As a lurking newbie I hesitate to reply to all the list, but I have been us=
ing the MKII all summer with a Telinga parabolic and some hydrophones and i=
t=92s been great.
I have not noticed any noise issues with the phantom.
I didn=92t have experience with the MK1 though so can=92t compare.
Here is a recording from a harbourfront on Lake Ontario in which the ambien=
t sounds would likely mask any preamp noise, but anyway=85 might give you s=
ome idea!
I have other recordings in quieter settings which I don=92t have handy at t=
he moment.
Matt Rogalsky
On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:56 AM, [naturerecordists] <nat=
> wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with this new version of the DR-680? How its =
sound quality compares to the original DR-680, and whether the vaious probl=
ems people had (especially phantom power noise issues) have been corrected?=
The published EIN (-124 dBu) is worse than Raimund's figures for the origi=
nal DR-680, but it supposedly has new and better preamps, so I wonder if an=
yone has actually used this new recorder and can compare it to others with =
which we might be familiar.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> John
>
> John Crockett
> Westminster, VT
>
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|