judy. does riobert use an external microphone with his podcasts, and does he
have the pTR2 which allows for stereo recording? Asking so I can listen and
compare sound quality.
I have a plexTalk and I didn't mention it because of its size and the fact that it records on cd as well as compact flash. I think most of us are looking for a smaller unit with some special effects.
I love the PlexTalk for what is designed to do. Robert has done his podcasts
on the PlexTalk and I think they sound good, but I wouldn't want to use it
for sound seeing tours.
Just my opinion,
-----Original Message----- From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jenny Axler Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:48 AM To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bct] Re: Recorders for the blind
Hi all, i find it interesting that no one has mentioned the plextalk in
this discussion. It's not as portable as one might want, but in other
respects it basically does what all of you seem to want. The only thing I
do not know is how the sound is with a good stereo microphone. But if one
does not want something quite as bulky, one might think of approaching the
plexter corperation to see if they would develop a model of plextalk that
only recorded on compact flash rather than having both the flash card and CD
as the CD drive contributes to its size and weight. as for the NLS books,
these are going to be in Daisy Niso format as far as I know on 128 mb
flashcards in a proprietary cartridge. I still have found nothing out about
the player itself, what the feature set will be.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:46 AM Subject: [bct] Re: Recorders for the blind
Krister, I'll answer your last question first. Professional versions of recorders can have just as sophisticated menus as consumer models and sometimes their even more sophisticated. Take the Nagra for example, not the one that was demoed on the podcast. They make a larger unit that has not just one list of menus but the tree level goes at least 3 deep. On the other hand, the recorder I have is one list of main menus and only one sub level under that. But don't let that fool you into thinking it is easy. Because of all it does, it has something like 78 main menus each of which can have 6 or 7 items. So, I don't think you can say that professional recorder menus are more simple.
I agree with your point about not just making it blind accessible. I hope you read my message on this subject earlier. Who wants to pay a lot more just because no one but people who are blind will want it. In my humble opinion, it should be accessible to everyone thus bringing down the cost. Now, that doesn't mean it can not be accessible. I think lots of people who are not blind might like a talking recorder. Of course, they may want to turn off the speech at some point.
As for how professional it is versus how consumer oriented, my guess is that it will not be a high end recorder because a lot of people who are blind may not be able to afford it. However, I think it definitely has to be better than recorders like the Olympus, the milestone, and other MP3 recorders. It's a lot of trouble to go to in order to produce an accessible recorder only to have it be not all that good sonically. So, I'm guessing we're probably talking about something like the r9, or the microtrack but with hopefully better mike preamps. In the end, if anyone decides to develop this, it will depend on feedback from people like you and others on this list.
It may turn out that it's just to expensive for APH to do. I am sure it takes a lot of money up front to develop such a recorder. I suppose one thing that might be done is to work with a company that is already doing this. Companies like Sony are probably too big to care, but the Microtrack or the Edirol may be companies APH or some other group might approach in this regard. I'm not sure how interested they would be in making a recorder that is accessible, because most of their users are likely not blind. So, what would be their incentive to redo what they have done and spend more money just to please a hand full of their end users? I don't know. Anyway, it's nice to hear from all of you on what you think is needed. If anything ever comes of this, we will have certainly batted around a number of ideas and that is a good thing.
