Any recommendations on mini-disc players for recording ultrasound?

Brand?
Model?

Thanks,

Hi Denny,
I have used both Sharp and Sony for this purpose.
The key points are to ensure that the recorder has a separate MICrophone input and that the recorder has manual recording level control.
Last one I bought on ebay cost me $25.

Best Regards,
Tom Murphy

Tom,
Thanks for response. I'll see what I can find.

Denny,
I was talking to Allan Reinstra of SDT North America at a conference this week. He told me that he has found a new digital recorder which they have tested and it works really well.

Best Regards,
Tom Murphy

Tom,

What was the brand and model for the recorder?

Denny
I use Olympus DS-30. It does me a good job.

Vrop

I am using OLIMPUS Digital voice recorder WS-100.

But I am not sure if it does a good job because I don't have proof that it is sampling demodulated ultrasound signal with sufficient rate. Otherwise it is OK.

David

Vrop & David
Thanks for another option. The help is much appreciated!

To All,

My company is SDT, vendor of ultraosund equipment so a handful of salt grains may be necessary.

We recommend (and supply) the Edirol R-09 and Edirol R-09HR from Roland Music. These are available on-line from Amazon etc... and we also can supply you direct at more than competitive prices.

The key advantages of the R-09 are:
1.Select between auto and manual gain control (you want manual gain control ON for recording ultrasound)
2.Choose to record the file as a compressed MP3 file with low sample rate if you are only keeping a sound library
3. Choose to record the file as an uncompressed waveform file at 44,100kHz 16 bit. This is better if you are doing any analysis of the signal in time or frequency domain.
4. removeable SD card for easy transfer of files from recorder to PC
5. Red light indicator if input signal is too high. This will ensure your file is not clipped.
6. Really really really simple to operate

Hope this post was more informative than it was commercial.

Interesting. Here is the Roland description of the product.
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=960
Anyone know the rough price?

Now, two questions from an ultrasound newbie.

1 - What would be recorded? It cannot be the original signal because the ultrasound frequencies are much higher than 44khz/2 (factor of 2 courtesdy of Nyquist), correct? The heterodyned signal is recorded? Than of course the hetrodyning frequency cannot be adjusted later, right? Is there a way to record the real raw data so a user could have an opportunity to go back and adjust the heterogyne frequency.

2 - If I wanted to use that recorder for recording machine noises heard by operators for comparison and trending.... any recommendations one what type of audio mic to use?

El'Pete,

$337.95 at Amazon.com (a little pricy for the function it would be used for)

The recorder would record what is in the headphones, so it it the hetrodyned audio signal that is recorded. Play your tuning game before making a recording or make several recordings.

The specs for the R-9 indicate max wave sample frequency of 96kHz, so F-max would be 49kHz and in theory would cover the raw signal. I have not seen a ultrsound meter that provides the raw signal output.

Most any good electret microphone should be OK for recording audible machinery noise.

Walt

Thanks Walt.

quote:

Originally posted by Allan:
3. Choose to record the file as an uncompressed waveform file at 44,100kHz 16 bit. .

Allan,

Out of curiousity... If one uses this recorder to record and play heterodyned ultrasound, which in the worse case is less then 20 kHZ and for all practical reasons rarely exceeds 10 kHZ, wouldn't Fmax= 44 kHZ be an overkill. Of course higher Fmax never hurts for music recording but it is pricy for ultrasound heterodyned sound recording.

David