Subject: | Re: Edirol R-09 or MAudio Microtrack? |
---|---|
From: | "oryoki2000" oryoki2000 |
Date: | Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:43 pm (PDT) |
One significant difference is that the Microtrack 2496 has a digital optical input, while the R-09 does not. So if you need a very small recorder to act as a bit bucket for a preamp with digital output, then the Microtrack should be considered. The other obvious difference is that the Microtrack 2496 records up to 24/96 (doh!) while the R-09's maximum digitizing rate is 24/48. I doubt this would be of any practical significance for most field recordists, but it might make a difference to a few people. --oryoki |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Edirol R-09 or MAudio Microtrack?, Jeremiah Moore |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Edirol R-09 or MAudio Microtrack?, Rob Danielson |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Edirol R-09 or MAudio Microtrack?, Jeremiah Moore |
Next by Thread: | Re: Edirol R-09 or MAudio Microtrack?, Rob Danielson |
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