omichalis
Date: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:17 pm ((PDT))
Yea there is a point if you ask me - though it is a matter of taste=0D
because=0D
higher sample rates mean less quantization noise - at least in theory=0D
and=0D
when a mic is supposed to be sensitive up to 20K it doesn' t =0D
necessarily mean that it won' t pick up frequencies of 20,5 or 21K..=0D
On 20 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2009, at 2:03 =CE=A0=CE=9C, vickipowys wrote:=0D
> All,=0D
>=0D
> Is there any point in using a higher sample rate if the mics we use=0D
> only go up to 20 kHz? We would not be able to capture animal sounds=0D
> above 20 kHz no matter what the settings on the recorder.=0D
>=0D
> I note that the Sennheiser MKH 800 goes up to 50 kHz but is very=0D
> expensive. Most other Sennheiser mics only go up to 20 kHz.=0D
>=0D
> When Raimund recorded Noctule bats (20-45 kHz) with inbuilt mics on a=0D
> Sony PCM D50 recorder, he noted that the mic sensitivity went up to=0D
> 30 kHz. Does anyone know what the inbuilt mic sensitivity is for the=0D
> Olympus LS-10? I cannot find that in the specifications.=0D
>=0D
> Vicki Powys=0D
>=0D
> On 20/08/2009, at 2:42 AM, John Hartog wrote:=0D
>=0D
> > Hi Curt,=0D
> > I don't see the bottom line yet.=0D
> > How does metadata being important suggest that high sample rates=0D
> > are not? Maybe they are both important. These listening tests that=0D
> > we refer to are about marketing music only, and they only show we=0D
> > think we can hear no difference. There are many things that we=0D
> > cannot consciously describe that do indeed affect mind and body.=0D
> > And then there is species and ecosystem documentation - what about=0D
> > all that communication above 20k?=0D
> >=0D
> > John Hartog=0D
> =0D
|