Subject: | Renewed interest |
---|---|
From: | "Ryan" <> |
Date: | Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:45:42 -0000 |
I have been a member of this group for some time now, but not very active, with the work situation I haven't had much time for anything else. Way back there was a popular concensus that minidisc recorders were not the best choice for nature recording, for reasons I cannot recall, is this still the popular opinion? The reason I brought this up is a few weeks ago I was a farm show and all the radio stations doing their thing used minidisc machines, I asked one of the guys what he was using, he said minidisc, and they used to use DAT, but it didn't work as well as the md. Yes I know there is a major difference in recording human voices in a building and nature recording, two totally different venues. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Any conclusion on WL183 and (loud) bass?, digidandy |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Couple of X-Y questions, Walter Knapp |
Previous by Thread: | Any conclusion on WL183 and (loud) bass?, digidandy |
Next by Thread: | Re: Renewed interest, Walter Knapp |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU