| Subject: | Re: Mixpre or recorder? |
|---|---|
| From: | "James Shatto" wwwshadow7 |
| Date: | Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:21 am ((PDT)) |
> --- On Thu, 8/19/10, Mitch Hill <> wrote: > > From: Mitch Hill <> > Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Mixpre or recorder? > To: > Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 12:38 PM > > ...snip... > > The SD MixPre is a battery hungry beast... > > ...snip... > > > Mitch & Shadow... This is why I opted for TWO MM-1's instead. 2x's the batteries and roughly= the same price. Taking the phantom power burden off of the field recorder= significantly increases battery life across the board. At least 2x's the = life for my gear across the board. If not more. 66dB of gain is kind of n= ice to (according to the knob). Although most of my non-nature subjects ra= rely require more than 18dB. - James |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Mixpre or recorder?, Mitch Hill |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Mixpre or recorder?, Steve Duncan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Mixpre or recorder?, Mitch Hill |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Mixpre or recorder?, Steve Duncan |
| 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