@Coolcat
I even have a $10 mic and i love it. Hardly never ever use it but it's horrible narrow frequency sound is so fun for projects off which i want the vocals to sound 'oldies' that it's a keeper.
You were either taught the dumbed down 'stairstep' version of how digital works, which is great for illustration purposes, but misrepresents the reality of how the signal is rendered - or - you weren't understanding what they were telling you. There are no holes or steps in the signal coming out of the converters.
Now your talking like the 'stairstep' is no more than a fairy? That it ain't part of the explanation? That before a analoque imitating curve comes out those 'staisteps' aren't there?
Yeah i do know that it is more than a O or I (which most people think). That the hight of those steps are determined by a combination of O's and I's, and so on... to eventually
immitate a full range analogue curve.
I know. Do you? Now it's your turn to prove your credibility like i'm pushed to all the time.
Not gonna defend myself anymore on this one. If i'm wrong with it go complain at the school and the (professional) teachers i've learned it from that the've teached me wrong.
Umm, no. Just the fact that you have to filter out the bias frequency (anywhere between 40khz and 150khz, depending on the tape and the machine) would really stop it from being unlimited. Even if it was, you would still low pass the signal in an attempt to keep RF out of the signal path. But that's OK, since you would be hard pressed to find a source that has any meaningful information above 20khz, or a microphone to capture it, or a playback system to reproduce it.
Thats not what i said. I never ever said i wanted to record unhearable frequencies to be listened at later. I never said i or whoever can here those frequenties. So i don't understand why you keep coming back at this. Twisting words is so easy.
I talk about wide ranges to capture all that's there. Were it's about in this topic, and what i said many times now.
Why use a wide range mic, if one cut's down on his quality? That would be strange, but that's something i read all the time.
Are you stating that a cut off recording catches all tones and 'colors' a $1500 mic can give?
Come on man, don't act like i'm talking stoopid. Like the earlier example, many 100K car driving people can't drive or park, and that 100K car doesn't make them better.
And this is happening within homerecording all the time too. High quality gear, but recording al low rates.
Not gonna defend myself anymore on this one either.
Is there any sound up there to record? Is your microphone capable of picking it up?
Will your mic preamp pass signal that high?
Do you have a playback system capable of reproducing it?
'Keeping all as high as possible, trying not to lose anything' is superstitious nonsense born out of a misunderstanding of how digital works, and the limitations of analog.
And that's were we are back at the starting point about the mic question. Pffff finaly ontopic again.
This is what i already said from the beginning and what i said in short words too.
And as i read you know you state too that this conclusion is right (my advice and vision on this mic subject are right and not unreal).
Those yelling hard
"only expecive gear is good and the rest is shit" are the ones wrong on this subject.
So IMO you have to use the mic that fits within you project, with your gear, and your goal. And for some a $50 dollar (second hand) mic is more than good enough, were others buy expensive mics which they don't use in full. Like always driving a ferrari at 30mph max and problems with parking.
There are more good wide freq mics than the $1500 ones. Better to learn how to edit and master.
So as that was ontopic clear allready more than once and in summary in #24, i don't understand why such a offtopic endless discussion about not said subjects has to be made?
Ow man, this enless discussing about things not said and offtopic is so exhausting. I think i can better shut up.