[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] mics >192khz
- To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [microsound] mics >192khz
- From: flemming lyst <flemminglyst@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:25:42 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=JWC/4evMN7O9IgjoSYaj8tzFIIxYxVNnSA22aYIF2OM=; b=n6PJsy5UUE3cPJ2+XhVhrumSiAPMnkbsyenE1o8a2fDs//cNRtsw+zjxLpQ5P1zK5f glXU7cacEB2AtdKiGRLAtqK05TZ0Z0bSp05NElfzFmnmi+7ZtKFRQCtkLZ4n6S2QBNko ZAo1ehI/UUd9+AxpXABCPTgsmH9LGltU0XEL4=
oh, im very well aware of the concepts. i'm just having a hard time finding
but i'll test my mics and see where they cut off...
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Bruce Tovsky <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> mics, being analog devices, don't really have a "ceiling" per se regarding
> sample rate - what they do have is a frequency range, and the higher sample
> rates provide a greater ability to capture those frequencies. so, the better
> the mic the better your recording (using any sample rate) and the better the
> sample rate the better (subjectively) the recording - or, i should say, the
> better the capture of the frequencies the mic is delivering.
> make sense?
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 3:00 PM, flemming lyst wrote:
> anyone got any tips on a mic that will record all the way up to 96khz?
>> as i'm able to record 192khz with my fireface i'm interested to hear
>> going on up there...?
>> any suggestions??
>> i found some b&K on their website, but no prices...
>> btw check out this fine article:
> "A lot of people try to think up ideas. I'm not one. I'd rather accept the
> irresistible possibilities of what I can't ignore."
> - Robert Rauschenberg