studiomprd Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 " So why, I wonder, would that be an important spec? " as far as the sampling rate: it is calculus. the more we sample our wave, the more precisely we approximate the actual analog (infinite samples) wave we are sampling. there is no usable audio for humans up there, and we could argue that excess hi freq response can potentially have adverse effects on our desired audio, much as excess low freq response does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 between 22 kHz (788T) and 200 kHz (SX-ST). Where are coming from those specs ? As regards with the 788T I just found on Sound Devices'website : "10 Hz–20 kHz, +0.1, -0.5 (gain controls centered, measured at 48 kHz)" Don't know at 96k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 " So why, I wonder, would that be an important spec? " as far as the sampling rate: it is calculus. the more we sample our wave, the more precisely we approximate the actual analog (infinite samples) wave we are sampling. there is no usable audio for humans up there, and we could argue that excess hi freq response can potentially have adverse effects on our desired audio, much as excess low freq response does... Well yes, exactly. That's why I wonder why anything beyond 20k is required. That's 20k for freq response not sampling rate. And no, because we were not talking about sampling rates (yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 " I wonder why anything beyond 20k is required " required by who? (whom?) certainly a wider frequency response than is really required might seem to some to be a valuable attribute, it may seem to others to be an issue ... Adult humans only rarely can even hear much, if anything, at or above 20kHz. a microphone may pick up ultra sound sources, and they might be a detriment, perhaps affecting the audio circuitry (driving it into distortion!)... when most folks can detect ultrasonic sounds, they typically don't really hear them, so much as feel them, and they tend to find them irritating. but, hey, what ever floats your boat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 " I wonder why anything beyond 20k is required " required by who? (whom?) By the OP of course! Senator, I hope you realize we are in agreement. At least in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 " we are in agreement. " well... CRAP happens ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I am curious why you think you might need a frequency response beyond the 22kHz of 788T? Hi Constantin. From a listening perspective I don't "need" the additional bandwidth nor was I implying that anyone does, though I see how some folks may think that's what I meant. I simply want to know the Cantar's full specs. IOW, you are an audio snob.... And to think that the world is inundated with similarly highbrowed reprobates who even wittingly pervert audio forums. It's all so immoral and depraved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Well, you did write this: I wouldn't pair a MKH 800 with a 788T or Nomad, for instance, since the specs on those machines don't justify the mic's bandwidth. What is it, then, that's lacking in specs on those machines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Well, you did write this: As I intimated, here I only wanted the Cantar specs. Certainly one could argue that higher bandwidths are practically irrelevant to the human ear, but I prefer the higher specs on various other recorders and their preamps for critical music recording. Specs aside, the Cantar has many features that are vital to me in my work. So in fact my predilections aren't entirely snobbish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I don't think that specs alone will tell you how the Cantar sounds. My advice would be to rent one for a weekend, listen to it, and see what you think. Although I've never used one, I have heard the results and they sound terrific. But so do the Zaxcom recorders and Sound Devices recorders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 As I intimated, here I only wanted the Cantar specs. Sure, and I can't help you there, but you readily dismissed Sound Devices and Zaxcom Recorders as unsuitable for the MKH800. I am simply interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. You seemed to indicate that your opinion was based on the frequency response of the preamps alone, but maybe there's more? This is curiosity on my part, not a critique Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Thanks Marc, you're right. Yet with regard to preamps, I much prefer the Nagra VI to the 788T, Nomad, etc. But my needs also require certain features that are only found in the Cantar. I'm sure looking forward to the X3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 you readily dismissed Sound Devices I'm sorry if my initial comment on the 788T was misleading. I simply meant that there are other recorders with higher specs that I prefer and are more suitable for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm sorry if my initial comment on the 788T was misleading. I simply meant that there are other recorders with higher specs that I prefer and are more suitable for me. Just out of curiosity, could you share with us what features are only found in the Cantar that are so vital to your specific kind of work? I am well aware of each individual's preference for one recorder over another, features, functions, ease of use and so forth, but it is not clear to me what it is that all the other recorders are lacking that you need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 could you share with us what features are only found in the Cantar that are so vital to your specific kind of work? Play&Rec, extreme resistance to dust and water, and several other tidbits... like the "huge" dynamic range and [unquestionably] "unsurpassed" mic pres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 " I simply meant that there are other recorders with higher specs that I prefer and are more suitable for me. " of course, and quite subjective... but you are an audio-snob! what ever floats your boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 quite subjective At least here but you are an audio-snob! I'm actually quite approachable in Cantar circles But to me every piece of equipment I buy is just the means to a far higher end. With all due respect to Aaton, I never want to be remembered as a Cantar user but someone who accomplished good and helped others do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Play&Rec, extreme resistance to dust and water, and several other tidbits... like the "huge" dynamic range and [unquestionably] "unsurpassed" mic pres. That and the fact that the machine is virtually future proof. Anyway, it's easy to solve the case of the missing specs: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 So that's what you needed! A built-in Lie-detector? Well, that is handy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 So that's what you needed! A built-in Lie-detector? Well, that is handy! hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.