-----Original Message----- From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Krister Ekstrom Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:47 AM To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bct] Re: Recorders for the blind
Hi there. At the risk of getting all flamed down here, I'll toss out a few ... what's it called in English ... torches here?... Personally i don't like special "blind friendly" versions of things that
already exist, for example why do a special "blind friendly" recorder? I'd understand the accessibility point, i certainly would, but unfortunately those special gadgets, note not all but quite a few, tend to insult our intelligence by designing their interfaces in a way that at least to me says: "Well they're just blind, so they don't need this or that, so we skip those features and do it very, very basic". and these so called "blind friendly" products tend to be off-standard and not compatible with anything in the market. A good example, at least
up to now are note takers. They are nearing standard now, but we all remember the Eureka A4, the VersaBraille and so on. I for my personal part, if we go back to the subject of recorders won't compromise high sound quality for accessibility, that is if a product is highly accessible but has a poor sound quality i won't buy it just because it's
accessible, but if a product has moderate accessibility and a high sound
quality i'd get it and figure out what i could do with it. That's why i wonder how good the R1 is and i'm also very curious about the Hi Md-s and Neal, isn't it so that semi- and professional equipment tend to have
less complicated menus and gizmos than consumer products and be more straight forward in this effect or am i totally wrong here? /Krister
Neal Ewers wrote:doKai, I'm not necessarily saying that it shouldn't have MP3 capabilities, I simply would like to have it also include .wav files for those whonot want to have to edit their podcasts in a compressed format andthusmake it more compressed in the final result. The Olympus recorders, while certainly not totally accessible, are certainly better than most
in this regard. I would think it not very much worth the money tosimplymake an accessible MP3 recorder if it is only going to be some access features added to an Olympus like recorder. Don't misunderstand, I don't expect it to be like the recorders that Dan and I happen to own.
I don't even expect balanced inputs. But I think it would be a bigjobto pull off in the first place, so why not go the extra step andincludeEwers.wave recording capabilities?
-----Original Message----- *From:* blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Kai *Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:32 AM *To:* blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [bct] Re: Recorders for the blind
Greetings Neal et al.
Recording in wav is really nice, but I think being able to record with MP3-encoding on the fly would be awesome. What would be nice would be the ability to alter the compression rates. If you're doing a bunch of sound seeing tours, choose 128KBPS compression. You'll be able to fit quite a lot of recordings into one card. That means you can cover an entire vacation with one, possibly two 2GB/4GB CF cards. Recording a bunch of orchestral environments? Set the unit to compress its recordings at a 192/224/256KBPS rate, which will preserve all those important nuances.
-----Original Message----- *From:* blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Nealon*Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:22 AM *To:* blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [bct] Re: Recorders for the blind
Sam, recording a wave file at a sampling rate of 44100 and 16 bitthe 4 GB flash card will give you about 6 hours of recording time.
droppedAnd that is in stereo. I don't think that is too shabby for a recording that is totally uncompressed. In addition, if youOlympusthe sampling rate by half, you could still get a better than MP3 quality recording and get twice the time. Plus, unlike therecorders, you can always have more than one flash card. Justslipandone out and put in another one until you can get back to your computer to unload the files.
-----Original Message----- *From:* blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Sam Bushman *Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:39 AM *To:* BlindCoolTech Email List *Subject:* [bct] Recorders for the blind
Just a few thoughts that may help on the recorder issue.
I agree that there are many different uses for the recorderstothat will detail what brand / feature set is best. But, I think that accessibility is the key thing we all need. Meaning that if a recorder is accessible but, not best suitedwethe job at hand ... I may live with it because at least I can operate the dang thing. I don't think we can develop a recorder for the blind becausethatall have different wants and expectations for the device that may conflict. Some have mentioned .wav files but, I personally don't think that will work well. First they are large and you will lose lots of record time. But, this is not about my personal opinion on a feature set for a digital recorder for the blind.
I think that Larry has done is best to identify a recordersetis the best all around for the blind at this time. Meaning that it's accessible and has the main basic featurearewe all need. Olympus has shown over time to have the beeps we need to at least run the things in the first place. I think that if we try to work with Olympus to either create a version for us or add a few more accessibility details that would help us that would be great. I also suggest that we all spend more time finding out why the hum on the 320. Is it the mics that are being used, is it other devices thatclose by causing interference, is it truly the recorder? I don't have these answers yet but, if we could eliminate the hum that would go a long way. Reviewing other devices and trying to work with other device makers also is a great idea. If we develop our own recorder I fear that it will cost an arm and a leg and be very hard to repair.
Thanks for listening ... all ideas welcome. Sam