[analogsurviver]

They are not calibrated to do this at all. It just happens that some microphone designs which work well up to 20kHz continue to work past this limit... until they don't any more.

False.
 
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
 
Just look at the specs for QTC 30, QTC40, QTC50. There is always a matched pair - with even tighter specs.
 
And there is M50 - a selected basically QTC 50 . Also available as matched pair.
 
There are other makes - but with less info available online.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

"We, at our studio, always do the mixing/mastering during the night and with the assistance of a tamed bat (we name it BatBoy) that helps us to better evaluate the EQ and Compression needed for the production of HighRes files..."

 

[analogsurviver]

 
wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?
 

 
We can start at the bottom : Panasonic WM-61A http://industrial.panasonic.com/lecs/www-data/pdf/ABA5000/ABA5000CE22.pdf
 
It is spec'd up to 20 kHz ( and is remarkably linear, better than many much more expensive capsules ) - but it goes MUCH higher. Just grab a bag of 10 or 20 pcs and measure and make pairs - but they are used for burglar alarms, as they pick up the sound of breaking glass really well - and that aint lowly 20 kHz. The price for a single WM-61 capsule  is around 5 $ - and is up to the user to provide the "rest" of the usable microphone. Very popular is Linkwitz modification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPQf42JgbI 
- WM-61A in standard electrical connection is very easily overloaded, after performing not-so-gentle-massacre that allows for much greater SPL without overload and thus better dynamic range, it is advisable to remeasure the resulting microphone.
 
Very good is Earthworks - here the spec for the best measuring mike they make : http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/
 
Here the first microphone intended for MUSIC recording extending to 100 kHz : http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/freqpola.cfm/3.1000400
 
Here a Bruel & Kjaer measuring mic - 3 Hz - 100 kHz : http://www.bksv.com/Products/transducers/acoustic/microphones/microphone-cartridges/4939
 
There may well be more - Gefell, Josephson, Neumann, etc, etc - but it is enough to give you some taste.

 

[analogsurviver]

  "We, at our studio, always do the mixing/mastering during the night and with the assistance of a tamed bat (we name it BatBoy) that helps us to better evaluate the EQ and Compression needed for the production of HighRes files..."

I'll ask him ( or her - female bats supposedly hear even higher ) if you pay him/her enough... 

 

[Steve Eddy]

wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?

Analogsurviver posted some links in the Cage Match thread.

Cool! A brim and some shades! Thanks, man!

se

 

[cjl]

  Here I meant nominal power (average, not peak).
 
10 W use little linear range in wide total range (100 W).
 
It allow playback 10 W with minimal distortions.

A "true" 10W amp (one that is actually capable of 10W continuous at its rated distortion level) should happily play at 10W all day long with no issue at all. There should be no audible difference between a 10W amp and a 100W amp playing the same material, unless the peak required power exceeds 10W.

 

[Steve Eddy]

you're a few pages too late

Sorry. Been busy.

se

 

[Dobrescu George]

May i start a war?
 
I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
 
simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.

 

[Steve Eddy]

We can start at the bottom : Panasonic WM-61A http://industrial.panasonic.com/lecs/www-data/pdf/ABA5000/ABA5000CE22.pdf

It is spec'd up to 20 kHz ( and is remarkably linear, better than many much more expensive capsules ) - but it goes MUCH higher. Just grab a bag of 10 or 20 pcs and measure and make pairs - but they are used for burglar alarms, as they pick up the sound of breaking glass really well - and that aint lowly 20 kHz. The price for a single WM-61 capsule  is around 5 $ - and is up to the user to provide the "rest" of the usable microphone. Very popular is Linkwitz modification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPQf42JgbI 
- WM-61A in standard electrical connection is very easily overloaded, after performing not-so-gentle-massacre that allows for much greater SPL without overload and thus better dynamic range, it is advisable to remeasure the resulting microphone.

Very good is Earthworks - here the spec for the best measuring mike they make : http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/

Here the first microphone intended for MUSIC recording extending to 100 kHz : http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/freqpola.cfm/3.1000400

Here a Bruel & Kjaer measuring mic - 3 Hz - 100 kHz : http://www.bksv.com/Products/transducers/acoustic/microphones/microphone-cartridges/4939

There may well be more - Gefell, Josephson, Neumann, etc, etc - but it is enough to give you some taste.

Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear

se

 

[analogsurviver]

Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear

se

It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life. 
 
Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC. 
And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.
 
Earthworks are supposed to be very linear - I would not mind owning a pair. Or Bruel & Kjaer/DPA 4006/4003 - or ...
 
