Alesis ProTrack

[ctb1010]

Hello everyone, I recently posted about recording a wedding band and decided that for my purposes the Alesis Protrack Recorder for the iPod was the way to go. Here's the CNET review: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-player-accessories/alesis-protrack/4505-6519_7-33529083.html

Has anyone used this thing? I used it at a wedding and plugged directly into the Band's mixing board using the 1/4 inch connection. Everything sounded fine through headphones, but once I transferred the audio to my cpu everything sounded awful. I can only hear the singer and barely hear the band. I followed the instructions for connecting the device. I selected Mono (since I was only plugged in through one channel) and used the Limiter so that there wouldn't be any hard caps to the audio.

My wife is recording voiceover demos on the device now using a phantom powered microphone connected via xlr. Again, everything sounded terrible, so I changed the settings. I ended up turning the limiter off (it introduced static and hissing) and switched the recording mode to stereo (again shouldn't it be mono since I am only plugging in one microphone?). Also I turned the gain way down so that only one green light appears on the level meter. When I turned the gain up so that the audio hit the appropriate level it sounded to loud and distorted.

Does anyone have experience with this device and any recommendations for settings? I really don't want to use it at another wedding only to find that I'm not using the proper settings.

Thanks!

 

[unclebob6958]

Hello everyone, I recently posted about recording a wedding band and decided that for my purposes the Alesis Protrack Recorder for the iPod was the way to go. Here's the CNET review: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-player-accessories/alesis-protrack/4505-6519_7-33529083.html

What do you expect for $180? Just because it has the word "pro" in its name doesn't mean that it is. For all intents and purposes it's a toy.

I used it at a wedding and plugged directly into the Band's mixing board using the 1/4 inch connection. Everything sounded fine through headphones, but once I transferred the audio to my cpu everything sounded awful. I can only hear the singer and barely hear the band. I followed the instructions for connecting the device. I selected Mono (since I was only plugged in through one channel) and used the Limiter so that there wouldn't be any hard caps to the audio.

95% of the time wedding band sound systems are for vocals only, so that's what will be recorded. The instruments will only be "bleed" into the singers mic. And if the band was doing a full PA mix are you sure that you were getting the full mix and not the vocal sub-mix? You may have been better off just using the internal mics. What kind of headphones were you using? Were they good quality, closed back such as the Sony -7506's?

My wife is recording voiceover demos on the device now using a phantom powered microphone connected via xlr. Again, everything sounded terrible, so I changed the settings. I ended up turning the limiter off (it introduced static and hissing) and switched the recording mode to stereo (again shouldn't it be mono since I am only plugging in one microphone?). Also I turned the gain way down so that only one green light appears on the level meter. When I turned the gain up so that the audio hit the appropriate level it sounded to loud and distorted.

In the digital world hot levels induce distortion if not very carefully set and monitored. Low levels can be corrected in audio post. Also - are you using the AC adapter? No phantom power when using batteries. Are you using the correct cable?

You would be much better off using the Zoom H4n (not a device I care for but inexpensive) or better yet the Marantz PMD-660, Fostex FR2-LE or the Tascam HD-P2.


If you want quality sound you need to buy quality equipment.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Hello everyone, I recently posted about recording a wedding band and decided that for my purposes the Alesis Protrack Recorder for the iPod was the way to go. Here's the CNET review: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-player-accessories/alesis-protrack/4505-6519_7-33529083.html

Has anyone used this thing? I used it at a wedding and plugged directly into the Band's mixing board using the 1/4 inch connection. Everything sounded fine through headphones, but once I transferred the audio to my cpu everything sounded awful. I can only hear the singer and barely hear the band. I followed the instructions for connecting the device. I selected Mono (since I was only plugged in through one channel) and used the Limiter so that there wouldn't be any hard caps to the audio.

My wife is recording voiceover demos on the device now using a phantom powered microphone connected via xlr. Again, everything sounded terrible, so I changed the settings. I ended up turning the limiter off (it introduced static and hissing) and switched the recording mode to stereo (again shouldn't it be mono since I am only plugging in one microphone?). Also I turned the gain way down so that only one green light appears on the level meter. When I turned the gain up so that the audio hit the appropriate level it sounded to loud and distorted.

Does anyone have experience with this device and any recommendations for settings? I really don't want to use it at another wedding only to find that I'm not using the proper settings.

Thanks!

Since I'm trying to understand how 'audio' specs are to be interpreted, I find the following from the www.alesis.com site for this device... confusing...

(ditigization... 16 bits at 44.1kHz...)
------
GAIN
* Internal Mic Inputs: +6dB to 49.3dB
* External Inputs (XLR): +6dB to 49.3dB
* External Inputs (1/4"): -11.3dB to +32dB
------------------


Compare that with the Zoom H4N (priced with a quick internet search, at about $350 US or so...)

