On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:50:11 -0700, Sonnova
<sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:13:09 -0700, John Lamp wrote
>(in article <13fr2k6emll6h81@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> SamSez wrote:
>>> Actually, the zoom h2 is quite good, and less than $200 US.
>>
>> That's certainly the direction I am looking at present.
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>
>Me too, actually. For record purposes only, of course. My iPod using
Apple
>lossless compression meets my ****table music player needs just fine,
thank
>you.
Better read this first:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/zoomh4rv.htmv
I suspect the H2 is every bit as bad as the H4.
You keep talking about how you want no compromise audiophile quality.
If so, this is NOT your recorder of choice. The reviews that praise
the quality of these recorders have done absolutely NO QUANTITATIVE
evaluations, only raves about the features and company supplied specs.
The bench tests on the M-Audio are pretty bad too.
The Edirol is the only one that can stand up to testing by someone who
actually has any damn test equipment!!! The rest are all hype.
Julian
|
