Topic: Looking for a high quality Omni?

[wbrisette]

Check this out...

http://www.sanken-mic.com/english/index.html

Sanken CO-100K... This baby claims to have a frequency response of 20 Hz to 100 kHz!

Want a pair? They aren't priced too badly, only about $3,800. 

Wayne

(yep I'd love to try them out, but really can't afford the 4K).

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Wow.  I don't think the linestage of our 192K recorders will even pass a signal that high.

[Weazel]

i don't think the human ear can hear that high frequency

[CQBert]

How bout a u89 Wayne? 

All the cool kids have 'em...   

Since you are far from the 'STEALTH' master... why not go big and get a true full range of sound?  Just a thought from back east..

CQBert

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

i don't think the human ear can hear that high frequency

I'm not sure that even matters.  Any excuse to upgrade.   

"But honey, unless I upgrade my recorder, I'm just wasting the money I spent on this mic"

[Patrick]

i don't think the human ear can hear that high frequency

not even *remotely* close

[wbrisette]

How bout a u89 Wayne? 

All the cool kids have 'em...   

Since you are far from the 'STEALTH' master... why not go big and get a true full range of sound?  Just a thought from back east..

What you talking about Willis?     I am the master Stealth artist... OK, maybe not. What gave it away the bright lights on the Deva, the half dozen 50 ft. cables I've been known to lug around, or something else? 

Actually, I'm going to build a custom decca tree, and I don't want LD mics on it. And while I do like the the sound of the U89, it real advantage is not in the sound (for me at least), its in the ability to use it in various configurations. That said, I'm considering adding another pair of QTC1s and/or SR-77s to my kit. the QTC1s for acoustical venues where I can use the decca tree, and the SR77s for amplified music where a decca tree doesn't work very well. I have other possibilities too as far as mics go, but right now I'm trying to sort out the budget (I'm hoping that the gig I did with Rodney Crowell will pay off -- I get paid based on how many of the tracks they use, so it could be nothing. Just depends on what they use for the live record).

Wayne

[cfbarlow]

Wow! Sanken has some really cool mics!! that stereo mic with the two card caps looks great.  +t for the link

[cpatch]

i don't think the human ear can hear that high frequency

Yeah, but your dog will really appreciate the investment.

Craig

[Von Recklinhausen]

i don't think the human ear can hear that high frequency

Some real facts about human hearing phisiology:

-The human ear can detect frequencies from 20-20,000 Hz.

-Some children can detect even higher frequencies.

-Usually frequencies of 250-8000 Hz are used in audiometry testing because this range represents most of the speech spectrum.

-Noise-induced hearing loss is maximal in the 4000-6000 Hz region.

Conclussion:

It is always desirable a microphone with a frequency response of 20-20000 Hz. Anything above 20.000 is absolutely innecesary.


However, I have seen many recommendations of microphones with frequency responses in the range of 30-20.000 Hz, such as the Audio Technica 853 and 943, or even in the range of 40-20.000 Hz, such as the Studio Projects C4. It is my oppinion that a microphone unable to detect the same frequency spectrum that the human ear cann't be a good microphone. What do you think?

[JasonSobel]

It is my oppinion that a microphone unable to detect the same frequency spectrum that the human ear cann't be a good microphone. What do you think?

I think you need to look more at the manufacturers listed specs, because a lot of it is done for marketing reasons.  For example, the DPA 4011 (or the 4022) are spec'ed at 40-20k (+/- 2dB).  First off, I think most people will agree that the DPA mics are truely wonderful, fantastic microphones.  Just because the specs don't list it, doesn't mean that the mics don't pick up sound down at that frequency range.  It's just that it's hard to control the frequency response curve as you get so low, so down at 20Hz, the DPA mics are probably at -6 or -8 dB or something like that.  and because DPA, as a company, prides itself on having "ruler flat" frequency response, they chose to publish the specs as 40-20k (+/- 2dB).  if they had chosen to publish the specs as 20-20k, they probably would have had to quality it as +/- 6dB (or whatever it actually is down there).

The point it, your own ears will tell you that the DPA's have a great, full, extended bass response.  so don't just go on the specs alone.

and one other thing I'd like to comment on.

Some real facts about human hearing phisiology:
-The human ear can detect frequencies from 20-20,000 Hz.

Conclussion:
It is always desirable a microphone with a frequency response of 20-20000 Hz. Anything above 20.000 is absolutely innecesary.

