Hi Eugene,
Since you own both recorders, any chance you could do a more formal
comparison between the two? I think some of us would benefit from any
further investigation into this matter. I had been considering a
RH10, mostly based on descriptions of its nicely lit display, but if
it means compromising gain, it's probably not worth it.
- John Hartog
> Eugene E Dorcas <> wrote:
> 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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|