<STEREO Mode>
●Simultaneous Recording Tracks: 2 ●Simultaneous Playback Tracks: 2 ●Functions: Lo-cut Filter, Compressor/Limiter, Mono Mix, M/SStereo Decoder, Auto-Rec, Pre-Rec, Tuner, Metronome, A-B Repeat, Variable Speed Playback, File Dividing, Normalize, MP3 Post-Encode, Marker ●Recording Format: WAV (Quantization: 16/24bit, Sampling Frequency: 44.1/48/96kHz), MP3 (Bit Rate: 48/56/64/80/96/112/128/160/192/224/256/320kbps/VBR, Sampling Frequency: 44.1kHz) ●Playback Format: WAV （Quantization: 16/24bit, Sampling Frequency: 44.1/48/96kHz), MP3 (Bit Rate: 32/40/48/56/64/80/96/112/128/160/192/224/256/320kbps/VBR, Sampling Frequency: 44.1/48kHz)

In particular note 16/24 bit, and sample rates of 44.1/48/96kHz... (I'll not go into whether there is a significant difference with this device between 16 and 24 bits... it could be all noise for all I know...)

and also...

<Common Specs>
●A/D Conversion: 24bit, 128times oversampling ●D/A Conversion: 24bit,128times oversampling ●Signal Processing: 32bit ●Recording Media: SD memory card (16MB - 2GB), SDHC memory card (4GB - 32GB) ●Display: 128 x 64pixel, 1.9-inch backlit LCD ●Balanced / Unbalanced Input: 2 x XLR-1/4"phone combo Jack ●Input Impedance: balanced input = 1kΩ balanced / pin 2 hot, unbalanced input = 480kΩ unbalanced ●Input Level: balanced input = -10 to -42dBm, unbalanced input = +2 to -32dBm ●Phantom Power Supply: 48V,24V, OFF ●Built-in Stereo Mic: Unidirectional condenser microphone (Gain: +7 to +47dB) ●External Mic Input: 1/8" stereo phone jack(Plug- in powered,Input impedance: 2kΩ, Input level: -7 to -47dBm)

... etc...

----------------------------------------

As for interfacing with other equipment, I was reading recently about differences between various classes of equipment, and how going between 'pro' equipment and 'prosumer/consumer' equipment a pre-amp or attenuator may be required. There was some mention about a 10 dB difference, which needed compensation. Which if the output of the consumer device was put to the imput of the pro, amplification was required, but on the other hand, when the output of the pro was going to the consumer device, some form of attenuation was required.

Since I'm at the moment not in the market for equipment, I haven't worked this out for a given set up...

Since I have used the Zoom H4, I'd probably go for the H4n if I had the money for a field recorder...

 

[ctb1010]

IMO just because you don't spend tons of money does not mean that something is a toy. I'm hoping that once I figure out the settings that this device will give me the results I need.


95% of the time wedding band sound systems are for vocals only, so that's what will be recorded. The instruments will only be "bleed" into the singers mic. And if the band was doing a full PA mix are you sure that you were getting the full mix and not the vocal sub-mix? You may have been better off just using the internal mics. What kind of headphones were you using? Were they good quality, closed back such as the Sony -7506's?

This is very interesting, and could be part of the issue, next time I'll definitely ask if I am getting the full mix. As for the headphones, again, I'm at a wedding setting up with about two minutes before the bride and groom come in, so unfortunately I generally don't carry my studio headphones with me.



In the digital world hot levels induce distortion if not very carefully set and monitored. Low levels can be corrected in audio post. Also - are you using the AC adapter? No phantom power when using batteries. Are you using the correct cable?

I'll be sure to keep the levels low from now on. I didn't use phantom power and I did use the ac adapter.


If you want quality sound you need to buy quality equipment.

Again, for me this is an issue of figuring out the appropriate settings. Hopefully I can achieve the audio quality I am looking for once I have the settings down. Money doesn't solve everything.

 

[matt s.]

Almost any "live" act the mix is going to be for the room they are performing in so having a board recording like Bob said wont get you a good sounding mix. It will mostly be vocals and anything they may have going directly into the board like keys or bass etc. The only way to get a true mix from a live recording is to get direct feeds pre monitor or prefade mix and multitrack record each channel and mix /master it after the fact. You would have gained better results with the Zoom H2 same price you paid for the alesis and stuck it on a stand and recorded the band without going thru the sound board.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Almost any "live" act the mix is going to be for the room they are performing in so having a board recording like Bob said wont get you a good sounding mix. It will mostly be vocals and anything they may have going directly into the board like keys or bass etc. The only way to get a true mix from a live recording is to get direct feeds pre monitor or prefade mix and multitrack record each channel and mix /master it after the fact. You would have gained better results with the Zoom H2 same price you paid for the alesis and stuck it on a stand and recorded the band without going thru the sound board.

