Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johnny B]

This new 100k mic should be shown at AES.

I wonder if it really does all they are saying it does.

Check it out:  

http://mixonline.com/sanken-co100k-092705/

[Jim Williams]

Heads up to all you location Bat radar recordists!

Your train has arrived!

[Johnny B]

I dunno, it might sound really good on cymbals...I think they claim it works great on accoustic instruments...

Like anything, you have to hear it yourself.

I'm kind of curious about the ADDA tech that seems like it might be included in this product. IIRC, they make some kind of claim in relation to that. Ahh yes, here it is:

"The absence of brick wall filters in the AD/DA conversion process eliminates certain noticeable artifacts and anomalies commonly generated within the standard audio bandwidth."

Hey, 100k mics...maybe they are here. If one manu does it and gets some success, they will all be doing it soon.

[Barry Hufker]

I am all for a mic and system capturing ultrasonics, but I don't think it will be a bandwagon for people to jump on.  Schoeps and DPA both have mics going into the ultrasonic and I don't think those are selling in good numbers.

Further, one has to find a speaker willing to reproduce those frequencies while blending well into the sonic.

Barry

[Johnny B]

Emmm, judging by the trend of things, I'd say the speakers are also going in the extended frequency range direction as well. IIRC, there are already some speakers out there already doing this.

Earthworks also has some extended range mics IIRC, and this was in keeping with David Blackmer's argument or belief based on his many years of excellent design work and practical experience that what the human system perceives above 20kHz is extremely "important."

[danickstr]

has anyone taken a hearing test lately?  I remember the 15k tone as being very tiny and weak, and exceptionally bizarre to hear, not to mention difficult.  Not sure what could be up there that is so important.  mini-razor blades of sonics.  Phones are 300 to 3k, and while that is crappy spectrum, I have been able to lose myself in a good muzak tune every now and then.

But seriously, what could possibly be up there that is useful?  Studio monitors that are crisp in the highs still scare me every once and awhile.  So many systems can't make those tingy cymbal overtone sounds, and other squeaky tweeter noises, that when I do hear them, it is unfamiliar.

[Johnny B]

Emmm, so I guess you are calling the engineers at Sanken idiots.

[RedBus]

OK then, let's examine the press release and try to remove the marketing spin and extract the actual science in this microphone.

Designed by Sanken with NHK Science and Technical Research Laboratories, the CO-100K takes advantage of the heightened frequency response of high-resolution digital audio formats.

I'd say this was the other way around. This microphone at last lets you use the top end of that heightened frequency response.

The absence of brick wall filters in the AD/DA conversion process eliminates certain noticeable artifacts and anomalies commonly generated within the standard audio bandwidth.

This microphone contains neither A/D nor D/A, so this is a generalization to imply that extended frequency ranges are good.

The CO-100K features very fast transients with a smooth response curve, resulting in great clarity and transparency.

Ah, here's some meat. Microphones don't have "transients" though. This one can capture fast transients, which as we know through application of Nyquist's Theorem, are exactly the same thing as extended frequency range. I'd say the fact that the response curve is smooth (note they don't say flat) is the true source of this perceived "great clarity and transparency"

With the ability to capture sounds in the ultra-high-frequency range, the microphone also produces high-quality results in the low and midrange of the audible frequency range..
I take this to be the actual reason the end user would find this microphone worthy of its price.
If the microphone can capture fast transients (because it has a large frequency range), then we may be able to infer that the microphone's self-transient response (i.e. its impulse response) is also small, or short in time. That just means that the microphone imposes less of its own sound on the recorded signal and thus transfers the real-life sound to its output with less distortion (or coloration or resolution, if you like those words).
Indeed a worthy goal, but one that doesn't say anything about the usefulness of the signal it gathers in the frequencies above the human range of hearing.

RedBus.

[the_coercivity_index]

if the midranges are schpakto then high extension is good. Munson curving the humane response is however subjective due to voice. humane communications are saturated in the fluxion epic of 200hz-3.5khz and phase criticality is very moist here, beyond this Sanken mic to resolve while existing in the field of time at 100khz. we need report of man-generated particle rarifactions/compressions. but this a good development for the voice of maybe Dylan where 50khz+ phlegm and rasping feelings appear coencentric within the core mission of high hertz resolving.

[danickstr]

 

i would not call anyone an idiot unless they pissed me off.  Sanken scientists (engineers) are probably very fine chaps. I am just applying shoebox science and horsesense to this problem.  It does not preclude anything that they claim.  Its practicality to me is what I am questioning, nothing else.

[Johnny B]

Emmm. I wonder how much it costs? More importantly, I wonder how it performs on some real world applications?

It always come down to: "Duhhh, well how does it sound?"

"Gee, I dunno, what do you think?"

I suppose one could start with some spec sheets which we apparently don't have, but it always comes down to listening to it yourself.

[Ronny]

Where are you going to get speakers that will playback flat to 100k? It doesn't matter how high you capture, if you can't play it back.

[Johnny B]

I think some are already out there, and more appear to be coming.

It looks to me like the technology is advancing and directly challenging the mic and speaker argument against higher sample rates. I never thought that was a good argument anyway,  if one wants to argue against higher sample rates, they should stay focused on just that issue and not muddy the waters by bringing up mics and speakers. Anyway, it appears the trend is to totally remove the mic and speaker argument. Again, I like that because it will force people to stay focused on the rates themselves rather than wander off on side issues.

I'm not saying I've never wandered off on a side issue myself a time or two, I ARE a human being subject to many imperfections.

[Ronny]

Johnny B wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 13:58

I think some are already out there, and more appear to be coming. It looks to me like the technology is advancing and directly challenging the mic and speaker argument against higher sample rates. I never thought that was a good argument anyway,  if one wants to argue against higher sample rates, they should stay focused on just that issue and not muddy the waters by bringing up mics and speakers. Anyway, it appears the trend is to totally remove the mic and speaker argument. Again, I like that because it will force people to stay focused on the rates themselves rather than wander off on side issues. I'm not saying I've never wandered off on a side issue myself a time or two, I ARE a human being subject to many imperfections.

You'll have more luck selling your mega sample rate theories to bats.

[Johnny B]

So you are saying that the engineers at Sanken and Earthworks et al. are idiots and have dingbats for clients? But did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, other people in the world know a few things you don't?

One needs to distinguish the difference between "ignorance," which is merely the state of not knowing something, and "stupidity," which denotes the inability to learn new things. The former state is no sin, we are all "ignorant" about something. But the later state, that of "stupidity," I would not attribute to either the engineers at Earthworks or at Sanken as you seem to be doing. Likewise, I would not call the clients of them "stupid" either.

Have you ever tried these things yourself, or are you merely parroting something you read in a book? If you have tried them, how do they sound to YOU? If you have not tried them, perhaps it is foolish to express an opinion based on your own ignorance, which as I've stated is no sin but at least their ought to be the requisite disclaimer disclosing the fact that you have not tried them YOURSELF.

Let me suggest that it is often wise policy to reserve judgement until you have the experience of trying something for yourself. People often don't follow this policy, including me, but it is a wise policy to observe.

This 100kHz Sanken mic appears to be a brand new product, a product being announced at AES, and that means hardly anybody has had a chance to even try it, and yet, there seem to be those ignorant souls who want to express an opinion based on zero experience. I must confess my own ignorance as to how bad or good this new Sanken mic may perform in real world situations, but at least I'm not bashing it before giving it a fair trial.

I just dunno at this point, but it's quite possible I might really like what this new Sanken 100kHz mic can do for me.