The one really good thing about the Olympus is that it does have automatic
gain control and limiting, so it is possible to get some really good
recordings, but that diff between 64 and 96 really makes a difference.
Plus, you never have to worry about clipping and levers.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Bishop" <jeff.bishop@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M
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 example).
-----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
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?