A couple of items... since I use to do weddings, and hopefully The Wife will not book any in the future, so this is mostly theoretical... and we only shoot stills anyway..., but for the sake of explanation...

What would be a good mic setup for a live band event. Most of the places where we shot weddings, the accustics were only as good as the hosted liquor bar... So I can understand the desire to get a 'better feed'. In the case of a reception where a DJ is playing records, cds, or mp3's one can get the music list, and the 'add' the material from original soruces (copyright, what me worry...) as needed to do better on the sound, and toss whatever the camera's mic may have picked up...

In addition, what setup would be quick... since the usual way weddings work, is everying from 6 AM in the morning is 'late', and there is almost no time for anything but follow a couple of potentially pissy people around for the day... and then have to deal with them at some time later, when they've had time to boil over almost everything that happened, that had nothing to do with documenting the event, but you, the documenter, are the last people they see of from the event services...

 

[ctb1010]

Almost any "live" act the mix is going to be for the room they are performing in so having a board recording like Bob said wont get you a good sounding mix. It will mostly be vocals and anything they may have going directly into the board like keys or bass etc. The only way to get a true mix from a live recording is to get direct feeds pre monitor or prefade mix and multitrack record each channel and mix /master it after the fact. You would have gained better results with the Zoom H2 same price you paid for the alesis and stuck it on a stand and recorded the band without going thru the sound board.

Does the built in Microphone on the Zoom H2 work any better than the built in microphone on the Alesis? And for that matter, at least on the Alesis I can plug in external microphones via 1/4 inch connection or XLR. It seems to me that the Alesis is a more versatile piece of equipment than the Zoom H2 and to compare apples to apples, the Zoom H2 is $20 more than the Alesis at B&H.

I didn't realize the mixing issue that you and Bob mentioned, I guess from here on out I will just record the audio without going through the board.

Thanks!

 

[Steve House]

IMO just because you don't spend tons of money does not mean that something is a toy. I'm hoping that once I figure out the settings that this device will give me the results I need.

What makes you think it is merely a matter of the right settings? It simply may not be capable of giving you the results you need. For example, assuming you get the distortion issue resolved, you're going to find that attempting to sync to video is going to give you massive headaches. Sound for video is recorded at a 48kHz sample rate. This device records at the CD sample rate of 44.1kHz using compressed formats that totally mess with the internal timing. To record sound that later will be matched in lip-sync to video, you should be using a device that will record 48kHz uncompressed PCM files such as WAV or BWF format.

...As for the headphones, again, I'm at a wedding setting up with about two minutes before the bride and groom come in, so unfortunately I generally don't carry my studio headphones with me.

Why not??? First of all, why so late setting up? But more importantly, it doesn't take time to remember to have a proper set of closed back headphones in the bag with the rest of your kit all the time. How much time does it take to plug them in? Continuously monitoring the sound while recording is an absolute fundmental requirement of any recording activity claiming to be done professionally. Spend a $100 on a set of proper cans like the Sony MDR1706 and never roll tape on anything without putting them on. Not wearing phones is like shooting video without ever looking through the vewfinder in the camera.

I'll be sure to keep the levels low from now on. I didn't use phantom power and I did use the ac adapter.

If you want quality sound you need to buy quality equipment.

Again, for me this is an issue of figuring out the appropriate settings. Hopefully I can achieve the audio quality I am looking for once I have the settings down. Money doesn't solve everything.

You're right, money doesn't solve everything. But there are solid reasons in terms of the jobs they're capable of doing that some piece of gear A costs $1000 while piece of gear B only costs $100. If you wanted to race in the next Indy 500 you wouldn't expect to do it in a 1972 VW would you? What makes you think that this issue is one of finding the magical "right settings" and then everything will be okay? I don't have any direct knowledge of the Alesis Protrack but it is a fact that there are products on the market that simply are turkeys and there are no "appropriate settings" existant that can ever make them work properly.

Keeping levels low isn't likely to be the answer. Running them solidly in the red will screw things up, certainly. But you generally want to run at the maximum level you can without them going into the red. If they're below the yellow zone and you're still getting distortion something else is wrong.

