Looking for music with meaningful ultrasonic content

[egellings]

I think people are just using it to refer to frequencies above 20Khz even in cases where it's still audible.

We can also have a scenario where the ultrasonic conternt by itself is not audible but it becomes audible due to interacting with lower frequencies.

It the above audibility signals interact with the audible ones, wouldn't that be called intermodulation distortion, an unwanted side effect?

 

[vintologi]

It the above audibility signals interact with the audible ones, wouldn't that be called intermodulation distortion, an unwanted side effect?

It's not wanted in speakers, amplifiers, etc.

But if it happens in the ear it's not really a negative, it's just being faithful to how it would be listening to it live (instead of recording).

Note that you may still prefer the less accurate reproduction of the sound without the ultrasonics (assuming you can actually tell the versions apart in the first place) but then you can simply use a downsampled version.

 

[vintologi]

Once when i though i could hear difference between sampling rates for one song someone actually prepared 3 versions for me, when i listened to one of the version it was rather unpleasant, next sounded downsampled but nothing strange, i was then expecting the final version to be the original but then it sounded even worse, turned out that none of the versions was the original and 2 had loads of ultrasonic garbage added.

Could be that the ultrasonics was intensive enough to create audible IMD in that case, hard to tell. I didn't want to test blind since it was rather unpleasant to listen to.

 

[Philbo King]

Ultrasonic mic, one of very few with available specs:

CM16/CMPA - Avisoft Bioacoustics

Avisoft Bioacoustics Hardware and software for investigating animal sound communication: ultrasound microphones, integrated acoustic data acquisition systems, recording and sound analysis software optimized for applications in bioacoustics.

www.avisoft.com

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Ultrasonic mic, one of very few with available specs:

CM16/CMPA - Avisoft Bioacoustics

Avisoft Bioacoustics Hardware and software for investigating animal sound communication: ultrasound microphones, integrated acoustic data acquisition systems, recording and sound analysis software optimized for applications in bioacoustics.

www.avisoft.com

Cool. You can record your bat sing. Will be a chart breaker for sure ;-)

 

[MAB]

next sounded downsampled but nothing strange

What does downsampling sound like?

 

[Balle Clorin]

What is the point? Do a hearing test at the ear doctor instead. 24khz irrelevant , few grown UPs can hear 16kz, old people enjoy music even if their hearing is limited to 8khz.

my point: there is no meaningful ultrasonics

 

[vintologi]

Ultrasonic mic, one of very few with available specs:

CM16/CMPA - Avisoft Bioacoustics

Avisoft Bioacoustics Hardware and software for investigating animal sound communication: ultrasound microphones, integrated acoustic data acquisition systems, recording and sound analysis software optimized for applications in bioacoustics.

www.avisoft.com

I remember seeing that one earlier, frequency response is a bit ugly.

I remember looking for mics for very high frequencies earlier but i quickly gave up.

Also my current DAC cannot record anything more than 24bit and 192 anyway so i probably buy earthworks M50 or cheaper (i will need a measurement mic soon i think).

 

[vintologi]

What does downsampling sound like?

Take this with a grain of salt because in that particular case i did not do enough testing to get a statistically significant result.

With the ultrasonics included it sounded more like i was actually there physically rather than listening to a recording. The guitar specifically sounded better i guess.

https://ru.rateyourmusic.com/release/ep/frozen-dandylions-overgrown/frozen-dandylions-overgrown/

I plan to do another test later starting at 54 KS/s and i fail the blind-test ill go down to 48 KS/s and if i still fail ill do a final attempt at 44.1 KS/s.

 

[Philbo King]

I remember seeing that one earlier, frequency response is a bit ugly.

I remember looking for mics for very high frequencies earlier but i quickly gave up.

Also my current DAC cannot record anything more than 24bit and 192 anyway so i probably buy earthworks M50 or cheaper (i will need a measurement mic soon i think).

That one looks surprisingly good

 

[ChrisG]

Wouldn't earthworks M50 be a better option?

This does not look particularly great:

Or is something i am missing here?

I mentioned earlier that I used my MK41 to test ultrasonic pest repellers. 50kHz came through fine.


Some Earthworks mics are rated for >20kHz, and some of the Sennheiser MKH mics work up there (albeit with a very narrow pickup angle). I happen to own the Schoeps, though, which is why I said that I could do it.

Chris

 

[vintologi]

I mentioned earlier that I used my MK41 to test ultrasonic pest repellers. 50kHz came through fine.

Some Earthworks mics are rated for >20kHz, and some of the Sennheiser MKH mics work up there (albeit with a very narrow pickup angle). I happen to own the Schoeps, though, which is why I said that I could do it.

Your mic is probably good enough for recording music with ultrasonics, missed that you already owned one.

 

[Mnyb]

Hmm .

I see a lot of DSD with ultrasonic garbage in there

 

[Mnyb]

Hmm .

I see a lot of DSD with ultrasonic garbage in there

Itchy fingers i was not finished.

You need closed miced recordings possibly ?

Also the producers are also working in the blind here this content is not monitored and balanced in any meaningful way ? How would anyone know if thye made a recording with the correct ultrasound content ?

I’m also of the opinion that for all practical reasons it stops at 24/88.2 ( or 96 k ) sample rate.

In some cases it could be worse for many consumers if there where significant content above 25-30kHz as a majority of tweeters have som sort of resonance peak here and it could potentially make audible IMD ?
But hey it could sound different always interpreted as better for some reason…

 

[radix]

What is the tweeter dispersion of a normal hifi speaker at or above 20 kHz?

From reviews I remember, the horizontal and vertical dispersions close off pretty faster over 10 kHz.

If the ultrasonic is a narrow beam, is it desirable to include that? It would be very specific to a single MLP.

 

[vintologi]

What is the tweeter dispersion of a normal hifi speaker at or above 20 kHz?

From reviews I remember, the horizontal and vertical dispersions close off pretty faster over 10 kHz.

If the ultrasonic is a narrow beam, is it desirable to include that? It would be very specific to a single MLP.

You have to position your head in a narrow space where the ultrasonics are reproduced decently.

Ribbon tweeters are often problematic in that respect due to beaming.

 

[antcollinet]

The ultrasonics are louder when when the music itself is louder indicating that it's not merely noise.

Heard? Or measured?

Because if heard, is is not ultrasonics.

 

[vintologi]

Heard? Or measured?

Because if heard, is is not ultrasonics.

I checked in audacity.

 

[BDWoody]

We can also have a scenario where the ultrasonic conternt by itself is not audible but it becomes audible due to interacting with lower frequencies.

Wouldn't that audible part have been captured in the original performance and capture? I'm assuming you don't want to create new interactions that wouldn't have been part of the original signal.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Wouldn't that audible part have been captured in the original performance and capture?

Yes, definitely. I believe the OP was looking for recordings that contain authentic ultrasonic content (rather than digital conversion artifacts). This would require the recording workflow to be mindful of this content, starting with the choice of microphones.