It's true about the human frequency detection that usually tops out around 20kHz (although some people can hear higher, say 21 or 22kHz).  However, people don't fully understand how our hearing works.  Musical instruments create harmonics well above 20kHz, and while we may not be able to hear those harmonics directly, they probably do subtlely affect how we percieve the music that we do hear.  100kHz may be a bit excessive, but I'd think you might want to go up to at least 40 or 50kHz, to get the first harmonic above 20kHz.

So, while it might not be entirely necessary for a mic to pick up noises above 20kHz, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's "absolutely innecesary"

[Von Recklinhausen]

I think you need to look more at the manufacturers listed specs....
.....so don't just go on the specs alone.

 

It's true about the human frequency detection that usually tops out around 20kHz (although some people can hear higher, say 21 or 22kHz).  However, people don't fully understand how our hearing works.  Musical instruments create harmonics well above 20kHz, and while we may not be able to hear those harmonics directly, they probably do subtlely affect how we percieve the music that we do hear.  100kHz may be a bit excessive, but I'd think you might want to go up to at least 40 or 50kHz, to get the first harmonic above 20kHz.

So, while it might not be entirely necessary for a mic to pick up noises above 20kHz, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's "absolutely innecesary"

You cann't hear the first harmonic above 20.000 Hz directly nor indirectly, since it is physiologically imposible. If it affects the perceived sound, it will be in the audible spectrum, so it is absolutely unnecessary  (touché) a frequency response above 20.000Hz

[it-goes-to-eleven]

You cann't hear the first harmonic above 20.000 Hz directly nor indirectly, since it is physiologically imposible. If it affects the perceived sound, it will be in the audible spectrum, so it is absolutely unnecessary  (touché) a frequency response above 20.000Hz

Do you have a 'scholarly' source that you could share which supports that contention?

[JasonSobel]

Von Recklinhausen -

as to the first part of your response, you clearly didn't read or understand what I wrote about the DPA mics, so I'm not going to spend more time arguing or explaining.  Please re-read what I wrote the first time.

You cann't hear the first harmonic above 20.000 Hz directly nor indirectly, since it is physiologically imposible. If it affects the perceived sound, it will be in the audible spectrum, so it is absolutely unnecessary  (touché) a frequency response above 20.000Hz

except that the harmonics of a note DO affect the note that we hear within the 20-20kHz range.  If that harmonic is not recorded, the note that we hear will not be reproduced in the same way.  This is something that is being discussed by many people in the professional recording community.  From my understanding, I can see a benefit of recording the upper harmonics of a note.  you clearly do not see a benefit of this.  I guess the omni mic being discussed in this thread is not for you then...

[Von Recklinhausen]

JasonSobel:

First of all: Sorry if you are upset by the first part of my response, since it was not my intention to offend you.

I will try to explain my viewpoint to Freelunch and you (and, or course, to anybody interested in), which is not an easy task for me in a foreign language. My purpose is just that, to explain and try to add something to the forum, nor contradict nor spend your time.

That said, the upper frequency limit of hearing is not somewhat arbitrary, but a scientific data totally stablished through neurophysiological recordings. There is no sound perceived  beyond, lets say, 20.000 Hz, as there is no vision in absolute darkness.

The perceived sound is the result of the different sound waves, each with its own frequency) reaching the cochlea in the inner ear, where they stimulate the "hair cells" of the Organ of Corti and are transduced into nerve impulses that reach the auditory cortex. It is here where the perceived sound arises.

When we hear the sound produced by the A violin string, we are hearing the fundamental note (A), plus the first, seccond, third...harmonics. They are the responsible of the violin timbre. Since the frequency range of the violin is 196 to 3.136 Hz, we can hear even the second harmonic of the highest note, but not the third. The perceived sound in this case is the result of the highest violin note plus the first and second harmonic. The third harmonic (approximately 24.000 Hz) is not audible at all, and does not contributte anything to the perceived sound. The same repeats with a concert piano (frequency range 27,5-4.186 Hz, flute (261-3.349 Hz) etc, etc.

So, it again looks like more important the microphone response in the 20-40 Hz (audible) than in the 20.000-40.000 Hz  range (not audible at all, nor contributing to the perceived sound).

I have no dout that the Sanken CO-100 K microphone is a wonderful microphone, but nor hearing phisiology nor psychoacoustics support that the extended frequency range 20.000-100.000 Hz) is responsible of it. You have guessed well, this microphone is not for me, perhaps for nature recordists interested in bat ultrasounds.

