Looking for music with meaningful ultrasonic content

[vintologi]

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.

It would not capture interaction between ultrasonics and lower frequencies that may occur inside the human body.

It should logically be perceptible if it's loud enough.

 

[MAB]

It would not capture interaction between ultrasonics and lower frequencies that may occur inside the human body.

It should logically be perceptible if it's loud enough.

Your ear and associated organs is the part that's inside of your body where acoustic interactions occur. Or does your shinbone respond to ultrasonic frequencies? I think you massively don't understand the nature, origin, and actual effect of ultrasonic frequencies, and are fishing for a problem to solve that doesn't actually exist.

edited a typo...

 

[theREALdotnet]

I think you massively don't understand the nature, origin, and actual effect of ultrasonic frequencies, and are fishing for a problem to solve that doesn't actually exist.

I reckon that bringing recorded sound reproduction closer to the sound experienced live is an existing problem.

The human hearing is neither linear nor time-invariant, the superposition principle does not apply. To suggest otherwise would be needlessly reductionist (in a bad way).

 

[MAB]

I reckon that bringing recorded sound reproduction closer to the sound experienced live is an existing problem.

The human hearing is neither linear nor time-invariant, the superposition principle does not apply. To suggest otherwise would be needlessly reductionist (in a bad way).

To be honest, I didn't quite follow this! It wasn't as clear to me as your other posts, like using a tunnel diode as a test load, which made perfect sense!

 

[theREALdotnet]

To be honest, I didn't quite follow this! It wasn't as clear to me as your other posts, like using a tunnel diode as a test load, which made perfect sense!

What I mean is that being unable to hear an ultrasonic tone in isolation doesn’t permit us to conclude that ultrasonics cannot alter the perception of sound playing at the same time.

 

[MAB]

What I mean is that being unable to hear an ultrasonic tone in isolation does permit us to conclude that ultrasonics cannot alter the perception of sound playing at the same time.

Understood. And agree. Still not sure how OP is going to do an investigation here.

 

[vintologi]

Understood. And agree. Still not sure how OP is going to do an investigation here.

Once i have better speakers i will do listening comparisons blind and see if i can get any statistically significant results.

 

[IAtaman]

If there is something very non-linear with regard to sound in the human body that might allow us to somehow detect ultrasonics when they interact with lower frequencies. There has been some studies indicating that this is indeed the case so i am going to do some more tests myself.

This might allow sound that is otherwise inaudible to make a noticeable difference with some music.

Do you mean IMD? Which studies, can you share some links please.

 

[IAtaman]

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.

Well, according to research I read, you probably need to put your head on the twitter baffle to perceive anything, as they seem to conclude that airborne ultrasound does not active the auditory cortex.

 

[vintologi]

Which studies, can you share some links please.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068631_Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_441_kHz_vs_882_kHz

 

[IAtaman]

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

For the record, I have seen that paper many times, and I think that is a parody of science at best. But even that joke of a paper says you can not hear ultrasound with your ears through air.

"HFCs might be conveyed through pathways distinct from the usual air-conducting auditory pathway and therefore might affect the CNS, including the deep-lying brain structure."

So you can't hear it, but if affects your brain. Spooky.

If you are into that sort of thing, here is one paper that suggests sounds with high-frequency components above the human audible range improve glucose tolerance, from the same group of "researchers"

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

That's the same people writing the same thing again. If you want to test that, you ears are not gonna be enough, you are gonna need an EEG machine.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full

Same BS again: people listen to music, researchers detect differences in alpha and beta waves when it is high resolution. Hypothesis proven. Not invented to sell rich old people expensive stuff they don't need at all...

What I like about this "research" however is its title:

High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness

First, because it already accepts ultrasound is inaudible, and second, it says you relax but you are not even consciously aware you are relaxed. That is some Robb "300dB" Watts grade, top shelf BS that is.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068631_Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_441_kHz_vs_882_kHz

Cumulative binomial tests on the number of correct responses were conducted for each participant, collapsing over all comparison pairs and all musical excerpts. At this individual level, three expert listeners out of 16 obtained significant results, p < .05, 2-tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting that they hear differences between A and B but picked the wrong one (e.g. A = X when in fact B = X).

Ha!

 

[vintologi]

First, because it already accepts ultrasound is inaudible, and second, it says you relax but you are not even consciously aware you are relaxed. That is some Robb "300dB" Watts grade, top shelf BS that is.

They did find one statistically significant difference when they asked the listeners

But since they asked for 10 things it's a difference you get one in 20.45 times from random chance (that difference or greater in either direction), not sure if anyone has tried to replicate that finding yet.

 

[IAtaman]

But since they asked for 10 things it's a difference you get one in 20.45 times from random chance (that difference or greater in either direction), not sure if anyone has tried to replicate that finding yet.

I am not sure how reliable of a method it is to put people in a lab, make them listen to things and ask them how they feel. That might be one reason why no one else tried to replicate that.

 

[Gregm]

What I mean is that being unable to hear an ultrasonic tone in isolation doesn’t permit us to conclude that ultrasonics cannot alter the perception of sound playing at the same time.

