HI, I bought tammy an ipod nano and although I always swore I'd never use an
ipod, now want one for myself for playing, they are excellent little things.
Cheers!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Perdue" <[email protected]>
To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:47 AM
Subject: [Bulk] Re: QWS List OT - Portable digital recorder that records
uncompressed
Yep, speech is nice, but I decided to forego that for quality a long time
ago, at least for recording. I really love it for my mp3 player though.
Rockbox doesn't talk in the record screen anyway, which is probably a good
thing, given how the routing of certain things tends to work out.
The older Iriver 1XX are actually way nicer than they should be as
recorders. It's preamp is even cleaner than the Edirol r1 I used to use,
and it has a true variable gain, which many recorders don't bother with.
This means the noise floor always follows the input gain, rather than
having a constant noise floor with an added layer when applying a preamped
signal.
The Iriver 3XX could be better, although it is not, and never will be, a
dedicated recorder. I heard somewhere that they were forced to dumb down
the recording side of their mp3 players by big people like the RIAA, who
complained about people using them for bootlegging. The shielding from
it's own electronics, especially the hard drive isn't so hot, and the
noise floor is a little higher, but in a loud environment such as a live
gig, it's not as noticeable.
Just don't find yourself near a bunch of GSM phones with a 320 or 340. It
will hurt.
I've made a couple of decent gig recordings with my Iriver h320 as a
back-up recorder, because I was a bad person and accidentally left all my
sd cards at home, rendering my primary recorder kind of useless.
I would still recommend an Iriver 3XX unit over anything olympus,
including the ls10, even if it's not quite as nice as a recorder than the
older 1xx stuff.
Of course, the Iriver 1xx and 3xx units are long since discontinued.
I'm planning on replacing the hard drive on my Iriver H320 with a 32GB cf
card to see if that quiets it down a little, since most of the noise on
that unit seems to be coming from there. Theoretically, I'd get better
battery life too
Hayden Smith wrote:
Hi,
Just to add to this in regards to mics - although I will note that I fail
to observe its relation to QWS and see it more appropriate for the
midimag list - I have a pair of the sound professionals BMC-12's and use
them with the Iriver H340. Granted in itself this isn't a top-of-the-line
recorder but the response from the mics with the device is quite good if
you can provide them with a stereo field of say, the distance of anywhere
from 9-12 inches. I will be using these mics to record live gigs and to
do so, I purchased the mini mic stand which attaches to a conventional
mic stand and has a width of 6, 12 and/or 24 inches. Personally I
recognise that the recorders that Patrick has indicated have a lower
noise ratio in comparison to the H340 but when looking at it from the
visually impaired perspective, the convenience of internal speech just
adds to the experience.
Cheers
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Perdue" <[email protected]>
To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: QWS List OT - Portable digital recorder that records
uncompressed
The cheap sound professional stereo microphones are very noisy and have
very little tolorance for high SPL environments. They might work with
something that is already noisy, like the older Olympus recorders,
because they're so noisy you can't tell the difference between the
self-noise from the mic, and the noise from the recorder. However, on
something decent, that noise from the microphones will really shine
through. I think they only have a signal-to-noise ratio of about -57DB
nominal or so, which, unfortunately, isn't too far outside the
quantization zone for 8-bit recordings. Sad I know.
The imaging on the cheaper SP mics is OK, but nothing to write home
about. I've heard better for the same or cheaper price from things like
giant-squid-audio-labs microphones, which I used for a while, or even
the old Radio Shack 33-3028 tie-clip microphones taken off the tie clip
and mounted to a pair of glasses, or even shoved behhind your ears.
Yeah, those mics were way under-rated, and, like all good radio shack
products, are discontinued.
Those mics were actually made by Audio Technica.
Sound Professionals sells some relatively decent mics, like the Audio
Technica mics with a crokie system for mounting to glasses for a pretty
accurate quazi-binaural effect, which is way nicer than the low cost
in-ear binaurals in terms of imaging, noise floor and even SPL. They're
not my favorite mics either, but it's worth the extra money if you end
up with a sound professionals set. Those in-ear things just make me
angry every time I hear them.
matt d wrote:
A good pair of sterio microphones are the Sound Professonal
microphones. They are only $78 US and are cliiped inside your ear.
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