Your description of the results you're getting from the board sounds like the inputs to the Protrack are overloading. You said you were taking a 1/4 output from the board and that would normally be at line level. The 1/4 inputs to the Protrack are also said to be line level. BUT there are two different line levels and the Protrack's specs don't say which their is. "Professional" line level is 0VU = +4 dBu while "Consumer" line level is 0VU = -10dBv. Because of the difference between a dBu and a dBv, that is actually a 12 dB difference. If the board was sending +4 while the Protrack expects -10, you're ripe for overload and distortion to be introduced long before before the signal even gets to the recording level controls. Try inserting a -15 dB pad into the line between the board and the Protrack.

That being said, it may not be the source of the problem at all. What makes me wonder about that is the problem you say your wife is having with her voiceover demos. Assuming she knows how to properly work a mic and the mic you have is of decent quality, the sound should be clean with the limiter on, recording to mono, the gain for the channel with her mic set so it first just barely makes the red flicker on the meters and then backed off a hair and the other channel turned all the way down. If it's not, it just might simply be that the iPod is not capable of making a good recording of anything. After all, it was never designed as a professional recording device in the first place. Just because it's capable of recording doesn't mean it's capable of making good ones. That aforementioned VW might be fine for local commuting but it won't do too well on the NASCAR circuit.

 

[unclebob6958]

Thank you Steve.....:thumbup:

 

[Noiz2]

What makes you think it is merely a matter of the right settings? It simply may not be capable of giving you the results you need. For example, assuming you get the distortion issue resolved, you're going to find that attempting to sync to video is going to give you massive headaches. Sound for video is recorded at a 48kHz sample rate. This device records at the CD sample rate of 44.1kHz using compressed formats that totally mess with the internal timing. To record sound that later will be matched in lip-sync to video, you should be using a device that will record 48kHz uncompressed PCM files such as WAV or BWF format.

Actually the device can record WAV files but the sample rate is still 44.1 (actually the blurb calls it 44...).

But to the OP other responses. As others have said if you don't monitor your recordings ... There just isn't ANY excuse for that even earbuds (they came with the iPod) would have told you that something was badly wrong.

I have a lot of inexpensive equipment and I agree $ doesn't nec. differentiate toy from quality. However the revers is also not true. You should not expect that anything you pick up is capable of quality. After reading the review at your link I would never have bought the device. It's not exactly glowing and it pretty much puts it squarely in the consumer gadget category. Alesis makes some pretty good bang for the buck boxes so it's poss you can get acceptable results with a little work but this thing was designed for folks who are goofing around with their iPod not professional recordings.
And as to $. There are two factors that you have to balance. $$$$ does not nec. equal quality, though generally $$$$ does equal quality. Some times you can find quality at $ or $$ but you have to do a lot of research because there is also a lot of junk at $ & $$. And paying $$ for junk is not better than paying $$$ for quality. It's kind of ironic because the more experienced and "professional" you are the more likely you will be able to tell what is a good buy at $ & $$ and what you really need to spend the $$$ for. I have learned that lesson by owning a fair amount of junk over the years (anybody remember DAK? but I digress), and I can say from experience it's a waste of time and money.

I don't think you box is junk and you can probably get it to give acceptable results. But I would also bet that it will be touchier and take more babysitting than any of the above mentioned recorders. An important thing to keep in mind when buying $ is not to delude your self. Go in knowing that the emperor may be naked and you may have bought something that will be of very limited or no use and be prepared to move on or return it if it doesn't do what you need. You drop $7K on a Nagra V and your not gambling. It's solid it WILL work and you will have excellent support. Spend under $200 for an iPod add-on and your rolling the dice. If it works great, but there is a reason for some of the price difference and you are experiencing some of that now. So your going to have to make up some of that price in effort to learn how to get your box to work acceptably. That is the trade off and in the end you might not be able to do it, the box could have a fatal flaw. Find a forum that has a bunch of users and use that resource. You not so likely to find anyone here who knows the device because it doesn't record in a video acceptable format.

 

[Noiz2]

Does the built in Microphone on the Zoom H2 work any better than the built in microphone on the Alesis? And for that matter, at least on the Alesis I can plug in external microphones via 1/4 inch connection or XLR. It seems to me that the Alesis is a more versatile piece of equipment than the Zoom H2 and to compare apples to apples, the Zoom H2 is $20 more than the Alesis at B&H.

Well first off the 1/4" connector is not a mic connector. If you were trying to use it as such that maybe part of you problem. According to the review YOU linked to yes the H2 internal mics sound better, they didn't find the internal mics acceptable because they picked up noise from the iPod and were noisier than the H2. And lastly flexibility is meaningless if you don't have the quality you need. Something that does a bunch of things badly isn't much use to anyone. So flexibility only becomes a plus if it works and this thread started by you seems to throw some doubt on the "work" part of that.

Also if you want to compare apples to apples add in the price of the iPod.