In that vein, I had an experience where the addition of a pair of Murata super-tweeters to the speaker system led to the perception of clearer bass & upper bass.
Of course I had expected clearer highs -- for no rational reason as, in and of themselves, the speakers measurably reproduced 17-18kHz which is beyond my hearing capability.
* CD source so, ultrasonic content ?
* S-tweets crossed at 15-16kHz
* Bass unit had its own, separate amp
* It was surpising, so I also listened blind, the other guy connecting or disconnecting the super Ts
* Big room
* I remember listening to Bach (Cafe Zimmerman CD) and P Floyd
End of story

 

[vintologi]

I am not sure how reliable of a method it is to put people in a lab, make them listen to things and ask them how they feel. That might be one reason why no one else tried to replicate that.

There is nothing that prevents us from getting good statistics regarding it assuming there is actually a real difference to be observed.

You simply have to test until you get like p = 0.001

But the study used a lowpass at 20Khz so some of the participants may have been able to hear that directly.

 

[radix]

It seems like there's been a lot of back-and-forth about if the OP is wasting his time. I say if @vintologi wants to do it, great. I think if someone wants to conduct an experiment for their own personal interest or amusement, that's great. But (of course there is one), the experiment has to be setup correctly and executed correctly, otherwise it's like an editorial is to the news (maybe based in fact, but rather untrustworthy; it's just entertainment).

What I think the OP should do is post a detailed experimental plan, along with equipment and room specifics, and get feedback about if this will have a chance to measure what he wants to measure. Maybe I missed the post, but apart from identifying one or two tracks and some others suggesting mics, I've not seen anything specific about speakers, dacs, mics, geometry, method of blind testing, how to sample/resample for control tracks, specific settings on the equipment, etc. And reporting the results of an improper experiment just confuses other people without a deep background.

 

[pablolie]

This has been tested and debunked so often that I am sorry to say I don't have the least confidence or interest in the eventual outcome of the "test". Ultra- or subsonic stuff doesn't add anything to music enjoyment, and nor has any test proven it can be heard - ever. Plus it is very questionable if it is even recorded accurately - ever.

 

[CapMan]

My personal time is precious. I would rather use my hifi system to enjoy music during that special, limited time than perform some disputable experiment. My choice of course and each to their own.

But for me the entire purpose of having speakers and an amp is to listen to MUSIC. I guess I’m just old fashioned

I think this debate is in the weeds of musical enjoyment.

 

[ChrisG]

It seems like there's been a lot of back-and-forth about if the OP is wasting his time. I say if @vintologi wants to do it, great. I think if someone wants to conduct an experiment for their own personal interest or amusement, that's great. But (of course there is one), the experiment has to be setup correctly and executed correctly, otherwise it's like an editorial is to the news (maybe based in fact, but rather untrustworthy; it's just entertainment).

What I think the OP should do is post a detailed experimental plan, along with equipment and room specifics, and get feedback about if this will have a chance to measure what he wants to measure. Maybe I missed the post, but apart from identifying one or two tracks and some others suggesting mics, I've not seen anything specific about speakers, dacs, mics, geometry, method of blind testing, how to sample/resample for control tracks, specific settings on the equipment, etc. And reporting the results of an improper experiment just confuses other people without a deep background.

Agreed.



I posted a suggested method earlier:

FWIW, I'm pretty happy accept the premise that ultrasound might be worth reproducing, and I like discussing the technical side of it.

I think that chimes might be a good way to test the audibility. They involve lots of little bits of metal hitting each other, so there should be plenty of VHF content there. If I had a set (of chimes!), I could do the following setup:

- Schoeps MK41
- Motu M4 @ 192kHz/24-bit

Then, to test audibility:
- Take the 192kHz file, down-sample to 44.1kHz, 48kHz, whatever.
- Then, up-sample back to 192kHz.
- ABX test the resulting files.

Up-sampling the file back to 192kHz eliminates the possibility that the DAC or audio software deals with files of different sample rates in different ways.


Chris

In fact, I could add a Schoeps MK8 and do a M/S setup and capture the chimes in stereo. Should be more interesting to listen to.


Either way, I think the method of down- and then up-sampling is solid, although we must take care to ensure that the levels <20kHz are identical - any automatic normalisation (setting peak = 0dBFS) must be disabled, or the down-sampled version will be a tiny tiny amount louder.


Chris

 

[vintologi]

It seems like there's been a lot of back-and-forth about if the OP is wasting his time. I say if @vintologi wants to do it, great. I think if someone wants to conduct an experiment for their own personal interest or amusement, that's great. But (of course there is one), the experiment has to be setup correctly and executed correctly, otherwise it's like an editorial is to the news (maybe based in fact, but rather untrustworthy; it's just entertainment).

What I think the OP should do is post a detailed experimental plan, along with equipment and room specifics, and get feedback about if this will have a chance to measure what he wants to measure. Maybe I missed the post, but apart from identifying one or two tracks and some others suggesting mics, I've not seen anything specific about speakers, dacs, mics, geometry, method of blind testing, how to sample/resample for control tracks, specific settings on the equipment, etc. And reporting the results of an improper experiment just confuses other people without a deep background.

Either way, I think the method of down- and then up-sampling is solid, although we must take care to ensure that the levels <20kHz are identical - any automatic normalisation (setting peak = 0dBFS) must be disabled, or the down-sampled version will be a tiny tiny amount louder.

One good method is to invert one of the versions and then add them in audacity.

I have found that when you resample in audacity there will be no difference below 20Khz. A rather steep filter is used so you need to have very good hearing to directly hear the frequencies being filtered out.

The second problem is with regard to IMD in speakers/amplifiers. Here one idea is to listen in mono instead and use one of the speakers just for the ultrasonics.