Hi-Res - Does it matter? Blind Test by Mark Waldrep

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, Ajax said:

Hi Everyone,

Following is an invitation to participate in a study being performed by Mark Waldrep to determine whether or not we can actually hear differences between various formats? I know this is an old and tired argument but one in my opinion that really needs to be put to bed and I encourage you to participate. Too may of us are being ripped off by manufactures' marketing hype, and too many potential audiophiles are staying away because we have overcomplicated things by looking for solutions to problems that simply don't exist. It takes courage to participate in these types of tests because you may have to face your biases and long held beliefs. 

Prior to reading the study please read the introduction to my previous thread on this subject "Some Commonsense" and in particular to John Siau of Benchmark Media's thoughts - it's all about the maths.

 

 

The HD-Audio Challenge II
Dr. AIX

I spent the weekend gearing up for the second round of the HD-Audio challenge. Some of you may remember the first iteration of this study (click here). The music industry seems intent on continuing to push their claims that "hi-res audio" is a tremendous advance in the evolution of music reproduction. After being involved with real high-resolution audio for almost 20 years, I'm not so sure it matters. I'd love to demonstrate that hi-res music and hi-res audio are delivering a "better" experience, but the studies I've read have left me unconvinced.

I believe that I can contribute to the debate by offering up a catalog of real high-resolution tracks in a variety of formats. You — my readers and fellow audiophiles — can download the tracks and play them to your heart's content. I only ask that you not analyze them to determine which is which. What's the point of cheating?

I've selected 20 tracks from a variety of genres and took into consideration suggestions from many of you. I've included solos, small and large ensembles, acoustic and electric, and vocal vs. instrumental http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197.The tracks that will be available are listed below:

The HD-Audio Challenge II - Track List

These are full length tracks not merely samples.

I spent all weekend converting the tracks using Sonic Studio's professional software tool PROCESS to do the conversions. I took the native 96 kHz/24-bit PCM masters and downconverted them to 96 kHz/16-bit, 44.1 kHz/24-bits, and 44.1 kHz/16-bits (CD "Redbook" spec). I will also create constant bitrate MP3 versions at 320 and 256 kbps for those interested in compressed formats. Then I converted all of downconversions back to 96 kHz/24-bits so that all of them are precisely the same size. I have been very careful to ensure that they are the same volume.

I have uploaded all of the files to a folder in my premium Dropbox account and will "Share" the contents with those interested in participating in the study. The files are randomly named and should provide a rich opportunity for those willing to download them and do some serious listening. The goal is to discover if bona fide high-resolution audio recordings can be distinguished from lower resolution formats.

A Preview

I will be doing a thorough analysis of each file and providing the spectra and dynamic analysis to participants. I've already done that for a test file by The Latin Jazz Trio. Here's the spectra of all of the formats:

The Spectra of "Memories of Rio" in all six formats

Sign Up

The more audio enthusiasts that participate in this study, the more raw data I'll have and the more valid the results will be. I'm prepared to be criticized for the casual nature of this experiment. Some will insist that using my own catalog is too limiting, others will insist that it be done in a state-of-the-art studio, or with mega buck equipment. I don't believe that any of those things matter. We all have different rooms, systems of differing values, and varying abilities to listen...exactly the diversity that is required to establish whether the marketing claims made by the industry are true.

If you want to sign up, you'll have to visit the post on my site and use the form at the bottom of the page by clicking here.

This should be fun. I'll leave the files up for a couple of months. I have to report back to my university sometime in early 2020, so you'll have lots of time. Thanks!

 

To me, hi-res audio has two real advantages: 1) the high sampling rate moves the cut-off frequency high above the pass band, obviating the need for steep filters above 22 KHz. 2) 24-bits gives the recordist a larger dynamic range allowing him to keep low passages out of the mud where only a couple of bits are in use and a lower overall record level can be used to make sure that sudden changes in the music’s volume doesn’t overmodulate the digital recording (a strict no-no in digital audio). Now, as to whether or not these result in noticeable improvements in SQ, depends, as usual, on all the other parameters of the recoding procedure.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, audiobomber said:

And the playback chain.

