Hi,
Just because a manufacture says the mics response goes up to 20kHz, does no=
t mean it will
not allow you record higher frequencies.
Take the following as an example that I recorded last month: The Sennheiser=
MKH20
published response is 12Hz-20,000Hz yet when I recorded in my garden as a t=
est I recorded
a bat which had a strong signal ranging from 48kHz-65kHz. This was recorded=
at 192kbps on
a SD 744T. I did see the bat visually, but not well enough to identify it.
See this sonogram: http://www.mikeoates.org/wildlife/img/sonogram-bat.jpg
Ok this is a particular good mic, but what ever you have just try it, it ma=
y work well
above 20kHz.
While I am here, can anyone identify this bat from the image, I believe it'=
s a Pipistrelle
but it has a higher frequency than other sonograms I have seen, could it be=
a Soprano
Pipistrelle?
Mike
>All,
>
>Is there any point in using a higher sample rate if the mics we use
>only go up to 20 kHz? We would not be able to capture animal sounds
>above 20 kHz no matter what the settings on the recorder.
>
>I note that the Sennheiser MKH 800 goes up to 50 kHz but is very
>expensive. Most other Sennheiser mics only go up to 20 kHz.
>
>When Raimund recorded Noctule bats (20-45 kHz) with inbuilt mics on a
>Sony PCM D50 recorder, he noted that the mic sensitivity went up to
>30 kHz. Does anyone know what the inbuilt mic sensitivity is for the
>Olympus LS-10? I cannot find that in the specifications.
>
>Vicki Powys
>
>
>On 20/08/2009, at 2:42 AM, John Hartog wrote:
>
>> Hi Curt,
>> I don't see the bottom line yet.
>> How does metadata being important suggest that high sample rates
>> are not? Maybe they are both important. These listening tests that
>> we refer to are about marketing music only, and they only show we
>> think we can hear no difference. There are many things that we
>> cannot consciously describe that do indeed affect mind and body.
>> And then there is species and ecosystem documentation - what about
>> all that communication above 20k?
>>
>> John Hartog
|
