At 1:29 PM -0400 6/23/06, Dale Hoffman wrote:
>Hello Recordists,
>
>I've been reading with interest the comments on Edirol's new R-09 and
>wonder if anyone had practical comparisons to make between it and
>MAudio's Microtrack 24/96. One big physical difference I have noticed
>is that the Edirol uses store bought batteries, while the
>Microtrack's batteries can't be removed.
>
>This will be my first recorder of any substance which will be used
>for speech and environmental (nature/urban) work.
>
>I'd like to share a URL to a site which I learned about through and
>interview I heard on NPR.
>The site http://www.transom.org has lots of forum and editorial space
>including this review of the MAudio 24/96:
>
>http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200512.maudio_microtra=
ck.html
>
>I enjoy this list very much and have learned much since joining.
>
>Thanks!
>Dale Hoffman
>Louisville, KY
Hi Dale-
Welcome to the list! You can find a lot of interesting discussion
about the Microtracker -- particularly as it pertains to nature
recording in our archives http://tinyurl.com/ngr2d.
Its very common to look as the recorder first, but the investment
might turn out better if you consider the mics at the same time. In
this price range, do you want to record ambience without excessive
"hiss?" If so, look at Hi-MD too. Good luck with your quest. Rob D.
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|