With microphones , it will never be ABX thing to be decisive - place/orient it a bit different, the tables will turn. What counts is how well one can use the tools - provided both tools are about equally matched in various qualities. 
 
It is also NOT desirable for microphones meant for recording from greater distance to be linear - because linear mic from great distance produces VERY DULL recording. That is why Sanken mic has its response lifted above approx 10 kHz - and no matter how strange this looks to a "flat or nothing" guy, it IS proven in practice.
By judicious use of frequency response and polar pattern, it is possible to use Sanken mic in many ways - producing the desired effect. Which would be both unnatural and impossible with completely neutral flat response mic.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

 

Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear

se

It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life. 
 
Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC. 
And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.
 
Earthworks are supposed to be very linear - I would not mind owning a pair. Or Bruel & Kjaer/DPA 4006/4003 - or ...
 
With microphones , it will never be ABX thing to be decisive - place/orient it a bit different, the tables will turn. What counts is how well one can use the tools - provided both tools are about equally matched in various qualities. 
 
It is also NOT desirable for microphones meant for recording from greater distance to be linear - because linear mic from great distance produces VERY DULL recording. That is why Sanken mic has its response lifted above approx 10 kHz - and no matter how strange this looks to a "flat or nothing" guy, it IS proven in practice.
By judicious use of frequency response and polar pattern, it is possible to use Sanken mic in many ways - producing the desired effect. Which would be both unnatural and impossible with completely neutral flat response mic.

...my bat is paid very well, in mosquitoes....thank you! he appreciates your concern...

 

[lamode]

  May i start a war?
 
I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
 
simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.

 
Was it a binaural recording? A good binaural recording is essential if you are trying to recreate utmost reality with headphones.

 

[analogsurviver]

  May i start a war?
 
I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
 
simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.

The shortest answer would be - read this thread from the start.
 
Then you will realize guitar, as anything else, can be recorded in many ways. Some recording techniques are more natural sounding, some less. Binaural is great, but you really need to have the top artificial head for that - or you will drown in noise. That is from approx $ 6-7 K and up - to beyond 30 for top Head Acoustics (Aachen Head). Acoustic guitar belongs to the most difficult instruments to record if the recording is to sound naturally. Normal techniques from far (natural...) are normally too noisy - and close miking, while giving great dynamic range and low noise, sounds plain unnatural - no guitarist would allow you to listen to him/her at 10 cm distance - nor would you find such sound acceptable.
 
And if you want to hear the fingernails on the strings naturally, it will not be on CD ... - ever. Close, but never quite there.
 
But it all begins with the right microphone for the job. Compared to that, MP-3 or DSD256 play relatively minor role. Not to mention DAC...
 
If it is not in the recording, no after the fact gizmo can correct for that.

 

[castleofargh]

 

wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?

Analogsurviver posted some links in the Cage Match thread.

Cool! A brim and some shades! Thanks, man!

se

Butch KeithEddy!

 

[Steve Eddy]

It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life.

No, we know what linear is and how to measure the level of non-linearity. We do it every day with amps, preamps, loudspeakers, etc.

The linearity I'm speaking of hasn't to do with frequency response or polar patterns. I'm talking about the basic transfer function of the microphone. The less linear it is, the more distortion (namely harmonic and intermodulation) it will produce. So unless you can reasonably assess the linearity of the microphone, and assure that it is linear enough, you can't use that microphone to test whether or not the intermod products you may hear at 3kHz are due to the microphone or the ear.

Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC. 
And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.

The measurements should be provided by the microphone manufacturer. But usually you just get on axis response plots and polar response plots, not distortion graphs. But the bottom line is, until you can be sure that the microphone is far more linear than the ear, I don't see how you can test your hypothesis that non-linearities in the ear producing intermod products in the audio band demonstrate a case for the need to record and play back ultrasonic frequencies.

Earthworks are supposed to be very linear - I would not mind owning a pair. Or Bruel & Kjaer/DPA 4006/4003 - or ...

I don't know what "supposed to be very linear" means. What exactly is being used to assess its linearity?

It is also NOT desirable for microphones meant for recording from greater distance to be linear - because linear mic from great distance produces VERY DULL recording. That is why Sanken mic has its response lifted above approx 10 kHz - and no matter how strange this looks to a "flat or nothing" guy, it IS proven in practice.
By judicious use of frequency response and polar pattern, it is possible to use Sanken mic in many ways - producing the desired effect. Which would be both unnatural and impossible with completely neutral flat response mic.

Again, when I talk about linearity, I'm not talking about frequency and polar response.

se