Shouldn't we upgrade the 20-20 audible range ?!

[pablolie]

yes, pick it based on how others hear, not how you hear it.

Seems like a terrible idea lol.

Check piano recordings. Many of the big names insist on dominating the stage. That's how they hear it etc. It's rare to hear a recording by a huge name piano player that does not project a 12ft piano, with the lower notes on one side and the higher ones off the other.

The same.sometimes happens with percussion recordings, with one of the conga or bongo drums on one speaker and the other in the opposite side, making you wonder how long the player's arms are.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I like bacon...

Francis or Kevin?

 

[Ktacos]

Check piano recordings. Many of the big names insist on dominating the stage. That's how they hear it etc. It's rare to hear a recording by a huge name piano player that does not project a 12ft piano, with the lower notes on one side and the higher ones off the other.

The same.sometimes happens with percussion recordings, with one of the conga or bongo drums on one speaker and the other in the opposite side, making you wonder how long the player's arms are.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

I was commenting on how one should probably pick an instrument based on how it sounds to them, makes no sense to sense to ask your friend "hey how's this sound over there" and base your opinion on that. I've never picked an instrument this way, it makes zero sense to me, but your comment here is talking about panning in mixing?

 

[pablolie]

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

I was commenting on how one should probably pick an instrument based on how it sounds to them, makes no sense to sense to ask your friend "hey how's this sound over there" and base your opinion on that. I've never picked an instrument this way, it makes zero sense to me, but your comment here is talking about panning in mixing?

I agreed with what you said. Someone like Keith Jarrett sits right on top of his piano. He is a star. So that's what he demands in the recording. In many of his recordings, his piano extends end to end on our speakers. And of course you'd never hear the piano like that if you went to his concert unless you scored a seat between Keith's legs (no innuendo I mean it acoustically).

 

[jhwalker]

Looks like 15 Hz (covering the 16 Hz organ fundamental) to 17 Hz (covering the female voice & violin strings upper harmonics) is the sweet spot.
Good luck on the 16 Hz one. 17 KHz is commonly covered.

My subs are flat to 12 Hz (of course, they rolloff quickly lower than that - at 10 Hz they're already down -6dB).

But I do have many recordings (mainly featuring pipe organs, natch, and electronic / dance music) that require that. I'd be very upset without it

 

[pablolie]

Looks like 15 Hz (covering the 16 Hz organ fundamental) to 17 Hz (covering the female voice & violin strings upper harmonics) is the sweet spot.
Good luck on the 16 Hz one. 17 KHz is commonly covered.

17Hz covers which female voice? James Earl Jones in drag? A female blue whale? Just curious...

Kidding we know you meant 17k, but still too good to pass...

 

[pablolie]

17Hz covers which female voice? James Earl Jones in drag? A female blue whale? Just curious...

Kidding we know you meant 17k, but still too good to pass...

And the human heartbeat is 1 to 1.3 Hz, and yet you can clearly hear it when your ear is anywhere near to the heart or a major artery. Does anyone think the subsonic <2Hz frequency has anything to do with that?

 

[Keith_W]

I don't think this would be possible - it is asymmetric. The process is not reversible because harmonics are always integer multiples of the fundamental, and their amplitudes are highly variable depending on the source. If you hear all the harmonics without the fundamental, the fundamental must always be 1/2 the lowest of the harmonic frequencies. This is true for most natural sounds from a drum to a flute to a chain saw to pretty much anything. But if you hear only the fundamental, the harmonics could be anything or nothing. There is no harmonic that must always necessarily exist, no general pattern for your brain/perception to learn from experience and follow.

The post that I was replying to was a guy who was a studio engineer in his youth. He is now in his 70's and knows that he has >12kHz hearing loss, but he says that he can still hear "air" in the upper frequencies. I accepted what he said in good faith, because to me it seems plausible that a brain with lifetime exposure to sound in a professional setting should be able to reconstruct missing sounds that he is unable to hear.

I also accept what you are saying, that there is "no harmonic that must necessarily exist".

BTW, I did a quick experiment last night. I have active multichannel speakers with external amps. I turned off the amp for my tweeters, which are crossed over at 5khz. So effectively I simulated hearing loss > 5kHz. I then listened to some violins to see if my brain could recreate the "air". The effect was pretty jarring at first, but after about 10-15 min my brain adapted and it did not sound too bad. Still no "air" but it was OK.

 

[Keith_W]

And the human heartbeat is 1 to 1.3 Hz, and yet you can clearly hear it when your ear is anywhere near to the heart or a major artery. Does anyone think the subsonic <2Hz frequency has anything to do with that?

The sound that you hear from heartbeat are the high frequency components of the aortic valve slamming shut. If you have a stethoscope, you hear 2 heart sounds (mitral valve closing, and aortic valve closing). Sometimes a third and fourth heart sound. And sometimes added sounds like murmurs.

I used to own a digital stethoscope where you could download recordings of heartbeats and analyse them to look for heart sounds that your ears couldn't pick up. The software was crude, all it let you see were impulses and did not break down the sound into frequency components.

