Mike,
What a fascinating example! What software did you use to display
frequencies up to 90 kHz? (I am on a Mac). I don't think Raven Lite
goes above 20 kHz.
If the MKH 20 mic goes so far above 20 kHz, then why on earth don't
the manufacturers say so?
Thanks again for the example! I will try for bats when summer comes.
Vicki
On 20/08/2009, at 3:59 PM, Michael Oates wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just because a manufacture says the mics response goes up to 20kHz,
> does not 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 test 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 may 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
>
>
>
|