Lang Elliott wrote:
>
> News Flash!
>
> Coming April 1st, the Marantz Pro CDR300 portable direct-to-CD tape recorder
> for a list price of $850, with 48volt phantom power, XLR connectors, S/PDIF
> in/out, high pass filters, etc.
>
> Looks like a viable new option for nature recordists.
This sort of thing is in the works on several fronts. HHb is rumored to
be working on one that would use DVD storage technology giving much more
time per disk.
Note on the Marantz:
"AC Power or 4-pin DC connection for use with gel-cell battery packs"
CDR recording is more power intensive than MD, so much larger batteries
will be the norm.
My other worry is the disk is unprotected. And larger. It will require
more care and more room in the pack.
It's too bad sony does not see fit to put out a recorder for us based on
the 640 meg version of MD. That would be more interesting, same record
time as this marantz in uncompressed, and a much more viable field disk
format.
Unfortunately just like cheap zip disks killed other much better
computer backup formats, CD-R will kill anything else except maybe the
DVD form. People simply choose price over quality.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:17 2005
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:15:42 -0500
From: Lang Elliott <>
Subject: Re: Re: homemade hydrophone
Mark:
Do you think the AFAB will produce better sound than a Sennheiser MKH
20/condom combo? I imagine that using a condom will drastically change the
frequency response, causing significant rolloff at higher frequencies. Is
this true?
Lang
>
>> From: Lang Elliott <>
>
>> At some point we discussed how to make a simple hydrophone using a condom
>> pulled over a microphone.
>>
>
> Lang,
>
> For starters, use an unlubricated condom!
>
> Seal the open end around the mic cable (making sure to cover the XLR
> connector) by making rings around the cable with electrical or duct tape.
> WD-40 will remove any sticky tape residue afterwards. You could also
> construct a cable with a couple of rubber "O" rings on it.
>
> Tie the condom tightly to the mic cable in several spots, stretching the
> condom over the rings.
>
> I've only tried this method to a depth of 10 feet, and for about 15 minutes,
> on a dynamic mic and it worked just fine (as waterproofing, the sound was
> muffled). I didn't use an electret or condenser because I didn't want to
> risk an expensive mic in salt water.
>
> The main disadvantage of the waterproofing is the inefficient acoustic
> coupling of the mic element to the water.
>
> If you want a low-cost, good performance hydrophone, I like the AFAB. Less
> than $150!
>
> http://www.afabsound.com/
>
> hope that helps,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:17 2005
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:16:56 -0500
From: Lang Elliott <>
Subject: Re: Re: homemade hydrophone
Also, what kind of output jack does the AFAB have?
>
>> From: Lang Elliott <>
>
>> At some point we discussed how to make a simple hydrophone using a condom
>> pulled over a microphone.
>>
>
> Lang,
>
> For starters, use an unlubricated condom!
>
> Seal the open end around the mic cable (making sure to cover the XLR
> connector) by making rings around the cable with electrical or duct tape.
> WD-40 will remove any sticky tape residue afterwards. You could also
> construct a cable with a couple of rubber "O" rings on it.
>
> Tie the condom tightly to the mic cable in several spots, stretching the
> condom over the rings.
>
> I've only tried this method to a depth of 10 feet, and for about 15 minutes,
> on a dynamic mic and it worked just fine (as waterproofing, the sound was
> muffled). I didn't use an electret or condenser because I didn't want to
> risk an expensive mic in salt water.
>
> The main disadvantage of the waterproofing is the inefficient acoustic
> coupling of the mic element to the water.
>
> If you want a low-cost, good performance hydrophone, I like the AFAB. Less
> than $150!
>
> http://www.afabsound.com/
>
> hope that helps,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|