[wbrisette]

I have no dout that the Sanken CO-100 K microphone is a wonderful microphone, but nor hearing phisiology nor psychoacoustics support that the extended frequency range 20.000-100.000 Hz) is responsible of it. You have guessed well, this microphone is not for me, perhaps for nature recordists interested in bat ultrasounds.

I think they are going after the classical music audience with this mic. If I recorded more of that market, I would certainly be going after a pair of these myself. But, they simply don't have the SPL that I need when I use omnis for amplified music, and for the few times a year I do classicial and acoustical shows, I can't see spending $4K.

Wayne

[WiFiJeff]

That said, the upper frequency limit of hearing is not somewhat arbitrary, but a scientific data totally stablished through neurophysiological recordings. There is no sound perceived  beyond, lets say, 20.000 Hz, as there is no vision in absolute darkness.

This little theoretical tract would be to the point if all we were listening to were monophonic sine waves.  Then the 20 kH hearing limit (probably even lower than that for most of us) would be indisputable.  But lots of what the ear does is inconveniently non-linear.  Also, we want to reproduce a stereo sound stage, and arrival times at left and right ear are an important cue.  Tests have shown that the ear can differentiate very short differences in arrival time, and I have seen it suggested that recording at 192 kH is actually warrented to preserve these cues, even if we can't hear 96 kH sine waves. 

Jeff

[Von Recklinhausen]

This little theoretical tract would be to the point if all we were listening to were monophonic sine waves.  Then the 20 kH hearing limit (probably even lower than that for most of us) would be indisputable.  But lots of what the ear does is inconveniently non-linear.

I have been too naïve thinking that it could be better explained considering a simple sinusoidal wave. But we can dive deeper.

Over 100 years ago, the physicist Georg Ohm, the same who gave his name to Ohm's law, recognized the basic principle governing the function of the ear. He proposed that complex sounds are broken down into simple and discrete vibrations for subsequent analysis by the brain. In effect, Ohm suggested the ear performs a type of analysis described several years earlier by the french mathematician Jean Fourier. According to Fourier, even the most complex waveforms can be described by the sum of many simpler sine waves and cosine waves of appropriate phases and amplitudes. The results of modern research have confirmed Ohm's original idea that the auditory system performs a Fourier analysis of air-borne sounds by breaking them down into basis frequency components of different phases and amplitudes.

  Also, we want to reproduce a stereo sound stage, and arrival times at left and right ear are an important cue.  Tests have shown that the ear can differentiate very short differences in arrival time, and I have seen it suggested that recording at 192 kH is actually warrented to preserve these cues, even if we can't hear 96 kH sine waves. 

Jeff

To localize the position of a sound source, the auditory cortex utilizes the cues of interaural differences in the time of sound arrival (a few tenths of a millisecond) and interaural differences in sound intensity only, in spite of can have been suggested.


I think that the mechanism used by the ear to transform incoming sounds -the Fourier analysis- and the means by which complex sounds are received by the ear and interpreted by the brain are out of the scope of this forum.

Yours, Von (but not James Bond).

[d5]

Wow! Sanken has some really cool mics!! that stereo mic with the two card caps looks great.  +t for the link

just don't mount it upside down...

 

[Gutbucket]

To localize the position of a sound source, the auditory cortex utilizes the cues of interaural differences in the time of sound arrival (a few tenths of a millisecond) and interaural differences in sound intensity only, in spite of can have been suggested.

Time arrival and intensitly cues are the mechanisms most often used in stereo sound recording and reproduction, but they are not the only cues used by the auditory cortex.  There is a third mechanism as well: spectral modification of the signal due to the effect the outer ear has on signals arriving from various angles. 

This is why true binaural recordings work best when played back for the person who made the recording (using their own outer ears) and can fail to work so well for someone with a dramaticaly different ear shape.  The time of arrival and intensity cues are pretty much the same for different individuals.  Ear spacing, head size and shape (affecting time & intensity cues) vary much less than ear shape (effecting eq from differing angles).

This mechanism is used for true HRTF modeling done by NASA and other research labs.  It is very expensive to record the HRTF for a single individual across a full 3-d sphere and computationaly intensive to use the data to modify binaral reproduction, but has been done for fighter pilots and military air traffic controllers who need to keep spatial track of multiple sources of information while doing various tasks (really fast). HRTF data is available for the Kemar dummy head with various interchangable ears and labs have been working to try and find good average fits to general populations with differing ear shapes.

-rambling on a minor point. OK, back to work!