[1] I seem to be talking about scientific measurements.... Likewise, when we're talking science, we tend to look at things a bit differently.
[2] HOWEVER, here's a cute little microphone:
http://www.pcb.com/products.aspx?m=378A14 It has a rated frequency response from 4 Hz to 70 kHz (+/- 2 dB). It also has an inherent noise of 50 dB, and a dynamic range of 173 dB.
[3] From those numbers, my guess is that, with a proper preamp, it would have no trouble recording a snare drum, or a cymbal, from an inch away (or from two meters away). And, at that range, it will record everything up past 70 kHz. (So doing so is not only theoretically possible; it's actually possible with currently available equipment.)
[4] It's not my problem if you don't happen to have one of these in your studio to take your measurements with...
[4a]
HOWEVER, neither of those facts is relevant if we're discussing what's
possible...
1. NO you are not talking about scientific measurements and NO, we do not "tend to look at things differently"! The laws of physics exist and are always applicable, unless you're in some alternate universe. What you're actually doing is making up nonsense and then passing it off as "science", so in fact you're actually perverting the science and are thereby insulting this forum!
2. Inherent noise of 50dB makes it almost unusable for recording musical instruments but regardless, it does NOT have "an inherent noise of 50dB" anyway! The 50dB figure is "A" weighted and due to rising thermal noise with freq (which is real science and in this universe!) the mic will have far higher self-noise in the ultrasonic range.
3.
EXACTLY!! It's your "
guess" and that guess is based on "inadvertent" errors which fortuitously just happen to support your agenda . How is that even slightly "science"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of science! Instead of making up nonsense claims and
falsely passing it off as science, why don't you actually try just the very first step of science and get a musician to perform on cymbals, use this mic to record them and then see for yourself if it will record "everything up past 70kHz"??
4. I do have a measurement mic, in fact more than one.
4a. But you're NOT discussing what's possible! I'm discussing what exists and what's possible BUT you're discussing what's possible in some alternate universe where you get to choose which laws of physics apply!
I am perfectly willing to concede to you things like....
[1] - nobody ever does it that way
[2] - no recording studio you know currently has the equipment required to do it
[3] - it would probably sound bad anyway (or not sound especially good)
[4] - it wouldn't be what somebody sitting in the audience would hear
[5] I would again remind anybody coming in late that what we're discussing here is the possibility of recording cymbals and including spectral content at ultrasonic frequencies.
We are NOT discussing whether that would be audible or even whether it would be desirable... simply that it would be possible. (We are discussing SCIENCE and NOT good recording technique.....)
Continuing for those interested in the actual facts (in this universe!) ...
1. Ask yourself the obvious question, if this mic is so accurate/perfect why is it "nobody ever does it that way", why don't we always record with calibrated measurement mics? In short, there is no such thing as a perfect mic, they must always be compromised: You cannot have a mic with a very low noise floor, a very accurate freq response and resilience to high SPLs. In practise (in this universe) it's a trade-off, you improve one of these areas at the cost of another. Some specialist measurement mics are designed to measure very low SPLs and therefore have very poor resilience to high SPLs and typically poor freq accuracy. Other measurement mics are designed for highly accurate frequency measurement but at the cost of a very high noise floor (which isn't typically a problem because they are designed to be used with optimal/high level test signals). However, the performance of a musical instrument is not a test signal, there will be both loud and quiet elements: A snare drum for example will have a loud impact transient, immediately followed by the relatively quiet sound of the snares sympathetically vibrating against the bottom head and additionally, not every snare hit will be very loud, there will almost certainly be grace notes/flams which are far quieter, and, this effectively applies to all musical instruments. The reason that "nobody ever does it that way" is because these quieter elements would be below the noise floor of a measurement mic (such as the one KeithEmo cited). And, that's even in the audible freq band, let alone the ultrasonic band where the measurement mic will have an even higher noise floor! We always use music/studio mics rather than measurement mics to record music because music/studio mics are optimised for recording music in studios (duh)!
2. This statement is FALSE! Every commercial studio I know of has at least one measurement mic and these days, also studio mics which extend into the ultrasonic range.
3. It wouldn't "sound" at all, if it's below the noise floor of the mic!
4. That as well!
5. And I would remind anybody coming in late that what we're discussing here is the science applicable to recording commercial audio, the stuff that your audio reproduction system is reproducing. KeithEmo on the other hand is discussing certain bits of science and "inadvertently" ignoring the other relevant bits, inventing hypothetical scenarios which never exist and misrepresenting what is science and what is recording technique, which is particularly absurd as he clearly doesn't know anything about recording technique and refuses to try some recording tests and actually find out!
[1] Personally, when I visit a very small venue, I don't enjoy sitting three feet from the band... and one reason is that the cymbals are unpleasantly loud and bright.
And I wouldn't even argue if someone were to suggest that rolling off the cymbals sounds better to most people. Those are the kind of artistic decisions that the recording engineer is expected to make.