Well, of course. But, that is largely irrelevant. A recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Bad recordings sound worse the better the system (Frank’s opinion to the contrary notwithstanding) and do not sound “better” on a mediocre system. They just sound wrong and unsatisfying. As they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and that is never more true than in this case. One cannot fix a broken link earlier in the chain with an extra strong one later in the chain. The damage has already been done.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Sorry, I can't find the reference. I read it in the HD Audio site somewhere. Paraphrasing, John Siau stated  there's no need for high res if 16/44.1 is done right (as in the Benchmark DAC3)

That certainly can be true. I’ve used this example before. I have a number of JVC XRCD remastering of older RCA Victor “Living Stereo” analog material from the 1950’s. I also have many of these same performances on RCA’s own SACD re-masterings. In each case when audiophile friends were asked “which version is the RedBook CD and which is the SACD”, they INVARIABLY got it it wrong. Every man-jack of them picked the JVC CD as the SACD, and the real SACD as the RedBook CD because the JVC sounds MUCH better than RCA’s SACD remastering of the same exact material! IOW, the careful process of remastering previously released analog material has much more to do with the overall SQ of the re-release than does using high-res formats that don’t really take advantage of any of the technological advances that hi-res can bring to the table!

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, audiobomber said:

No coincidence. He is the chief designer and says Benchmark does 16/44 right, some others do not.

My experience with the Benchmark DAC 3 is that it does NOT do 16/44.1 as well as either the Chord HUGO 2, the Chord Quetest, or the Schiit Yggdrasil.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Ajax said:

never mind.

 

[gmgraves]

I wish to continue my discussion of Hi-Res with regard to it’s application in the case of older, analog material, and why often, Redbook remastering of this material beats Hi-Res remastering of the same material. I will outline my thinking on this subject using John Siau’s “three advantages of Hi-Res.”

 

1: An increased high frequency limit

Analog tape has little on it above 15 KHz. This is because the machines are not maintained beyond that frequency. The lack of calibration test-tapes coupled with difficulties in interpreting results at that frequency and higher, and the problem of self-erasure of high frequencies, make it impossible for analog magnetic tape to have any usable response above 20KHz (and response TO 20 KHz is rare), even at 15 ips!

Hi-Res “increased high-frequency limit” is of no use here.

 

2: An increased immunity to the clipping of intersample peaks

Analog tape is “self limiting” in that the masters already have a peak volume “built-in”, as it were. When transferring to high-res digital, all the mastering engineer needs to do is make sure that the tape’s maximum level is a goodly amount below the Hi-Res system’s Zero Vu level and there won’t be any clipping of “intersample peaks” or any other peaks! No advantage of Hi-Res over RedBook there!

 

3: An increased SNR

Even with Dolby ‘A’ or DBX noise reduction, the very best analog tape formulations are only good for a maximum SNR of less than 75 dB! Hi-Res digital can have an SNR of greater than 120 dB. An analog tape transfer poses no challenge to either Hi-Res digital, or even Redbook for that matter! All else being equal, one is unlikely to tell the difference between a Redbook transfer of an analog tape and a Hi-Res transfer of the same analog tape.
 

So, if you hear a Hi-Res re-issue of one of your favorite albums, regardless of genre, and it sounds better than the original issue, or even a previous digital re-issue, it’s simply because the new re-mastering of the original material is better and done with more care in the Hi-Res release, rather than being attributable to any qualities that Hi-Res might bring to the table.

 

And since the Hi-Res process has absolutely no advantage when older master analog tapes are the source (or earlier 16/44.1 digital formats are the source), it is very possible that Redbook reissues of this material can sound superior to Hi-Res reissues if the Redbook re-mastering process was superior to that used on the Hi-Res re-master.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

Note that John says nothing about hi res making it easier to do better filtering on both the ADC and DAC ends, while he also says (with no math support, as there cannot be) the filtering in his DACs obviates this advantage.

This is of course, in my estimation, probably the only way (especially on remastered analog or 16/44.1 original material) that Hi-Res might be considered an advantage. But having said that, I don’t think it’s more than a secondary or perhaps a tertiary advantage.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't disagree, though *if* the Reiss meta-analysis is correct and training allows people to distinguish more easily, part of our feeling that this is a minor difference may be due to not knowing what to listen for.

 

But look at DR Database and notice the 24/96 Blu-ray of the 50th Anniversary Edition of Abbey Road is a little more dynamic than the CD. I think something like that is likely to be more important.

