Allan Haighton will be doing a test over the next week too. I don't
have a RH-10. Rob D.
At 7:47 AM -0700 9/22/05, Eugene E Dorcas wrote:
>I will give it a try soon. It might be a few days before I get a little ti=
me.
>
>John Hartog <> wrote: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[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
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|