Does "Hi-Res" audio create noise pollution for pets?

[Nathan Raymond]

So I was just thinking about how "Hi-Res" audio tracks (192 kHz, 96 kHz, etc.) might be creating noise pollution for pets in people's homes. For instance, cats can hear up to 64 kHz and dogs 45 kHz:

https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

It's my understanding that what audio has been captured in the ultrasonic frequencies of "Hi-Res" recordings is most likely just spurious noise, not really related to the music. Could that basically be creating noise pollution for our furry friends? Does it make sense to proactively re-process the lossless audio in our libraries from 192 kHz and 96 kHz down to 48 kHz with something like XLD (https://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html) to eliminate that possible source of noise pollution?

Related to that, I've been wondering if there are any significant ultrasonic noises emitted by power supplies that haven't been suppressed because humans are the primary design target, and the focus is on what we can hear (not what our pets can hear). In other words, is there power supply noise caused by magnetostriction, the reverse piezo effect, or just switched-mode power supplies operating in ultrasonic frequencies that isn't suppressed but could annoy pets?

 

[DVDdoug]

Most audio recordings don't contain ultrasonic signals, even if the format is capable of it. Most audio recordings contain audio.

High-energy ultrasonics can be "bad" for amplifiers or fry tweeters. (I fried a power amplifier once when a preamp I was building turned-into an RF oscillator and I didn't realize what was happening until it was too late. My tweeters survived)

DSD does have ultrasonic noise but it's "weak" and the player should filter it out.

Also , most tweeters fall-off quickly above the audio range.

Related to that, I've been wondering if there are any significant ultrasonic noises emitted by power supplies

Probably not. At least not significant ultrasonic output. Something has to move mechanically to generate sound waves and it's "hard" to vibrate anything that fast and whatever is vibrating has to be small so that means less energy.

Higher frequencies are also attenuated by the air more than lower frequencies (I don't know how much more) and they are more easily absorbed by walls and objects in the room.

BTW - Digital audio can go down to DC (zero Hz) and DC or high-energy subsonics can also be "bad" for amplifiers and woofers (although most amplifiers will filter it out).

 

[Zek]

"Hi-Res" audio tracks (192 kHz, 96 kHz, etc.) might be creating noise pollution for pets in people's homes.

First, you need to distinguish the frequency range from the sample rate. With Hi-res files, the sampling rate can be very high, even up to 768 kHz, but this is not the frequency range of such an audio file.

Digital Audio Basics: Audio Sample Rate and Bit Depth

Learn the basics of digital audio and how a computer handles sound, from audio sample rate to bit depth.

www.izotope.com

 

[amirm]

I have analyzed a number of high res recordings. The actual musical content continues to drop exponentially in that region meaning levels are quite low. Some have spurious tones them that are louder though. See this example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...und-liaison-high-resolution-music-clips.2012/

But you can see how much louder the bass is. So the animals would be much more bothered by the rest of the spectrum before they worry about ultrasonics. Our dogs are also good at hiding from source of loud noises if it is too much for them (they go to the rest of the house).

 

[voodooless]

Never mind that most speakers can’t reproduce much above 20 to 30 kHz anyway.

 

[dualazmak]

Just for your reference, my perspective and actual practice / counter measure;

- "Near ultrasound - ultrasound" ultra-high frequency (UHF) noises in improperly engineered/processed HiRes music tracks, and EKIO's XO-EQ configuration to cut-off such noises: #362-#386 on my project thread.

- Again, "Near ultrasound - ultrasound" ultra-high frequency (UHF) noises in HiRes music tracks, and EKIO's XO-EQ configuration to cut-off such noises: #518 on my project thread.

- Summary of rationales for "on-the-fly (real-time)" conversion of all music tracks (including 1 bit DSD tracks) into 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz PCM format for DSP (XO/EQ) processing: #532 on my project thread.

I wrote there: .... such a high amount of UHF noises would be "possibly" harmful (and useless, meaningless) for our tweeters and super tweeters. I also pointed they would be highly possibly harmful for our beloved pets including dogs, cats, birds.

 

[dualazmak]

Never mind that most speakers can’t reproduce much above 20 to 30 kHz anyway.

Just for our reference, some of super-tweeters have almost flat high-efficiency response upto 40 kHz or even higher, including my FOSTEX T925A; please refer here on my project thread.