[2] And, by the way, HAS anyone ever actually tested whether the sound of breaking glass sounds more realistic when you include frequencies up to 50 kHz?
[3] A lot of what I keep hearing on this forum lately boils down to: "We already know that people can't hear or be affected by ultrasonic frequencies, ever, under any normal listening conditions, so there's no point in doing a test to find out if they can or not." From a scientific point of view that's a real stretch.
[4] What I strongly believe is that there isn't enough evidence to make a legitimate claim either way...
[5] And, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, it always bugs me when people make strong and far-reaching claims based on flimsy and inadequate evidence.
1. Firstly, how are you going to sit 3 feet from the band, they're all going to be standing/sitting in a tiny circle around you are they? In this universe, the audience is typically going to be sitting in front of the band (with the drumkit at the back of the band) and therefore many meters away from the cymbals. At many meters away from the cymbals there's going to be a great deal less ultrasonic content than the only 6% they're producing in the first place, rolling off the very high and ultrasonic content of closely mic'ed cymbals is not an artistic decision, it's a technical decision based on the laws of physics. Not rolling-off those freqs would be an artistic decision but as human perception partly relies on the attenuation of high freqs at distance, you'd effectively end up with the cymbals sounding much closer (more present) than the rest of the drumkit.
2. Again, you're joking right? You seem to have this bizarre notion that sound engineers pick the worst mic they can find and never test or experiment with anything. This notion is ridiculous and the exact opposite of the actual facts/truth! The recording of breaking glass is so common in film and TV that Foley teams always have a large crate of glass in their store rooms and the recording of breaking glass has been tested to death with just about every mic imaginable, in just about every position by thousands of different engineers all over the planet for decades. Personally I only have mics that go up to 40kHz, so not 50kHz but still plenty of ultrasonic content and no, it does NOT sound more realistic, either for me or for the countless other engineers, sound designers, Foley artists, Directors, etc. In fact, generally less so because generally the glass is breaking more than just a few inches from the sound POV and therefore has attenuated high freqs (and ultrasonic freqs).
3. A lot of what you keep saying on this forum boils down to: "
I have absolutely no idea what extensive testing has been carried out by thousands/tens of thousands of engineers over the course of decades, so I'm just going to make-up an "inadvertent" misrepresentation that it's never been tested and everyone who disagrees with me is just guessing. I on the other hand have never tested either and refuse to do so but my guesses are worth more than the actual facts. According to me, that's SCIENCE!".
4. Firstly, there's clearly a big difference between the amount of evidence which exists and the amount of evidence you personally know about. Time and again audiophiles state "we don't know this or that", when in fact it's perfectly well known, often for many decades or even centuries, it's a fallacy based entirely on their own IGNORANCE of the facts. Just because they don't know doesn't mean that we (science/mankind as a whole) don't know. There's a mass of evidence, by (as mentioned) the engineers who work with the content every day, industry bodies such as the AES, EBU, ITU (and others), state organisations such as the BBC, NHK (and many others) and some published scientific papers as well. Secondly, this is NOT the "What KeithEmo Strongly Believes" forum!!
5. Then why do you keep doing it??? Why don't you AS AN INDIVIDUAL actually learn some of the facts/evidence, why don't you take YOUR OWN ADVICE and try recording some drumkit solos (and breaking glass) with measurement and other mics and until you do, why don't you STOP making far-reaching claims based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? How come you're not "always bugged" by yourself?
[1] We say that "for DACs 192k is NOT a product differentiator" (it was ten years ago - when few DACs supported it - but not now). ...
As a company who sells hardware, we do our best to include in our products the features that the market has a demand for, and specifically the features that our customers ask for. And, at the moment, a lot of our customers specifically ask for us to support high-res sample rates.
[2] So, why has Emotiva, who I work for, never conducted and published any tests about whether people really can hear the difference between high-resolution files and plain old CDs?
1. Just to be clear what you're effectively saying and the truth of the matter:
Ten years ago snake oil salesmen made a big marketing push for 192kHz audio files and 192/24 DACs. That marketing was successful, many/most consumers believed the BS and now demand 192kHz. So all the chip makers now only make 192kHz chips and you're just satisfying the market demand (for snake oil) that ten years ago you helped create. Of course, now that 192kHz is no longer a "product differentiator" and even very cheap DACs now include it as standard, the audiophile snake oil industry has to come-up with some new BS to act as a "product differentiator" (and justify their 10-100 times price premium), hence the next round of even greater snake oil; 32bit, 384kHz and 768kHz, just as 192kHz was the next round of greater snake oil over 96kHz.
2. Because either you'd have to fake the tests and run the risk of being found out and having potentially disastrous publicity or provide accurate tests demonstrating that you and the rest of the audiophile industry have been BS'ing and selling snake oil for well over a decade. That's a no win scenario and why neither your company nor any other audiophile company ever conducts or publishes such tests. To be certain, if there were an audible difference/improvement, the audiophile world would be awash with the test results!!
G