|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.13.230.11
In Reply to: RE: In other words, you have no idea. posted by carcass93 on March 12, 2012 at 14:57:45
“The only valid point in your whole post is brick-walled CD - and that concern goes away, if one deals with hi-rez files via computer playback.”
If you mean capturing and reproducing sounds that exist in music or environmental sound, then you profoundly under estimate how hard it is to both capture and reproduce those sounds and that in the presence of other sound lower in pitch are easily masked masked.
http://www.minidisc.org/MaskingPaper.html
For example, what loudspeaker transducer do you know of that can cover 50KHz or higher and what sensitivity is it relative to the speakers below? What microphone has both a low enough noise floor for hifi and response that high?
I record in the 24/96 format because of the noise floor and uncompressed recordings but what one can say is that if anything comes out of a CD player above about 22KHz, it not part of the recorded signal.
Also, I didn’t say you can’t hear above 20KHz, I said it had to be loud enough to be audible, just like low frequency sound (see link).
Follow Ups:
"What microphone has both a low enough noise floor for hifi and response that high?"Earthworks claims that some of their models have a bandwidth up to 50KHz.
Just an idle thought - I'm not saying it's useful.
Regarding the "tiny" B&K mic... are you talking about the 1/8" model? Yeppers, those puppies be 'spensive. They're also not very good for "normal" audio recording. The low end and output level are issues when mated to "normal" audio gear. Although, the Grateful Dead did use the 1/4" (I think 4135?) successfully as a differential mic setup for vocals, but, yes, the cost was exhorbitant. ('Course, as part of the "one percent", they had the money. ;) )
Edits: 03/13/12
Yes, among others, I have a pair of M55's which are -3dB at about 48KHz and a 1/8 inch B&K which is good to about 80KHz. I am very familiar with the difficulties involved at the producing end as well.
It is the noise floor which becomes a problem when you have a small enough mic to go that high.
The solution i have been working on allows a smaller mic but also lowers the noise floor.
Personally i believe a large part of the problem is at the capture end and it isn't so much one of lack of extension.
See if the Train or Harley at the bottom of the linked page doesn't have an unusually "real" impression, try them with headphones first.
"The solution i have been working on allows a smaller mic but also lowers the noise floor."
I'm pretty sure that that's what all the major and minor mic manufacturers are doing.
Higher output, smaller diaphragm, lower noise. Huh, who'd a thunk it.
“I'm pretty sure that that's what all the major and minor mic manufacturers are doing.”
Yes but just like the 400 mile per gallon carburetor, the laws of physics can be a real pain in the rear when in the way.
“Higher output, smaller diaphragm, lower noise. Huh, who'd a thunk it.”
Maybe someday they will make a leap forward in that but for now, like all of us, they are limited by physics and real world materials to what we have now.
My approach doesn’t defeat physics, it uses the laws a little differently.
If you are interested in audio / recording technology enough to listen to something, try the Harley or Train recordings at the bottom of the page with headphones and make a judgment on the stereo image and noise floor based on sound.
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/technical%20downloads.html
Herding those air molecules surrounding the microphone is more difficult than herding cats. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: