RE: using the plextalk

  • From: "Kevin Jones" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:52:45 -0500

Well, the only drawback or major one is it's much larger than the small
flash recorders, just wondered if people were getting recordings sounding as
well as with other recorders 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcasting-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elmer Slentz
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:33 AM
To: blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: using the plextalk

Hi, Kevin,
I have a Plextalk myself and enjoy it very much.  You don't need a file 
converter to convert "wma" files to MP3s.  The machine already can record in

MP3 as it is.  Though expensive, it could be more economical in the long run

by the time one purchases various software packages to get file conversions 
and the like.  I guess it all depends upon what one likes and can afford.  I

personally would not give my Plextalk for anything else, as it talks me 
through everything and it is almost impossible to make mistakes with it.  It

seems they thought of just about everything.
Keep up the good work!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Jones" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcasting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: using the plextalk

> There's been lots of disgussion about the iriver and other small 
> flash-based
> digital recorders, and they're all cool, but I was wondering what the
> thoughts out there were on how good of a recorder is the plextalk. It was
> designed for daisy books but it can record in both mp3 and wav, you can 
> use
> stereo mics with a mic pre-amp, so it has potential.

Other related posts: