Can anyone recommend a $50-$200 Microphone that captures useful audio above 20Khz?

[SpEsk]

I'm looking for a mic that can decently capture ultrasonic frequencies for the purposes of pitching it down into human hearing range. If the mic can approach 50kHz of usable data, I'd be a happy camper. I definitely don't need a flat frequency response up to 50kHz like an MKH-8xxx. Most mic spec sheets top out at 20kHz, but I'm under the impression that many of those mics can capture well above that. Also, I do want the mic to capture lower frequencies too, so I'm not looking for a specialty ultrasonic mic or anything. Is there a category of microphones that generally do what I want? Like 'pencil microphones' or 'small diaphragm condensers'?

Thanks in advance!

[RSL369]

https://earthworksaudio.com/measurement ... hones/m50/

[SpEsk]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

https://earthworksaudio.com/measurement ... hones/m50/ (https://earthworksaudio.com/measurement-microphones/m50/)

Appreciate the suggestion. I'm well aware of those mics, but they are a bit out of my budget. What I'm hoping to find is a more traditionally spec'd mic that just so happens to capture some useful information up to ~50kHz. Most mic spec sheets list the top frequency range at 20kHz not because the mic is incapable of capturing higher frequencies, but because it is outside of human perception.

Anyone out there record at 24/192 and get unexpectedly useful information at higher frequencies? If so, what mic were you using?

[lfm]

If you have a mike that capture up to 20 khz within 3 dB, which usually is the spec, then 40 khz is just one octave away.

So how fast does it drop above that 3 dB point is the question?
- is it 12 dB/octave drop, then to 40 kHz?
- is it 24 dB/octave drop, then to 40 khz?
- is it steeper?

Sensitivity on mikes is usually better than -60 dBV.
Many quality hifi amps has range of 50 khz or up to 200 khz some of them.

So a mike and good enough amp is my thinking with enough gain.

Haven't checked, but most likely you capture up to 50 khz but with lower sensitivity.
- and maybe some crap mike more likely than quality mike?
- I think by design there is no advantage to capture that high, that might just steal energy on an amp or similar just as lower frequencies does. So they deliberately limit range, is my reasoning.

Some crap piezo is what I would try....but the full chain to recording should have enough range...don't let specs of 192 khz of sample rate fool you thinking analog circuitry is up to that.....

[vurt]

id be careful adding gain to get the high frequencies.
any lower audio range sounds could blow speakers/ears/amps/all 3.

[vurt]

there's a reason they make equipment designed for the purpose.

[cryophonik]

My company has biologists specializing in bat surveys and the microphones they use are specialized for frequencies well above 20 kHz, so you might want to search for bat survey microphones. I doubt they go down to 20 Hz, though, but certainly worth looking into, or maybe combining two mics?

[vurt]

My company has biologists specializing in bat surveys and the microphones they use are specialized for frequencies well above 20 kHz, so you might want to search for bat survey microphones. I doubt they go down to 20 Hz, though, but certainly worth looking into, or maybe combining two mics?

i bet you have those ultra sensitive ones that can record ants marching too!

[cryophonik]

My company has biologists specializing in bat surveys and the microphones they use are specialized for frequencies well above 20 kHz, so you might want to search for bat survey microphones. I doubt they go down to 20 Hz, though, but certainly worth looking into, or maybe combining two mics?

i bet you have those ultra sensitive ones that can record ants marching too!

Hmmmmm… I don’t think we do…. Yet

[zerocrossing]

I’d imagine it’s not the mic that’s as much as an issue as is all the equipment that comes after. I wonder if there are even good commercial a/d converters that are designed to go that high.

[cthonophonic]

50 kHz isn't really outside the reach of decent interfaces or field recorders these days. The mics do make a difference when recording at 192kHz. I've had decent results recording bats and metal "foley" sounds with Primo EM258 capsules (into a Sony PCM D-100). I think the response rolls off ~12dB by 50k, but that's good enough for my purposes. They're cheap things too, especially if you DIY (<$10 per capsule). Even a matched pair pre-assembled with jacks from micboosters is only ~$58.

There are comparisons out there to regular studio mics:



and dedicated (i.e. crazy expensive) ultrasonic mics:

[SpEsk]

Thanks for the replies all! I ended up ordering a set of those EM258s from micboosters, so thanks for the suggestion cthonophonic! Those example videos you posted sound ideal for my purposes as well!

[bluedive]

Hi all,
any recommendations for mic capsule seller in EU?
Thanks

[BertKoor]

any recommendations for mic capsule seller in EU?

If you're interested in that Primo EM258s mic capsule and you want to avoid the £10 Brexit penalty because MicBoosters is in the UK, then ask here: http://www.primomic.de/kontakt.htm