But that could just be the difference in remastering. I’ve never heard any of the Beatles digital remasters (never cared for the group), so, I’m just speculating, and you could, of course, be right.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

 Even many cassette decks had a frequency response to 30kHz including the Nakamichi decks that a friend and  I had back then.

You did however need to use high quality tape such as the TDK MA - Type IV Metal Cassette .

 Yes, I confirmed this by measurements at the time.

 

Regards

Alex

Sorry, Alex, but what I said was that professional analog tape recorders weren’t “maintained” beyond 15 KHz because it couldn’t be done. I have had and used Ampex ATR-102s, Revox high speed B-77s, and Otari MX-5050s. All of them fell-off like a rock above 15 KHz! If they did have any response above 20 KHZ, it was so far down compared to their output level at 15KHz, and at such a low record level, as to be useless.

Not that I don’t believe you, but even using Dolby HX pro to manage self-erasure, I do not see how a cassette deck, creeping along at 1.5 ips, can have any response above 10-12 KHz even at a record level of -20 dB, and not much above 7 KHz at -10B

(which is 0 Vu on a cassette). Even if it did, I don’t see how you could measure something so low in level as the 30 KHz response of a cassette deck! The Nakamichi was a three-headed deck (I owned a 1000), and at the 1.5 ips linear tape speed and the narrowness of the tracks, you can’t even set or maintain azimuth alignment between the record and playback head above 7.5 KHz because, again, there aren’t/weren’t any test tapes that went higher than that. And believe me, even at 7.5 KHz, azimuth adjustment on a cassette deck was 100 times more difficult than on a professional 1/4 inch pro reel-to-reel deck!

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, Jud said:

 

My recollection is that Dire Straits' early recordings used tape running much faster (15 ips?), and if it was used by them or whoever produced them, I assume it was used by others. I have no idea what this does for response or maintainability thereof, though.

Some recordings (mostly in the early 1950’s) used 30 ips, but better tape formulations mostly obviated that practice. It did extend the useful frequency response of magnetic tape well into the mid-twenty-K region though. Perhaps Dire Straits pressed one of these old 30 ips machines into service or had a 15 ips machine modified to 30 ips. With very few exceptions, all professional analog recordings were made at 15 ips. That was standard practice. So in order for someone to make a recording using tape “running much faster”, it would almost have to have been 30 ips or perhaps even faster. 
One thing though, while increasing linear tape speed does result in more high-frequency extension, due to a phenomenon called “head fringing”, low frequency response is compromised. So, it’s really a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/dire-straits-love-over-gold-shm-sacd-reviews.256624/page-3#post-6812567

There you go! 30 ips for your Dire Straits master. I figured that’s what it had to be. While innovative record company owner/engineer Emory Cook did build several machines running at 60 ips(!), a 3200 ft, 10.5 inch reel of tape running at that speed would last about 15 minutes, IIRC. Since tape in those days was made of acetate film, it was extremely brittle. At 60 ips, a break would have been truly spectacular, and possibly dangerous to anyone in the same room with the machine!

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

 There are numerous albums available from HDTracks etc.that have obvious HF info well above 22kHz, not just noise.

 Regards

Alex

I’m sure there are. The music world has been recording at 24/96 or higher for close to two decades now. 

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Recording using 24 bit makes sense - releasing the finished product in more than 16 bits makes zero sense, unless you like spending money for the sake of extra bandwidth, and storage.

 

I did listening tests 30 years ago, which ably demonstrated that 16 bits is way good enough - if 24 bits sounds better, then it's because the particular playback chain has been 'tuned' to work better with that format - and no other reason.

You might be very right there, Frank. In my considerable experience, the way that a recording is captured and processed on it’s way to “market” seems to influence the final SQ a lot more than do either bit-depth or sample rate.

However, I can’t say the same about your second statement. I mean how the heck does one “tune” a system to favor High-Res recordings over say, Redbook?

 

[gmgraves]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Usually by the choice of DAC. Some chips, and the support circuitry will do an intrinsically better job of of getting the conversion from digital to analogue right - people mention the requirements of output filtering of the analogue being tougher to make work as well as it should, for the CD format; Hi-Res makes that job easier - so components quite often sound better playing the higher resolution: because the designers could play with more design options, while still meeting the technical requirements.

