| Subject: | Re: NH900 vs. RH10 mic pre gain (was noise) |
|---|---|
| From: | Eugene E Dorcas <> |
| Date: | Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT) |
I haven't done any purposeful comparisons but sometimes I feel that my nh900 outperforms the newer rh10. I like the rh10 because of the easily viewable display at night while recording frogs. However, I use the mh900 before the rh10 when practical. Rob Danielson <> wrote: At 8:16 AM -0700 9/21/05, Eugene E Dorcas wrote: >I use a NH900 and a RH10 for my recorders. Have you, by chance, detected a difference in the amount of record gain between these units? Another recordist reported to me that his RH-10 seems to have less gain. Preliminary. Rob D. "Microphones are not ears, Loudspeakers are not birds, A listening room is not nature." Klas Strandberg Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: EM-23 (was noise), Rob Danielson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Shure 183 > Sony DAT, MD, Allen Cobb |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NH900 vs. RH10 mic pre gain (was noise), Rob Danielson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NH900 vs. RH10 mic pre gain (was noise), John Hartog |
| 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