ORIGINAL: Kir

Call up Sweetwater and see if they'll send you the Earthworks demo CD. I would not have thought that anyone could convince me to buy a microphone based on a sample recording on a CD. But they've done an excellent job of doing just that. Whether it's because they go where only dogs can hear or just because they're very responsive to transients and high frequencies, they do sound really good regardless.

I don't know man...following Bitflippers reasoning through all this...he doesn't seem like someone easily fooled.......here were talking about a mic responsive to 50 khz..... demo sent to him on a common 44.1 CD...........but in the end "they do sound really good" regardless of physics...that really is the bottom line........

ORIGINAL: Kir

Ahhh hey guys remember me How many people in here have said you can't hear above 20khz....and now your talking about a microphone that responds up to 50khz.....obviously someone can hear the difference.............Man this is better than politics

ORIGINAL: mudgel

I haven't seen a loudspeaker yet that will reproduce anything above 20khz. (approx)

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

lots of mics go way beyond 20K, most aren't flat response past some point but it's a fallacy to think mics CAN'T respond to hi frequencies.

A microphone that responds to 50Khz is very likely to have a nice linear frequency and phase response in the audible range. The same goes for Neve's 100Khz bandwidth analogue gear. It isn't about what is or isn't happening at 95Khz. It is about what that type of design means for the range of frequencies we actually hear. A preamp with a 20Khz bandwidth probably sound bad way before you reach those 20Khz. One that has a 100Khz bandwidth probably is as accurate at 20Khz as at 1Khz while the 20Khz bandwidth one probably has all sorts of issues from 10Khz upwards. So the 50 or 100Khz response mentioned in the brochure is indeed a bit of marketing but if you know that this usually translates to "flat frequency and phase response in the audible range" then that info is still useful. UnderTow

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

ORIGINAL: studio24

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

lots of mics go way beyond 20K, most aren't flat response past some point but it's a fallacy to think mics CAN'T respond to hi frequencies.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Pick any studio on the web .. go through their microphone stock ..
and 90% of the mics will roll off so dramatically after 20khz that they are largely deaf above
23 kHz. Just look at the response graphs from the manufacturers .. they are precision measured
graphs. Believe me, if a Neumann U87 could go up to 40kHz, they would advertise that.

Earthworks is what I would consider the "rare" mic that goes above 20kHz. And they do it by having
this tiny little capsule. Therefore, its application is quite specialized. They make no bones about its
specific utility.

Don't be sorry. Why not learn something.

Let me get this straight. Your referencing specs on a U87 LARGE DIAPHRAM mic? Last I heard LD's main benefits were good detail in the low end and a tendancy to smooth over higher frequencies. Not hi frequency response. Nice choice for an exampe to support your premiss.

I will repeat: "lots of mics go way beyond 20K, most aren't flat response past some point"

So I walked over to my mic locker and grabbed 3 ACTUAL response curves that were provided to me when I purchased the respective mics.

These are very common mics used in studios and on location all over the world everyday to record a wide variety of source content. Speech, ambience, and music are typical applications.

Although you do not get any data beyond 20kHz I think you can clearly see that the frequency extends beyond 20kHz. They do not specifically have a tone curve that suddenly drops... they just don't guaranty *linearity* beyond 20k.



So the descriptive I used, "lots of", stands as a completely valid statement regardless of whatever narrow contraints you wish to impose on your own understanding of the vast array of mics availble for sound recording use.

best regards,
mike

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

But you can clearly read this right?

quoted from my previous post:
"Although you do not get any data beyond 20kHz I think you can clearly see that the frequency extends beyond 20kHz. They do not specifically have a tone curve that suddenly drops... they just don't guaranty *linearity* beyond 20k."

ORIGINAL: jcschild

well here is my 2 pennies,

if you are gong to do 192 it sure aint gonna be with the mackie.

Lynx AES 16, or RME AES and the Aurora 16 converter at minimum ($3400)
other AES converters... Apogee for starters.

Studio monitors? if they are not at least Adam S series why bother. ($3000 and up)

Mic pres: err should say channel strip at this point minimum $1000 per 1 channel

Mic: ahh i think you get the point......

not to bust your bubble but the "PROS" do not record @ 192.

Scott
ADK

ORIGINAL: SteveJL

As someone with an audiophile sound reproduction system, and having done blind-listening tests with other audiophiles, I can confirm that the difference in sound quality between 44.1k, 96k, and 192k is indeed audible, given sufficient-quality source material, ears and brain that can listen, a good listening environment, and an audiophile-quality sound reproduction system. All I will say on this is that music is about much more than physics, and no-one can truly explain the brain-component of the listening experience. If you want a shot at the best possible sound, you have to use the best equipment you possibly can (in the entire chain), record at the highest possible specs by the best-qualified engineer possible. You are on the right track. It's your music, have fun

ORIGINAL: p750souza


Take into consideration E-MU 1616M:

http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?category=505&subcategory=491&product=15189

Mastering grade 24-bit/192kHz converters - the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship ProTools HD 192 I/O Interface delivering an amazing 120dB signal-to-noise ratio.