I don’t think the choice of DAC will make 24-bit sound better than Redbook through the same DAC and audio circuitry unless the 24-bit recording in question, actually sounds better than the Redbook recording to which it is being compared. I think your logic is faulty here.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Hi-Res, and CD are different beasts... the input format is altered, which is changing the nature of what the circuitry sees, has to process. In digital audio that's all that's needed to alter the subjective sound - even on very low end chips, mounted on a PC motherboard, this can make an easily audible difference. Taking a low grade pop track, and upsampling it to hi-res formats, changed the tone of the treble content dramatically, in an experiment I did some years ago. The music content was always identical, but the playback chain was able to produce a less distorted version, with hi-res input.

And unless you had both Redbook and Hi-res of the same material, how could you tell to what to attribute the differences you hear through a DAC? I, on the other hand have DSD masters and the pro software to output the DSD as both 24/96 and Redbook CD format. I can compare both to the master DSD file. I know what the differences are, and through my Yiggy and the Chord HUGO and the Chord Quetest as well as the AudioQuest Cobalt. I can tell you that unless either the Redbook copy or the 24/96 copy of a master sounds significantly better than the other, the individual DACs can’t audibly differentiate between them anymore than I can differentiate between the two copies (Redbook and 24/96) from the DSD master. IOW, a DAC will not optimize a system for Hi-Res. It simply does not work that way in my experience!

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Too bad none of those play DSD natively...

 

That’s largely irrelevant. I often capture in DSD with either my Korg MR-1or my M2000s. Both of those will natively play DSD as well as LPCM, but my point is that when either Redbook or 24/96 conversions are made from these DSD master files, the type of DAC used to play them back does not make the Hi-Res copy sound better while making the Redbook copy sound worse. IOW, the DAC does not optimize a system to favor Hi-Res over standard resolution digital as Fas42 suggests.

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

By upsampling CD material to Hi-Res - or going the other way ... that's what I mentioned doing in my previous post, 🙂. Same audio content, different format - I did round trips of conversion to make sure the software did the job well enough so that the nulls lay well below CD resolution - nothing was added, or taken away, that could be audible.

That still doesn’t show that the choice of a DAC will “optimize” one’s system for Hi-Res over standard a resolution digital. If one finds that Hi-Res sounds better than standard res, it’s simply because the Hi-Res recording is better, not because some DAC is optimized to make Hi-Res sound better.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

 

It appears you're still not following, George - I take a 'low res' recording, say CD or MP3. and upsample to some Hi-Res format - not one iota, one shred of extra, meaningful information has been added to the track - yet, it sounds better than the original file I started with ... I have organised the audio data so that it's now in a form which better suits the playback chain - the DAC area is the key link where this change in audible behaviour is occurring.

yes, of course, I do the same thing. I have a fine up-sampler that will take standard resolution audio and up-convert it to 24/96 on the fly. It is a permanent part of my playback system. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my assertion; to whit:   A DAC will not optimize a system for high-resolution playback. The DAC will play what it’s given. If the Hi-Res version of a particular recording sounds better than the Redbook version of that same recording, then it will sound the better of the two. But if the Redbook sounds better than the Hi-Res version of the same performance, the DAC won’t (and can’t) change that. It is what it is.

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

So, if I'm into Hi-Res I will carefully pick a playback chain which makes the most of this format; if I have a huge collection of CDs, I will acquire a CD player which has had all the effort put into optimising the electronics in it for recovering 16 bit sound - I pick the right 'vehicle' for making the journey, 🙂.

And I say there’s no such thing. Almost any 24-bit DAC will do a better job of resolving a 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD than will any 16-bit only DAC. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

"On the fly" doesn't count. If circuitry is working to do the upsampling while you listen, all bets are off - because, the bits of circuitry doing that particular processing are part of the playback chain - as you say. I don't distinguish digital 'parts' from analogue, as a special case, if I'm concerned with some type of interference effect. So, upsampling, etc, is a totally offline activity - I have two tracks set up on some media, ready to play, of each format

 

The DAC is a hybrid circuit - how it behaves can vary depending upon, well, everything. If the designer of the circuitry made sure that the SQ was better for a particular type of input - then that's what at least some people should hear.

 

Technically, the 24 bit may be 'better' than the 16 bit - soundwise, the converse could be true.

