Topic: Sennheiser 421s - pros, cons?

[bluegrass_brad]

Only bad thing about Earthworks is that they are more power hungry than Bush and Cheney

[RebelRebel]

I've always maintained, and continuosly so, that I'm not qualified enough in any of this to call myself a professional.
WTF is Nyquist?

a principle in digital audio, stating that the highest throughput frequency in a sampling system must be equal to or less than one-half the sampling frequency. so theoretically, the highest frequency reproducible (without generating  aliasing noise) by a system operating at a sampling rate of 48 kHz is 24 kHz. In practice, with the need for brickwall anti-aliasing filters, the actual upper-frequency response of such a system is somewhat less.

as for omnis...id go with Gefell mk221 with josephson c617 bodies. cream o' the crop.

[SparkE!]

I'm afraid I don't understand some of the more technical aspects of your post - I'm still very much a newbie at this, I've never even owned a set of mikes.  I do know that I want a pair that has at least a 24 khz response since I want to tape in 24 bit/48 khz.  If the Sennheisers only go up to 18 then I suppose I need to look elsewhere.  Thanks.

Big and heavy!
Decent sounding mic that can handle the loudest of situations. But not so good if its quiet.

Don't confuse digital sample rates with microphone frequency response.

Moke,
Seems like he is referring to Nyquist. If you are taping @ 48KHz, makes sense that you would want a mic that can record frequencies up to half that, or 24 KHz. Digital sampling rate is directly related to the freq. response contained in your recording.

Oh come on.  You mean if you want to do 24/96 that you want a mic that goes to 48 kHz?

In my opinion, it's actually a good thing to have mics that roll off in the ultrasonic range.  Otherwise you end up consuming a portion of your available dynamic range recording signals that you can't hear anyway.

[BC]

Oh come on.  You mean if you want to do 24/96 that you want a mic that goes to 48 kHz?

I would think so. That seems to be the reason behind the wide-bandwidth Earthworks and Schoeps CMC6xt microphones, to take advantage of high sampling rate digital formats.

[laptaper]

you've got dog ears!
There is this new technology for crowd control, a 15khz buzz, that is going to lay waste to you and your ears! Most "older people" can't hear it. But the younger ages, the targeted ages, will suffer enough to disperse when it is applied.

Not really, I just take better care of my ears. :-)  I found out about ten years ago that a small wad of paper stuffed in the lower ear lobe will cut out what I call the "stilleto frequencies" at a concert, while still allowing you to fully enjoy the show and hold a normal conversation without shouting.

[TNJazz]

If you're recording rock concerts, keep in mind that instruments, vocals and all that other stuff coming out of the PA cabinets are probably being miked with 57's and 58's (freq. response is 50-15k I believe?)   Then there's the response of the cabinets themselves...

Unless you're recording unamplified music in a perfect room, mics like the Earthworks (30K, 40k, etc) are just going to give you a more detailed picture of all the crap you DON'T want.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have a hard time believing you can actually hear a true 20kHz tone.  If you really can, maybe you should contact Bob Clearmountain about a possible internship.

[laptaper]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have a hard time believing you can actually hear a true 20kHz tone.  If you really can, maybe you should contact Bob Clearmountain about a possible internship.

qft

Well, all I know is that if I go into CE 2K and select from the menu Generate>Tones, then type in "20000" in the Base Frequency box (right next to where it says "Hz") I can hear a tiny but distinct tone if I crank my stereo all the way up and there's no ambient sound interfering.  It's hard to pick out, but I can.

I experimented with 15khz, too, and pity the teenagers (and myself - I'm 42, and if this is what I'll be encountering in certain public places I'll gladly lose that capacity, I came close to nausea when I turned it up).  Also, I've noticed in train stations I'll literally cringe and cover my ears if a locomotive with bad brakes comes screeching into the station while others just saunter on their merry way.

[Brian Skalinder]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have a hard time believing you can actually hear a true 20kHz tone.  If you really can, maybe you should contact Bob Clearmountain about a possible internship.

qft

Hmmmmm....

I just ABX'd two files:  a 10-sec silent file and a 10-sec 20 kHz tone file.  My ABX results:  10/10.  It's faint, not easy to hear.  But the chances of me guessing correctly 10/10 times (according to the ABX s/w) is < 0.1%.

That said, maybe what I'm hearing is my headphones' attempt to reproduce the 20 kHz tone, but it's actually generating other noise / signal in the process that I'm picking up.

