Seems there´s other models with more memory for a 48 hours recording.
Continuing with this, is always better to record in a separate device like
this voice recorders?
Is not a good idea to record in the same PC you are logging?
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
-----Mensaje original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] En nombre de Steve London
Enviado el: Lunes, 19 de Julio de 2010 10:29 p.m.
Para: Jeff Kinzli N6GQ
CC: cq-contest@contesting.com
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dedicated contest audio recorder
The R39M WRTC-2010 team used the Olympus DM-420. It worked great for
recording
each radio on a separate channel, but it can't quite do the length that you
need. I don't have it anymore, so I can't quote the exact specs. It easily
met
the WRTC requirement of at least 24 hours on a single file, and a single set
of
alkaline batteries.
It was $150 at Best Buy, but you can do a lot better on the internet.
73,
Steve, N2IC
Jeff Kinzli N6GQ wrote:
> I wonder if anyone on the list has had any good success with any
> off-the-shelf digital voice recorders, digital music recorders, etc.
> that can:
>
> 1. Go the full 48 hours without needing attention
> 2. small enough to carry in carry-on luggage
> 3. Don't break the bank
> 4. Don't require a PC (the logging computer is just for logging, nothing
else)
>
> The music type recorders would fit the bill except most I've seen are
> focused on high sampling rates for quality and so this takes a lot of
> storage, and this isn't needed for a SSB or CW contest. They are also
> rather expensive, and most seem relatively untested past 1 or 2 hours
> of recording time.
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|