None of that alters the fact that your assertion that a DAC can “optimize” a system for hi-res is both wrong and more than a little absurd, Frank. In this case, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Dear me, 😲 ... going back to my original statement,

 

 

Now, the particular owner may check out the reviews, and find that a certain CDP works brilliantly with CDs. Or that a media server and particular associated DAC does excellently with Hi-Res material. And buy one or the other, accordingly - in my book, that's a form of "optimising" ... was talking just a day or so ago about how to play true 4 channel LPs, and using a Parabolic stylus was recommended, for better sound - should I consider it "absurd" that vinyl replay could be made better, by altering the hardware being used?

Now it is possible to optimize one’s system for vinyl playback because there are so many variables. There’s the ‘table itself, the arm, the cartridge, the phono preamp, all of these affect playback quality, but with digital, you really only have the DAC and will not just affect playback of Hi-Res material, but of standard resolution material as well. You can’t separate the two. It’s like trying to optimize your phonograph set-up for 45 RPM LPs over 33.3 RPM LPs. The same equipment plays both and there is simply nothing you can do to make your system favor one over the other.

As we seem to be caught in a circular argument, there is no need to respond, Frank. I have nothing more to say on the subject, and you just seem to be restating your position, and I simply do not buy your conclusions. See you in another thread!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

For someone who has played with electronics, George, you don't seem to have much insight as to what's going on 😉 ...you see, a DAC is a machine, just like a TT is a machine - and everyone who plays with machines knows that a particular beast will just do a better job with some 'materials', input for a myriad number of perhaps subtle reasons. Including making 45 RPM sound better than 33.3 RPM - didn't you know there is a whole mini industry doing special issues of 45's versions of 33 RPM material - because they "sound better", 😉.

 

It appears that you have a belief that digital audio, and DACs, are some type of impenetrable "magic" - not for mortal men to try and fathom the dark secrets within ... well, I don't have time for sort of thinking; a $100,000 DAC in a rig that makes it sound like crap is a piece of crap - and should be thrown in the bin if you "can't fix it". There are always subtleties that can make or break kit - my interest is in understanding why this occurs, in each particular instance.

I have no such belief. But you and I are simply not communicating on this issue, and beyond that, I have no further comment to offer except to say that I haven’t “played” with electronics, I happen to have a degree in the field and many years as a circuit designer and semiconductor engineer under my belt. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

It has been reported in the literature that ultrasonics can affect tinnitus. This is by definition a non-linear effect ie the ultrasonics are not directly heard, rather modulate the hearing system. 

 

The reason this is so important is that it provides a clear cut mechanism for the audibility of ultrasonics — not that you can hear, for example, a 30 kHz tone, rather that the full range sound of a cymbal might sound different than the 20 kHz stopband filtered recording of this cymbal. 

 

There are many people who are certain that Redbook CD contains all that we can possibly hear because of something they read about concerning the cochlea. The fact that ultrasonics modulate hearing means this belief is not grounded in certainty. 

That ultrasonics modulate hearing is not grounded in certainty either. There are only two things about hi-res that are for certain: 1) that a very high sampling rate moves the Nyquist frequency further away from the audible pass band, and 2) 24 or 32 bit sampling allows for better low-volume resolution and/or more headroom. A possible third “advantage” (at least commercially) is that hi-res plays on several neurotic audiophile beliefs, among which is the old adage that “if some is good, then more must be better”. This manifests it self in Hi-res downloads costing more than CD quality downloads. There is really no reason why this should be so except that audiophiles seem willing to pay $25 per hi-res album for the same music that is available at CD resolution for often less than half that! Never let it be said that retailers would deny folks the privilege of paying all that the market will bear. 🤑

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Especially with DSD, you have Nyquist at minimum of 1.4 MHz...  And don't need to worry about number of bits, but instead get even better low level linearity.

 

 

Given bitrate factor of 3.3 between 44.1/16 and 96/24, I don't consider album price of 16,50€ bad for 96/24 midres.

 

It’s fine that you don’t consider a higher album price for Hi-Res a deterrent to buying 24/96, but that’s not really here nor there. My only point was that on-line vendors who sell hi-res at a higher price than standard res do so because they can. There are really no higher costs incurred in producing hi-res content than there is for standard res (with the exception of the greater storage room required), and so, the higher price is simply a reflection of the fact that there are those who are willing to pay it, or who are convinced that it NEEDS to be that way.

