e1ghtyf1ve Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 All I can say is, I'm not surprised!Comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekdroid Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 All I can say is, I'm not surprised!Comparisonis there a full review with more detail up anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e1ghtyf1ve Posted December 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 is there a full review with more detail up anywhere?I wish there were, I'm still looking. I found this on the Nature Recordists newsgroup. They have very specific requirements which closely resemble my own with classical instrument recording. Interesting stuff! The 722 is king of the hill, but costs a lot of money...Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPlitude Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 you cant really compare the nh900 to the 722, they're on different user levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e1ghtyf1ve Posted December 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 you cant really compare the nh900 to the 722, they're on different user levelsDid you watch the movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 Did you watch the movie?To be frank, I didn't find the comparison very useful.When doing a comparison like this, the lowest common denominator should be the one that is most directly compared, i.e. all equipment in the highest sampling rates and bit depths that -all- of them support, i.e. 44.1kHz, 16-bit. You should also use exactly the same mic with exactly the same preamp set to exactly the same gain for all tests with all equipment. The movie itself just confuses this by putting things in a completely nonsensical order that basically makes direct comparison impossible.I admire the effort of the tester but find his methodology lacking. The results are basically useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 I've seen this site before, somewhere, perhaps on a random Google search. Anyway, I haven't downloaded quicktime on this laptop yet but I'm pretty sure what you're speaking of and I somewhat agree with Dex.I do however like this tutorial they've made -- http://www.uwm.edu/~type/420_Field_Audio/S...0SetUpSteps.pdfThat's excellent information for the novice recording enthusiast. If you backtrack on the url and check out some of the indexes it seems to be a pretty bulky archive of live recording information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e1ghtyf1ve Posted December 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 The order in which the devices are presented is a bit odd, but I found it very interesting anyway, and definitely shows how poor the MT preamps are, and how well a HiMD recorder can perform. All mics were the same. This was a real-world test designed for real world nature recordists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.