Subject: | Re: comparing 20 portable digital recorders |
---|---|
From: | "escalation746" escalation746 |
Date: | Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:49 am ((PST)) |
Rob Danielson wrote: > I've tried to incorporate sensitivity into the EIN > ranges. I feel that the role of mic self-noise has > to be in there centrally if the recommendations are > going to address noise performance quality. I agree and like these specific classes. My own personal list is ordered by EIN and your classes accord with how I think about the devices. I will present this perspective in a future article. I thought it more important to most of my readers to look at form factor first of all. The article was in part written to answer some specific questions people have asked me face-to-face. It would be good to have some idea what the self-noise of the built-in mics is, apart from the external pre-amp stage. But I can't see any way of measuring that short of surgery on the electronics. -- robin |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: comparing 20 portable digital recorders, Rob Danielson |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: comparing 20 portable digital recorders, escalation746 |
Previous by Thread: | Re: comparing 20 portable digital recorders, Rob Danielson |
Next by Thread: | Re: comparing 20 portable digital recorders, escalation746 |
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