It reminds me of the early days of disc brakes for cars here in the USA. Garages, in those days, charged two to three times more to do a brake-job on a disk brake car than on one with drums. From a cost standpoint, this makes no sense, of course. It’s much easier and quicker to replace the pads on a disk brake equipped car than it is to replace the shoes on a drum-brake system, and the pads were cheaper than drum shoes. But it was “new” and most car owners didn’t understand how disk brakes worked. They assumed that the technology was “exotic” and therefore simply must be more expensive, so they paid the premium and gave it no more thought. I was a student in those days and had a used MK II Sprite. I couldn’t afford to have my pads replaced, so I did ‘em myself. They were cheap, just a few dollars for the set of four, and took scant minutes to change. It was then I noticed that repair shops were ripping-off customers by charging a healthy premium to do what I had just done for practically nothing and in no time!

[gmgraves]

18 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

No. First of all I think that the wavelet model that @Miska mentioned more closely responds to the cochlea that the FFT model. I'm not convinced one way or another but erring on the side of caution prefer music in as high a resolution as was recorded/available. Also design equipment to handle above 20kHz ... that isn't difficult ... high-res audio isn't gigaHz. Really I'm just saying that CD Redbook is an assumption.

I have been capturing in DSD for over a decade, now, for that very reason. I rarely listen in DSD except on my computer. Ironically, except for my Oppo 205 (the analog output of which is not connected to my amplifier), my main system’s DACs do not support it. No biggie though; If I make copies for anyone (usually the group members, or the orchestra association for the use of the conductor as a “study CD”), I give them Redbook transfers from the master. I also make hi-res LPCM transfers for myself (or my clients, if they wish) which I copy to my NAS for listening on my main system.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

What I posted was your typical hard struck cymbals showing they didn't stress the rise time of redbook. 

 

There are some things which could stress it.  Miska shows some in his post.  But those would look to be from something at more than 60 khz.  

 

Guys, there is some frequency beyond which it simply cannot matter to us humans.  Maybe it is a little more than 20 khz for some rare situations maybe it isn't.  Even people with good high frequency hearing have a steep, steep rise in the threshold once you pass 15 khz.  The idea 44 or 48 khz sampling drastically effects playback quality is quite ridiculous I think.  If you do everything else right in the chain, 44 khz recordings vs higher rates might be just barely audible as different.  It isn't like 44 khz will sound significantly degraded and 96 khz or higher will sound wonderful.  Of all the things involved in getting a good recording the sample rate ranks way down near the bottom of such a list, and may not matter at all.  

One thing that I don’t see mentioned in this conversation much, are the microphones themselves. While it is possible to buy microphones that have significant frequency response out beyond 30 KHz (Ray Kimber used four Japanese-made omnidirectional microphones for his “IsoMike” recordings that are said to be flat to more than 50 KHz. Wish I could remember the brand and model, but I don’t), but these mikes are eye-wateringly expensive. Such mikes are rarely, if ever, used in most professional, mainstream recording studios. 
The Neumann, AKG, Telefunken, Sennheiser, and Sony condenser mikes as well as the dynamic varieties and contact mikes favored for pop and rock recording, and likely to be found in a professional recording studio’s complement, simply have little response above 20 KHz. I’m looking at the frequency response graph for a Neumann SM-2 condenser microphone. (Second edition, “The Audio Cyclopedia” by Howard M. Tremaine, page 162) right now. After a very wide +5dB peak at 6 KHz, the frequency response falls-off like a rock above 10 KHz, and is down -5dB at 15 KHz and is off the charts at -20dB at about 20 KHz. In my experience, this is pretty typical of most condenser mikes. More modern mikes have lighter Mylar diaphragms, of course, and the peak is at a higher frequency because of it, but response still falls off rapidly above the peak. Also, one would be surprised to see how many microphones used daily in recording studios around the world are really old! Many are tubed models from the 50’s and 60’s. The most ubiquitous models are the Neumann U47 and U87, and the AKG-414. These are very old designs. While the modern iterations of these mikes have sputtered Mylar diaphragms, the older ones have diaphragms made of etched brass or similar materials.