On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 00:02:04 -0700, Julian wrote
(in article <qrq3g3huktd1bm3mq0sn68u9m3j2cer3t8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> 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
This URL doesn't seem to work. I get a URL error, But I did finally find
it
another way. The noise he speaks of has been completely eliminated in the
H-2
according to O'Reilly's review (see URL, below). I will have to look for a
review that measures the frequency response of the H-2 to see if it's been
fixed as well.
>
> I suspect the H2 is every bit as bad as the H4.
Not according to the O'Reilly review.
> You keep talking about how you want no compromise audiophile quality.
> If so, this is NOT your recorder of choice.
It may not be, but from the reviews I've read, it's pretty good. I'll
check
further, of course, before purchasing anything, but thanks for the
heads-up
at any rate.
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 O'Reilly review seems to be pretty authoritative. After all, he has
tested ALL of these solid-state recorders under real recording situations
INCLUDING the Edirol.
http://tinyurl.com/2t5rn8
>
> 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.
Can you point me to such an Edirol review?
|
