MT1 or MT2 - What's the Difference?
- Thread starter jackibar
- Start date
They are both formats using Rolands R-dac audio data compression system. This has the same aim as Mp3 or Sonys ATRAC for minidisk - to get the digital audio to take up less space on the disk or whatever media.
Some say Mt1 is like 320k mp3 while Mt2 is like 128k mp3. Obviously, Mt1 will use more disk space and with more data, will push the speed limit of slow media like zip disks compared to Mt2. Depending on the machine, you may find Mt1 allows fewer tracks than with Mt2.
Depending on the needs of your project - pick Mt1 if a low track count/short recording and for highest audio quality. Mt2 for high track count/long recording with reasonable quality.
A lot depends on the recording media. 100MB zips are very prone to busy errors with Mt1 because they are really not quite fast enough.
Some say Mt1 is like 320k mp3 while Mt2 is like 128k mp3. Obviously, Mt1 will use more disk space and with more data, will push the speed limit of slow media like zip disks compared to Mt2. Depending on the machine, you may find Mt1 allows fewer tracks than with Mt2.
Depending on the needs of your project - pick Mt1 if a low track count/short recording and for highest audio quality. Mt2 for high track count/long recording with reasonable quality.
A lot depends on the recording media. 100MB zips are very prone to busy errors with Mt1 because they are really not quite fast enough.
Thanks so much for the explanation, Jim! That makes sense to me now. I have been using MT1 because it just "sounded better"! I have it recording to a 3-gig internal hard drive on the Roland VS 880 (an updated hard drive that got installed by Roland since the old one crashed)... The only thing I've been noticing sometimes is it will display "Error: Drive Too Slow" - is this what you're referring to? This particilar song is loaded with instruments and vocals and many of the virtual tracks are being used as a way to do "internal mix downs". So maybe that's the reason. I hope it doesn't mean the drive itself is failing!
thanks again!
Jacki
thanks again!
Jacki
A hard disk can end up getting a bit slow, especially if data is fragmented after a lot of editing (audio ends up in small pieces all over the disk). I'm not familiar with using the 880 so don't know if it has a defragment/optimise function. Perhaps the only way to fix the problem would be to copy the song to another partition or SCSI drive. I'm familiar with the VS840 which uses zip disks and copying certainly fixes fragmentation on those.
I think I'm correct in saying you can pick one of 3x 1gig partitions to work on? A disk is actually slower near the middle than the outside, so the outer partition will give better performance. I have no idea how the 880 numbers them, but I'd expect the first choice to be the faster one.
'Drive too slow' could be a sign of drive failure. Hard drives are a bit clever and re-read until they get the data correctly. The only outward sign of this is that they take longer to do anything. I think there is reason to worry enough to make sure you have backups. The drives are standard 2.5" laptop types so can be checked on a pc with ScanDisk or similar, though you need a laptop/desktop adapter cable.
Mt1 pushes the 840 zip drive, but your 3gig hard disk should be quite a lot faster
I think I'm correct in saying you can pick one of 3x 1gig partitions to work on? A disk is actually slower near the middle than the outside, so the outer partition will give better performance. I have no idea how the 880 numbers them, but I'd expect the first choice to be the faster one.
'Drive too slow' could be a sign of drive failure. Hard drives are a bit clever and re-read until they get the data correctly. The only outward sign of this is that they take longer to do anything. I think there is reason to worry enough to make sure you have backups. The drives are standard 2.5" laptop types so can be checked on a pc with ScanDisk or similar, though you need a laptop/desktop adapter cable.
Mt1 pushes the 840 zip drive, but your 3gig hard disk should be quite a lot faster
That may be so - I haven't seen Mt1 on a machine capable of an uncompressed format. The comparison wasn't mine and only meant to give some idea of the quality of the MT formats.
R-dac isn't Mp3, so I'm not sure if it's possible to directly compare quality versus file size between them.
What I will say is that it seems to me that R-dac does not produce the same "phasey" wash with certain sounds that Mp3 seems prone to, although Mt2 does sound harsher than Mt1.
R-dac isn't Mp3, so I'm not sure if it's possible to directly compare quality versus file size between them.
What I will say is that it seems to me that R-dac does not produce the same "phasey" wash with certain sounds that Mp3 seems prone to, although Mt2 does sound harsher than Mt1.
Yeah. I remember Laura Tyson describing R-Dac, differentiating from 'lossy' data compression. I am no engineer, and her description sounded reasonable, but my experience with my VS-880EX is that bouncing will cause the sound to thin out, get grainy, whatever subjective description you wish to use. So, R-Dac is not 'lossless.' Rule of thumb: the more compression, the less fidelity.
Strangely, I know a number of people, myself included, who prefer MT1 to MAS mode. As for the differences between MT1 and 2, MT1 is the winner, hands down. I will limit myself to one bounce with FX, though. And, I mix down to an external CD-RW.
Jackibar, if you have the Roland or Plextor CD-RW drive, back up ALL of the data, across ALL of the partitions, and then reinitialize the HD. Another thing you can do is to use the 'song optimize' function. This will rid the HD of all of your outtakes (which don't go away once you record 'over' them. That should free up significant space.
Strangely, I know a number of people, myself included, who prefer MT1 to MAS mode. As for the differences between MT1 and 2, MT1 is the winner, hands down. I will limit myself to one bounce with FX, though. And, I mix down to an external CD-RW.
Jackibar, if you have the Roland or Plextor CD-RW drive, back up ALL of the data, across ALL of the partitions, and then reinitialize the HD. Another thing you can do is to use the 'song optimize' function. This will rid the HD of all of your outtakes (which don't go away once you record 'over' them. That should free up significant space.
MK-Ultra said:Jackibar, if you have the Roland or Plextor CD-RW drive, back up ALL of the data, across ALL of the partitions, and then reinitialize the HD. Another thing you can do is to use the 'song optimize' function. This will rid the HD of all of your outtakes (which don't go away once you record 'over' them. That should free up significant space.
Thanks so much for the explanations and suggestions! I will do this backup ASAP and reinitialize the drive. So the Plextor CD-RW WILL work with the 880EX? I thought the Roland burner was the only compatible one (which, BTW, I think stinks!)...?!!
Um....you may want to check and see if it is compatible. I am not sure which ones are, but it has to be a SCSI. Also, my understanding is that you need the latest OS for the 880EX for the Plextor RW's to work.
You may find the answer here:
www.vsplanet.com
Don't do anything with the data until you know for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once gone, probably gone forever.
You may find the answer here:
www.vsplanet.com
Don't do anything with the data until you know for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once gone, probably gone forever.