[bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M

  • From: "Jeff Bishop" <jeff.bishop@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:38:19 -0700

Interesting, so are you saying that for voice the 64bit would be OK?  I also
think the reliability of insuring a recording is in process is rather
important.  Believe me, I would be rather upset if half of them came out
blank or nothing was recorded LOLOL.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Skutchan
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:24 PM
To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M

Well, let me put it this way.  That ws-320M and a set of binourals are
always on me.  I used tthe Olympus at ATIA, and I will use it at CSUN, too. 
For that kind of environment, you can't beat it.  For a sound seeing tour,
I'd probably go with the Iriver.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bishop" <jeff.bishop@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M


> Larry,
>
> If it were you, what would you use between the two, the Iriver?  My 
> fear is that the Iriver may not record, I have had this happen in the 
> past.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry 
> Skutchan
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bct] Re: Recordings on the Olympus ws320M
>
> 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>
> To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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).
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> -----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: