4 ms·

Guessing that a ultrasonic microphone from a bioaccoustics site should fit the bill - otherwise, what could researchers pick themselves? This one, for example,

• copperx 2y ago
  It should be on the materials & methods section of the papers. I hope it doesn't go all the way to 200khz. Consumer audio can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate, which can't even record 100 kHz sounds. It seems the equipment will be costly.
  • prewett 2y ago
    > Consumer audio can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate, which can't even record 100 kHz sounds. That's probably because the Nyquist frequency (the maximum frequency that can theoretically be reproduced) is 96 kHZ at 192 kHz sampling, but the aliasing for that frequency is going to so terrible and unpredictable (what is the likelihood that always sample the max point in the sine wave) that you wouldn't consider anything close to the Nyquist frequency. You might get something workable for 20 kHz (~10 samples per cycle), which is the edge of human hearing, so that quiet overtones / high frequencies in percussion like cymbals show up. If this is getting used to identify problems based on sound signature, not just "hey, the FFT shows a spike at 100 kHz", 10 samples is probably a bit low. So 1 MHz sampling rate at a minimum for 100 kHz.
    • copperx 2y ago
      Interesting. Is DSD more viable for these kinds of recordings?