 

[voodooless]

Just for our reference, some of super-tweeters have almost flat high-efficiency response upto 40 kHz or even higher, including my FOSTEX T925A; please refer here on my project thread.

That’s why I said “most”

 

[dualazmak]

My recent post here comparing DSD-layer vs. CD-layer of one specific hybrid SACD disc would be also of your interest and reference.

 

[dualazmak]

I wonder why no reaction at all from OP @Nathan Raymond ??

 

[SIY]

The only thing my dog ever reacted to from my stereo was when I played house concert recordings and she'd hear my wife's voice. Major tail wags and whining at the speakers.

 

[Aldoszx]

My tom cat always stays with me when I am listening to music.
So, I don't think is something that could bother him.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

Yes, mosquitoes get antsy and bite.

 

[Nathan Raymond]

I wonder why no reaction at all from OP @Nathan Raymond ??

Thanks for all the replies and links! My kids are a handful and my back is aching from pulling up a fence yesterday, I hope to be able to read and respond soon.

 

[Philbo King]

So I was just thinking about how "Hi-Res" audio tracks (192 kHz, 96 kHz, etc.) might be creating noise pollution for pets in people's homes. For instance, cats can hear up to 64 kHz and dogs 45 kHz:

https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

It's my understanding that what audio has been captured in the ultrasonic frequencies of "Hi-Res" recordings is most likely just spurious noise, not really related to the music. Could that basically be creating noise pollution for our furry friends? Does it make sense to proactively re-process the lossless audio in our libraries from 192 kHz and 96 kHz down to 48 kHz with something like XLD (https://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html) to eliminate that possible source of noise pollution?

Related to that, I've been wondering if there are any significant ultrasonic noises emitted by power supplies that haven't been suppressed because humans are the primary design target, and the focus is on what we can hear (not what our pets can hear). In other words, is there power supply noise caused by magnetostriction, the reverse piezo effect, or just switched-mode power supplies operating in ultrasonic frequencies that isn't suppressed but could annoy pets?

Certainly not worse than a Harley with pipes...

 

[SSS]

Oh, now I know why no cats around my living room.

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

I'm far more concerned about ultra high freq from appliances. I leave a few things in my house unplugged until use like our microwave because they emit pretty loud above 15khz tones. Last job I was at was food service, the kitchen got a new electric burner and that thing emitted the nastiest high pitch tone I've ever heard, very high amplitude. They had to get rid of after I complained about it. Not exactly examples of ultrasonic issues but does make me concerned that I have something in my house emitting noises I can't hear that is bad for my pets.

 

[dualazmak]

In my retrospective observation, I assume that our communication there and thereafter would be highly possibly related to our present discussion; even though I do not know whether it would be caused by unusually high volume tests and/or high amount of UHF noises inaudible for us humans but much audible for his dog. Please refer to the posts on that thread; #120, #124, #127, #129 throughout #148.

In #146 there, one participant suggested "Maybe the tweeter needs a 20khz low pass applied.", and I agreed with it.

BTW, in any way, as shared in detail here, I use -48 dB/Oct high-cut (low-pass) digital LR filters at 25 kHz for my treasure midrange, tweeter, and super-tweeter.

 

[Philbo King]

My dog (RIP) loved to listen to me play acoustic instruments, except didgereedoo and harmonica. Both of those agitated her.
I haven't measured the ultrasonics of the harmonica (don't own an ultrasonic mic), but I suspect that's what bothered her.

 

[jsrtheta]

So I was just thinking about how "Hi-Res" audio tracks (192 kHz, 96 kHz, etc.) might be creating noise pollution for pets in people's homes. For instance, cats can hear up to 64 kHz and dogs 45 kHz:

https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

It's my understanding that what audio has been captured in the ultrasonic frequencies of "Hi-Res" recordings is most likely just spurious noise, not really related to the music. Could that basically be creating noise pollution for our furry friends? Does it make sense to proactively re-process the lossless audio in our libraries from 192 kHz and 96 kHz down to 48 kHz with something like XLD (https://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html) to eliminate that possible source of noise pollution?

Related to that, I've been wondering if there are any significant ultrasonic noises emitted by power supplies that haven't been suppressed because humans are the primary design target, and the focus is on what we can hear (not what our pets can hear). In other words, is there power supply noise caused by magnetostriction, the reverse piezo effect, or just switched-mode power supplies operating in ultrasonic frequencies that isn't suppressed but could annoy pets?

Why not just ask them?