicians with whom he was collaborating.

All right, ferchrissake! Gimme a break!. I read "web site" and in my
mind I envisioned that this was either his personal web site or his
band's web site and he wanted as many people visiting that web site as
would would take the time, to hear the recordings of his rehearsals. He
may have said (in his initial message) "Of couse I wouldn't put these
recordings under a link that could be accessed by the general public,
I'm just using the web space as a parking place so that my bandmates
can download the recordings." I guess I just read too fast.

If he wants to share bad recordings with his band mates, I guess that's
none of my business, or anyone else's business but his band mates. So
why rave about it here. Would anyone here be proud of the sound of
those recordings? I wouldn't. It might serve a purpose, but the only
advantage I can see over any other technology is that the product gets
to the listener faster.

Bob, I really can't agree that "it will work quite well with all but a
few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
Neumann, would be among those. And where dynamic range is concerned,
even most of the mikes that are usable won't perform as well as if they
were properly powered.

--I think I've asked this before, but has anyone here measured the
input overload point (voltage) of this unit's mike inputs yet?

--best regards

David Satz wrote:
Bob, I really can't agree that "it will work quite well with all but a
few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
Neumann, would be among those. And where dynamic range is concerned,
even most of the mikes that are usable won't perform as well as if they
were properly powered.

In your experience how, other than lowering the max SPL,
does lower voltage affect the operation of these mics you
mention?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

On 21 Oct 2005 18:57:27 -0700, "David Satz" wrote:

Bob, I really can't agree that "it will work quite well with all but a
few mics". It will work to varying degrees with a fair number of mikes,
yes. But none of the ones that I prefer to use, e.g. from Schoeps and
Neumann, would be among those.

David,

Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
this?

Julian

Julian wrote:

Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
this?

Because (until someone tells us that the analog circuitry or A/D
converter really sucks) the recorder is probably good enough so that it
won't get in the way of making a good recording. I can make good
recordings on my Jukebox 3 - not fabulous recordings, but pretty good,
good enough so that the difference between a good mic (and outboard
preamp) and a crummy mic that will plug straight in is noticable and
worth while.

On 22 Oct 2005 05:13:08 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


Julian wrote:

Why in the world would you plug a Neumann into a cheap little box like
this?

Because (until someone tells us that the analog circuitry or A/D
converter really sucks) the recorder is probably good enough so that it
won't get in the way of making a good recording. I can make good
recordings on my Jukebox 3 - not fabulous recordings, but pretty good,
good enough so that the difference between a good mic (and outboard
preamp) and a crummy mic that will plug straight in is noticable and
worth while.

Mike,

It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
expect that such a recorder should exist.

Julian

Here's a review I found on line that says it all:

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

It is a $400.00 miniature stereo digital recorder with some very nice
features that can be compared to (but not necessarily replace) units
costing 2-3 times as much. "

Julian wrote:

It makes no sense what so ever to me to plug several thousands of
dollars worth of mics into a little recorder that costs $400 or even
expect that such a recorder should exist.

People who already have KM84's and want portable recroding often do
that, and in the case, it makes perfect sense. Feeding a lttle recorder
with good mics should't be a problem, if the recorder's designers knew
enough to design a phantom supply that meets spec.

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

You're late; we've been through this. Smart people think that if your
quote is the case, perhaps M-Audio ought not to tout the device as a pro
recorder right in their own hype, at the starting gate. They put
themselves in the position of having pros suggest proper P48 is expected
when designing and marketing pro gear. Talk to M-Audio about their
marketing baloney and leave alone those who are pointing it out.

--
ha