 

[Hayabusa]

Sorry. With my psychologist hat on, I have to respond to this! We do NOT hear with our ears.

Yea... I know You know what I mean, this a bit silly..
You are also not typing with your fingers, not smell with your nose etc etc...

 

[boxerfan88]

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was wondering whether someone with no hearing > 10kHz could reconstruct upper harmonics between 10kHz-20kHz from the fundamental. I am certainly not suggesting that we can reconstruct a 40kHz harmonic.

It might be possible… it’s called tinnitus

 

[MRC01]

... BTW, I did a quick experiment last night. I have active multichannel speakers with external amps. I turned off the amp for my tweeters, which are crossed over at 5khz. So effectively I simulated hearing loss > 5kHz. I then listened to some violins to see if my brain could recreate the "air". The effect was pretty jarring at first, but after about 10-15 min my brain adapted and it did not sound too bad. Still no "air" but it was OK.

It's amazing how adaptable our perception is. I've had a similar experience when tweeters fail entirely. I don't think it's the brain reconstructing the perception of frequencies, as it is with the missing fundamental, but instead adapting to hearing instruments we know well enough to recognize even from an imperfect rendition.

 

[lashto]

grumpy day?

The OP makes clear valid points supported by evidence...

So why do you even respond?

asked myself the same a few times ...
I guess it is all ~normal, this kind of 'annoyed' reactions is what you get when challenging a group-consensus. Happens even in scientific/academic forums. I actually expected quite a bit worse in this thread.

Anyway ... added some extras in a P.S. to the original post. Guess you may enjoy the linked podcast featuring Japanese researchers.

Spoiler: do not try this!

if anyone thinks that challenging a group-consensus is fun, here's an experiment: print a few copies of Nietzsche's God Is Dead and try to distributre them in front of a church. That will be so much fun, a buletproof vest is highly recommended

 

[krabapple]

That's pretty much the issue. There is quite a lot of 'hires' lately but those are just claims.
You are welcome to post some samples that you verified to have testable ultra/infra-sonic content.

Holy moley, no, before you spout on this, you should have done the research. This isn't a new topic. The question of which hi rez releases are 'really' hi rez has been something discussed online and in print for decades now. Stereophile even used to run a column devoted to it (and may still do spectral analysis in its reviews of hi rez releases, for all I know).

yes super tweeters exist. They just cost thousands. And you have to rely on manufacturer claims cause noone ever tested those specs. Again, welcome to post an example that anyone can buy and use.

Nope, you are welcome to present your research, since you're the one who claims 'no one ever tested those specs' .

The super-sub situation looks a bit better. At least there is some reliable 3rd party data. They just cost thousands too ... plus the size.

And again, so what if something costs thousands? Your claim is that hi-rez bandwidth matters to our home audio listening. The cost of the gear has no bearing on the truth of that claim. Only on your excuses for not testing it.

I want it to happen. Is it important? Maybe .. maybe not ..
Is there any data that clearly says it's not? Not AFAIK. But there is a lot of data that says it is important.
Other than that, it is just an individual decision

There's an awful lot packed into that 'AFAIK'. You seem to have waded in to a venerable topic with complete naivete. And then you insist we bring you up to speed.

 

[krabapple]

I have hundreds of DVDA recordings, the ones from AIX are true HiRez not just old upsampled 70’s rock .

Yes, that's one of the labels well-known to offer *true* 'hi rez' releases. But lashto's never heard of it.

 

[krabapple]

grumpy day?

The OP makes clear valid points supported by evidence...

So why do you even respond?

The OP misinterprets evidence or doesn't understand it. As I (and others) pointed out. Since you seem to have ignored my points, perhaps you do as the OP does?

 

[krabapple]

The upper-limit of the fundamental tone... Ever heard of harmonics?

Yes, we have. You clearly jumped in without reading the whole thread. It happens.

 

[krabapple]

Interesting thread, possibly also a bit theoretical and ultimately pointless ...

A call to adopt a higher standard (not the right term) across the entire audio industry - recording to playback - to increase the available frequency bandwidth. Suggestion is to go wider than 20Hz-20kHz and perhaps for that to be 10-25k (higher, 50k?).

The audio industry ALREADY DOES record at higher than CD rates. Has done commonly for a couple of decades now.

 

[Robin L]

I find the question in the OP quite strange - in order to upgrade the audible 20hz to 20khz range we would need different, upgraded ears. As it is, the frequency range that we can perceive as adults is restricted to from lower than 20hz ("subsonics" can be felt) to about 15khz. Chasing after anything over 20khz is a waste of time as far as I can tell.

 

[krabapple]

ABX is not the point. At least not mine. I want those infra/ultra sonics even if they are not 'audible'.

So, rationality is not the point. You are in the realm of wishes and aethetics.

True. But I haven't tested it.

Consumer products exploiting bone conduction have been done..since the late 1970s

Bone Fone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You need to keep in mind the distance requirements for bone conduction to have any effect, as well as level.