Speakers rated above 22kHz (1 Viewer)

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Not to mention - show me a musical instrument, outside possibly an electronic keyboard, that generates signals that high.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Stephen Houdek]

Hey,

I have one of those new Strat's that is supposed to go all the way to 50khz. If it don't, I'm taking it back!

 

[Philip>L]

[sarcasm]Though I suppose that some here will discount this information since it came from a speaker manufacturer and therefore MUST be biased simply to get you to spend more money.[/sarcasm]

 

[Chu Gai]

Discount it? No. Interpret it? Yes.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

It’s also a well-known fact that dreams register as changes in measurable brain wave activity, but no one is foolish enough to suggest that anyone is actually seeing something.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Philip>L]

So are you suggesting that you'd be willing to give up dreaming since you don't actually see anything?

I'm not really sure how this statement helps your argument.

 

[Chu Gai]

David Griesinger gave a presentation at an AES convention in Banff. The entire presentation is viewable online or can be saved for subsequent review at http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt
Among other things, he examined the spectral distribution of various musical instruments, synthesized sounds, and various commercial recordings including SACD. Of the samples he tested In summation from Griesinger's work we have the following

1. Adding ultrasonics to a recording technique does NOT improve time resolution of typical signals either for imaging or precision of tempo. The presumption that it does is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and human physiology.[/list=1]
   • Karou and Shogo have shown that ultrasonic harmonics of a 2kHz signal are NOT audible in the absence of external (non-human) intermodulation distortion.[/list=2]
     • Their experiments put a limit on the possibility that a physiological non-linearity can make ultrasonic harmonics perceptible. They find that such a non-linearity does not exist at ultrasonic sound pressure levels below 80dB.[/list=3]
       • All commercial recordings tested by the author as of 6/1/03 contained either no ultrasonic information, or ultrasonic harmonics at levels more than 40dB below the fundamentals. [/list=4]
         • Our experiments suggest that the most important source of audible intermodulation for ultrasonics is the electronics, not in the transducers.[/list=5]
           • Some consumer grade equipment makes a tacit admission of the inaudibility of frequencies above 22kHz by simply not reproducing them. Yet the advertising for these products claims the benefits of higher resolution. (sound familiar?)[/list=6]
             • Even assuming ultrasonics are audible, loudspeaker directivity creates an unusually tiny sweet spot, both horizontally and vertically.[/list=7]
               Now the compelling data to refute this and what's been stated by others lies where? In a manufacturer's statement of perception?

 

[Kenneth Harden]

My cat would kick my speakers ass if they went to 100 KHz.

 

[Allen Marshall]

Kevin, thats pretty damn funny

 

[Peter Ping]

I have SACD and DVD-A players, and I also have Sony ssk70ed speakers with frequency response up to 70kHz. If I can trust my ears, as so many others who have SACD and DVD-A equipment, I can definitely hear a world of difference between regular CDs and SACDs/DVD-As; between 24-bit/48kHz DVD-As and 24bit/96kHz DVD-As, and between DSD-based new SACDs and remastered SACDs. How would you explain the differences? Just my own imigination?

 

[RobertR]

I believe his point was that since the dream images are purely internally generated, the phantom external stimuli is superfluous, not that the phantom audio or visual images aren't interesting.

 

[RobertR]

There's no basis for you to assume that the sole change between a CD and the remastered SACD or DVD-A is in the ultrasonic region. Plenty of changes can (and are) made below 22 kHz.

 

[Philip>L]

Right, and my point is that even within the audible band there are many psychoacoustic phenomena at play, not the least of which is imaging. Can't there be more that have to do with the body's reaction to ultrasonic frequencies?

 

[Chu Gai]

Peter Ping stated...
Certainly there can but the levels (dB) would have to be quite high in order for this to occur. If you take the time to view the powerpoint presentation that I provided the link for, you'll see that this simply is not the case. In order to record these ultrasonics at a level that stand a chance of audibility, the primary frequencies would have to be so severely clipped that it would be unlistenable.

 

[Peter Ping]

I am talking about the clear sonic difference between 24/48 DVD-A and 24/96 DVD-A. Something is here to make the difference. If not the ultrasonic, what is it?

I know the distinction between sampling rate and frequency response: the latter is theoretically half of the former, so 96kHz sampling rate leads to 48kHz.

I have Sony SSK70Ed speakers with super tweeters up to 70kHz.

 

[RobertR]

I thought it was explained to you that many things can be done to dynamics and frequency balance below 22 kHz.

 

[JohnnyO]

As stated before, it makes no difference if your speakers can reproduce sound above 20-22kHz. Humans do not hear in that frequency range. Your dog will notice this higher frequency, but you will not.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Peter, you are confusing the frequency of sound (measured in Hz (or kHz) per second and the frequency of the sampling (of the bits on the CD or DVD), measured in rate.

They have nothing to do with each other.

The definition of ultrasonic is …sound frequencies above audible sound. So by definition, one cannot hear anything that is ultrasonic. As has been mentioned many, many times in this thread, most humans cannot hear above about 20,000 Hz. This varies by individual and the individual’s age and background (if you worked the last 20 years in a foundry without any earplugs or played in a symphony orchestra or heavy meal rock group, your hearing is probably not as acute as it would be otherwise).

My guess is that you could hear a clear difference between the two recording formats you cite whether or not your speakers could reproduce sound above 20kHz.

 

[Chu Gai]

If you've got a health plan at work take advantage of it and have your hearing comprehensively tested. Usually, you're only out the deductible.

 

[Arthur S]

Peter Ping

If I pay my own air fare can I come to your house for a good demonstration? Oh damn, I just remembered I'm in my 50's and can't hear over 12K at best.

Never mind.