[bct] Re: Recorders for the blind

  • From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:57:12 -0600

Kai, 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 who do
not want to have to edit their podcasts in a compressed format and thus
make 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 to simply
make 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 big job
to pull off in the first place, so why not go the extra step and include
.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 Neal Ewers
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 bit on the
4 GB flash card will give you about 6 hours of recording time.  And that
is in stereo.  I don't think that is too shabby for a recording that is
totally uncompressed.  In addition, if you dropped the sampling rate by
half, you could still get a better than MP3 quality recording and get
twice the time.  Plus, unlike the Olympus recorders, you can always have
more than one flash card.  Just slip one 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

Hi Guys,
Just a few thoughts that may help on the recorder issue.
I agree that there are many different uses for the recorders and that
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 suited to the job
at hand ... I may live with it because at least I can operate the dang
I don't think we can develop a recorder for the blind because we all
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 recorder that is the
best all around for the blind at this time.
Meaning that it's accessible and has the main basic feature set we all
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 that are close
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.

Other related posts: