High resolution FX Recording

[subbasshead]

I'm interested to hear anyones experiences with high resolution recording
as I am considering options to invest in microphones....
Top of my list at the moment are Sennheiser 8020s (10Hz ->70k)
but am also researching Earthworks QTC50 (3Hz -> 50kHz)
and DPA4007 (20Hz -> 40kHz)
My recorder/preamp can handle the wider frequency range so that side of
things is fine but I'd really appreciate hearing about any experiences with
any of these mics....

[DHfromcali]

Haven't used those particular models before, but I know the Sennheiser shotguns are always good, and the earthworks I love for overheads on drums.
I use a shure sm89 w/ dbx 786 pre for recording foley and soundfx. I guess it depends on what you're trying to record. My sm89 is great at blocking out sounds not directly in line with the end of the mic, so for recording in different locations I love it. What kind of effects, or where do you plan on doing recording?
Another question might be, what are you recording for? When I was recording sounds for use in cell phones, there was no point in me worrying about the low freq. range cause it was going thru tiny little cell speakers.

[subbasshead]

My primary use is for recording elements for feature film sound design ie FX & ambiences
although music is also a strong personal interest... but its film which is primary....

So the appeal of these mics is to capture higher frequencys than we can hear
& make them apparent through manipulation - pitch shift etc...

immediate sounds i need/want to record include:
- swords
- resonant metal hits & tones
- bowed metal
- gamelan instruments

I have experience with the Sennhesier MKH800 for creature vocals (ie real time pitch shift)
& was very impressed & I can get access to the MKH 8020 so thats looking most likely...
There is talk of an 'S' capsule for them too so it could well lead to a small hi rez MS rig...

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by subbasshead

My primary use is for recording elements for feature film sound design ie FX & ambiences
although music is also a strong personal interest... but its film which is primary....

So the appeal of these mics is to capture higher frequencys than we can hear
& make them apparent through manipulation - pitch shift etc...

immediate sounds i need/want to record include:
- swords
- resonant metal hits & tones
- bowed metal
- gamelan instruments

I have experience with the Sennhesier MKH800 for creature vocals (ie real time pitch shift)
& was very impressed & I can get access to the MKH 8020 so thats looking most likely...
There is talk of an 'S' capsule for them too so it could well lead to a small hi rez MS rig...

most microphones- including dynamics, will pickup signals above 20k... Metal and bells require more preamp headroom though, since there is so much energy above 10k...


cm

[danijel]

a few years ago, i recorded violin at 192kHz hoping that when i slow it down 4x, i'll get some un-heard overtones. there was nothing interesting about the recording, and further, the player's timing became bogus when slowed down, so i dropped the whole thing. i used c414 and c451, but i don't think absolute frequency precision in the ultra-audible spectrum is necessary for your purpose, as you are trying to achieve effect, rather than some 'natural' or 'neutral' representation.

[matmi]

Dane Davis: "The high-definition sampling rate of the Neumann Solution-D-01 is a gigantic thing for us, as we slow things way down and speed them way up and do everything extreme to sounds. It's a very clear sound, and when we slow things down, Solution-D is giving us access to harmonics that are usually removed. It just happens to play into one of our fascinations: Capturing the harmonics of sounds that we don't normally hear."

My two cents.

MM

via mixonline

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by matmi

Dane Davis: "The high-definition sampling rate of the Neumann Solution-D-01 is a gigantic thing for us, as we slow things way down and speed them way up and do everything extreme to sounds. It's a very clear sound, and when we slow things down, Solution-D is giving us access to harmonics that are usually removed. It just happens to play into one of our fascinations: Capturing the harmonics of sounds that we don't normally hear."

My two cents.

MM

via mixonline

Remember that quote has been published, not to inform- but to sell stuff.


that is not to say it is bad- but using Press Releases to make a point is not really supporting the point...


cm

[matmi]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Remember that quote has been published, not to inform- but to sell stuff.


that is not to say it is bad- but using Press Releases to make a point is not really supporting the point...


cm

You're right, I was just highlighting the mic model. Going forward:

Schoeps Digital Microphone Amplifier CMD 2Uxt – the 40 kHz Version
(http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/PDFs/hk6-e-hires.pdf - page 35)
This version has frequency response to 40 kHz and
beyond, and can be used with any SCHOEPS ”Colette”
capsules (SCHOEPS mod-mics).

MM

[dsteinwedel]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Remember that quote has been published, not to inform- but to sell stuff.


that is not to say it is bad- but using Press Releases to make a point is not really supporting the point...


cm

Very true, however I did a shoot with Dane shattering glass using the Solution D recording at 192. It sounded frikkin' awesome. Pitching the material back down brought out some very cool tones and harmonics.

-Dave

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by dsteinwedel

Very true, however I did a shoot with Dane shattering glass using the Solution D recording at 192. It sounded frikkin' awesome. Pitching the material back down brought out some very cool tones and harmonics.

-Dave

No doubt- I just bristle when PR items are brought into the mix, since they tend to be exclusionary to other technologies-

I have done quite a bit of high sample rate recording myself... certain material lends itself nicely to it- especially glass and metal... One thing I might ask though- Did you record 96k material to compare it against? I have found that 192 is not always worth the effort...

[dsteinwedel]

We may have recorded some at 96k but we didn't make any comparisons at the time. We spent too much time hooing and hawing over the 192 material to do the same thing with any other material recorded.

So many panes of glass to smash and so little time....

I do agree with you about 96k v 192k. A lot of the time I feel like the 192 material is just eating up server space and wasting my time when I transfer it to a session or watch a progress bar while manipulating it. But sometimes it's just so good it's worth the hassle.


dave