| marekm |
| domownik |
|
| |
| Dołączył: 10 Sty 2008 |
| Posty: 111 |
Przeczytał: 0 tematów
Pomógł: 1 raz
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| peregrin napisał: | | paaulo napisał: | | W necie jest fajny test, porównanie DSP vs Pulse (vs S1). Warto przeczytac. |
A mógłbyś linka zapodać? Z góry dziękuję |
zapewne Paweł pisał o tym:
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
z podsumowaniem interesującym dla Ciebie:
| Cytat: | The DSP pioneered signal separation, and its beacon count accuracy and victim flagging consistency have improved with every new software upgrade. Unfortunately, the DSP’s signal separation is still not as good as that on the relative newcomers from Barryvox and Ortovox. Then again, the advanced features are relatively unobtrusive, and the DSP has the longest range with full directional indicators of any beacon on the market, and by a huge margin in a worst-alignment scenario. So if you want a beacon that is relatively “traditional” yet has a beacon count and victim flagging that *could* be helpful in a multiple-victim burial, the DSP is a strong choice. Just don’t be lulled into overly high expectations for its signal separation reliability.
The Pulse is a technological tour de force. The extent of its customization is vast. Its capabilities in a multiple-victim burial, especially in an ultimate nightmare incident of more than three or four burials, are especially impressive. Personally, my main reservations at this point in my experience to date are the potential of the switch to freeze into Transmit and short to very short range test results in a worst-alignment scenario. For others, the sheer amount of text I had to devote in this review to explaining its features reveals the complexity that accompanies such a technological tour de force, although a Pulse user can certainly just accept all the default setting and ignore everything else. |
|
|