Or maybe my quick test is fundamentally flawed (likely).  Hmmmm...

[BC]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have a hard time believing you can actually hear a true 20kHz tone.  If you really can, maybe you should contact Bob Clearmountain about a possible internship.

qft

Hmmmmm....

I just ABX'd two files:  a 10-sec silent file and a 10-sec 20 kHz tone file.  My ABX results:  10/10.  It's faint, not easy to hear.  But the chances of me guessing correctly 10/10 times (according to the ABX s/w) is < 0.1%.

That said, maybe what I'm hearing is my headphones' attempt to reproduce the 20 kHz tone, but it's actually generating other noise / signal in the process that I'm picking up.

Or maybe my quick test is fundamentally flawed (likely).  Hmmmm...

I would also guess that it is much easier to hear a pure 20 KHz tone than 20 KHz tones that are intermixed with music.

[RebelRebel]

I think that info is in the Microphone book!

Kavi is all digital now! Sound Devices 722>>>true systems>>>Pearl

I've always maintained, and continuosly so, that I'm not qualified enough in any of this to call myself a professional.
WTF is Nyquist?

a principle in digital audio, stating that the highest throughput frequency in a sampling system must be equal to or less than one-half the sampling frequency. so theoretically, the highest frequency reproducible (without generating  aliasing noise) by a system operating at a sampling rate of 48 kHz is 24 kHz. In practice, with the need for brickwall anti-aliasing filters, the actual upper-frequency response of such a system is somewhat less.

as for omnis...id go with Gefell mk221 with josephson c617 bodies. cream o' the crop.

Thanks, Teddy
I'll bet you didn't learn that from Kavi!

:goes and hugs his d5m:

[RebelRebel]

too bad the schoeps XTs sound like ass. unless you are a dog , the wide bandwith microphones are worthless, imho.

Oh come on.  You mean if you want to do 24/96 that you want a mic that goes to 48 kHz?

I would think so. That seems to be the reason behind the wide-bandwidth Earthworks and Schoeps CMC6xt microphones, to take advantage of high sampling rate digital formats.

[anodyne33]

20k on computer speakers?

we need a review of these, if so!

my harman/kardon sound sticks just sort of clicked as the sample started, and then again as the sample stopped.

WHAT?

[Gutbucket]

Mics hand-held and performance recorded from 9th row center.

It was incredibly painful!

+T for the bulging bicep workout.

IMO, Like others have mentioned this is pointless for recoring anything that goes through a PA.  Even when recording acoustic sources there is something to be said for a gradual smooth roll of of the uber high freq. - even with higher sampling rates.  I've heard string quartets and jazz drummer's cymbals with plenty of energy up there recorded with ribbon mics that blew me away with the natural sound of the top octave, & ribbon mics are generally way down by 16-18k.  I've also been impressed with some very natural sounding Earthworks recordings that had killer airy transients and response far above what I can hear.  but for my money, a smooth response is more important than ultimate extension. 

Think of it as leaving a little frequency headroom if it makes you feel better about unused bandwidth up there.

Keep in mind that there are always trade off's.  Capturing those dog eared frequencies requires mics with very small diaphrams that are generally noisier.  Which, like everything else can be somewhat offset with $$$$.  Just make sure the trade off's you make are for better sounding, more involving music and not just specs on paper.

[SparkE!]

Well, all I know is that if I go into CE 2K and select from the menu Generate>Tones, then type in "20000" in the Base Frequency box (right next to where it says "Hz") I can hear a tiny but distinct tone if I crank my stereo all the way up and there's no ambient sound interfering.  It's hard to pick out, but I can.

I've got an experiment for you.  Turn your 20 kHz recording up until you can hear it, then pop in a 8 kHz tone instead at the same volume.  (Then think about the damage you're doing to your ears with the 20 kHz that you can barely detect and contrast that with the 8 kHz tone that probably has you covering your ears with your hands. )

Like I said, I don't understand using part of your valuable dynamic range to preserve sonic information that is so nearly indetectable when compared with the audible portion of the audio spectrum.

[laptaper]

I overlooked something else - regardless of what frequencies I can (barely) hear at full blast, I need to take into account the volume I'm actually going to be listening to my recordings at, which obviously won't be full volume.  Given that, should I still be taping at 48khz for the headroom, or is 44.1khz sufficient?