Re: Shiny new portable recorder.


In article <XMGdnZXO2o73qmnfRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxxx> opaloka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> If compression is OK with him, he'd be better off running the stereo mix
> into the RCA inputs of a cheap DVD recorder from wally-mart. Seriously, the
> audio is way better than MP3, and there are an awful lot of dvd players
> around, even portable ones. At 99 bucks a pop, he could run two in case one
> fails in the hot sun. However, my impression was he required uncompressed
> audio data.

Uncompressed data is a biased preference, because compression is a
computer process and computer processes can go out of style pretty
quickly. What I really want is easy access on the shelf.

The Library of Congress has researchers coming and going every day, so
it's a good idea for them to transfer their folk music archive
recording to a computer so that they can be searched and accessed like
a juke box. Want to hear a black banjo player from North Carolina?
That's P-13. Just push the button. And even with MP3 compression, the
quality is fine for research. Someone who wants to issue a commrecial
product from those recordings would want to go back to the original
source to do the best transfer possible. They have grants to do this
digital storage project, and they have enough traffic to justify it.
Thousands of hours will go into it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@xxxxxxxxxxx)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
.

Loading