[bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M

  • From: "Jeff Bishop" <jeff.bishop@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 13:37:50 -0700

Is it simply a bit difference from 96 to 64 and is it that noticable of a
difference?  For example, does the Olympus provide better recordings in a
conference type mode (where you are quite a bit away from the speaker for


-----Original Message-----
From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Skutchan
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:11 PM
To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M

No way Jeeff.  That Iriver gives a much better recording, but the Olympus is
easier to use and does a desceent job.

The 320M supports protected WMA, according to its manual, but I have not
been able to make this work.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bishop" <jeff.bishop@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: [bct] Recordings on the Olympus ws320M

> Hello Everyone,
> I seem to recall some podcasts from Larry about issues with recordings 
> on the Olympus 320M.  Can anyone advise as to this?  I am looking at 
> buying one for my trip to CSUN as I think it will provide better 
> quality then my
> IFP899
> Iriver.  What do you think?
> What bit rate does the 320M support?
> Has anyone gotten Overdrive or Net Library (protected wma) files to 
> work with the 320M?
> Jeff Bishop

Other related posts: