• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

@lashto
You're still mixing lab animal studies and human tests at the extremes with listening to music. When we want to listen to music there should be something beneficial up there, not EEG effects or blasting 28kHz at 100dB frying your ears and house. Could you point me into a record that has something going on up there? And try to answer my practical producer side question how do I do it? How will I produce my music so that you'll enjoy my 20kHz content?
 
I still haven't seen a single study showing anyone being able to distinguish between a recording of actual music with and without data above 20khz.
 
it also opens the door for people to put very intentional crap in that space (ultrasonic adverts or such).

Can we please go back to "I know I can't hear it, but I want it anyway. So stop with the good arguments!", and ditch the tin-foil-hat stuff? :D
 
Can we please go back to "I know I can't hear it, but I want it anyway. So stop with the good arguments!", and ditch the tin-foil-hat stuff? :D
I already wrote quite clearly that I am one of the "old farts" who can barely hear 15-16kHz :)
And never argued that me or anyone can hear ultras above 30kHz.
But still arguing that Inaudible is NOT the same as Effectless.
 
Last edited:
.. it also opens the door for people to put very intentional crap in that space (ultrasonic adverts or such).
Ultrasonics are not recognized as notes or speech so this would be interesting indeed. Could explain Taylor Swift... but I'm not aware of mechanism how to make ultrasound ads.
 
But you have nothing to support that.
Look, if you have something that barely causes a non-auditory effect, it's perfectly plausible that you could have an effect at levels a few hundred thousand times lower. Right? And that's why the entire industry and academic field is missing the thing that this fellow clearly sees, those silly people.
 
But you have nothing to support that.
Another factor is that 20 Hz to 20 KHz (a lot less these days) is, in fact, good enough for most folks.
The object of most of the sale of gear is to maximize sales at a price acceptable to the most possible people.
And 20Hz to 20 KHz does that.
Things that have a wider range (and quit a bit does) tends to be more expensive & for most people, of no discernable benefit.
So, the natural progression is: if you want more performance, you pay more.
The majority of people are OK with run of the mill cars.
But some people want Ferrari (or higher) performance. They CAN have that.
They also pay vastly increased prices to have that.
A viable market needs to be there for them. And there is, so Ferrari (and others) cater to that market.
Here, you are the only one that I have heard of (and I have traveled quit a bit in this world) that wants this.
So, seemingly, there is a market of one.
The problem is simple:
That is not a viable market case.
 
50% of the people here do not hear anything above 10kHz anyway , why bother with 20khz+?
 
For me, all music contains ultrasonics. For the rest of you, well...
"Harmonics of muted trumpet extend to 80 kHz; violin and oboe, to above 40 kHz; and a cymbal crash was still strong at 100 kHz. In these particular examples, the proportion of energy above 20 kHz is, for the muted trumpet, 2 percent; violin, 0.04 percent; oboe, 0.01 percent; and cymbals, 40 percent."


One of the usual complains from "people with ears" is that recorded cymbals do not sound anywhere close to the live ones, the records miss a lot of 'energy' etc... with >40% of the cymbal sound energy missing from the 20-20 recordings, that is not exactly a wonder. And numbers like 2% (violin) may seem insignificant, but then 2% HD can be very audible.

This is a cross-thread answer, hope it's technically ok. The linked study is already in the OP, found it a while ago but 'forgot' to add it initially.
Would be great if more people post relevant links/studies/etc. I cannot do all that alone and do not want it either.
Also, I do not even have time to read this whole thread, let alone respond to all interesting posts ... hope it is understandable.
 
Last edited:
And numbers like 2% (violin) may seem insignificat, but then 2% HD can be very audible.
At this point, I have to suspect parody.
 
numbers like 2% (violin) may seem insignificant, but then 2% HD can be very audible.
2% of $ 1.- is not much money either but 2% of $100k is significant.
 
Last edited:
Not sure it's clear. Notably absent are details on the testing methodology. So count me skeptical unless more details are given. How did they eliminate any possible source of noise pollution etc etc.

just an abstract from a biomedical paper from way back in 2015, it was already starting to become a problem (and is exponentialy getting worse lately) - it sure as heck is not limited to just the mentioned science field:


To explore increasing concerns about scientific misconduct and data irreproducibility in some areas of science, we interviewed a number of senior biomedical researchers. These interviews revealed a perceived decline in trust in the scientific enterprise, in large part because the quantity of new data exceeds the field's ability to process it appropriately. This phenomenon—which is termed ‘overflow’ in social science—has important implications for the integrity of modern biomedical science.
(Source)
 
One of the usual complains from "people with ears" is that recorded cymbals do not sound anywhere close to the live ones, the records miss a lot of 'energy' etc... with >40% of the cymbal sound energy missing from the 20-20 recordings, that is not exactly a wonder. And numbers like 2% (violin) may seem insignificant, but then 2% HD can be very audible
Yes, this alleged difference between live performance and a recording can only be accounted for by lack of ultrasound

Are we just being trolled here?
 
But still arguing that 'inaudible' is NOT the same as 'effect-less'.
And everyone is asking what are the effects in audio and listening which in mind is the same as audio. Please tell us.
 
Seems like an increasingly worse troll to me. If it isn't a troll, then my opinion of him or her is even worse. I find it hard to believe that anyone could actually think this stuff is important.

Hey, go easy on him. I'll put it this way - there is nothing holy about 20Hz - 20kHz. It is based on an older understanding of hearing, that we can only hear up to 20kHz. So now it turns out that some people may be able to hear even higher. Should we start capturing up to 24kHz maybe?

I think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. And I believe that the OP has sincere intentions. But as I have said earlier in this thread, I also think that extending recordings up to 24kHz or even higher is a waste of time, since so little musical information is up there. I know I can't hear anything > 15-16kHz. I also pointed out elsewhere in this thread that even we objectivists have irrational pursuits and chase inaudible goals. So this is going to be another inaudible goal. I don't really care if recordings go up to 24kHz or not, because it's not going to make a difference to 99% of us.
 
Yes, this alleged difference between live performance and a recording can only be accounted for by lack of ultrasound

Are we just being trolled here?
yep, sound pressure, venue acoustics, sight (one can see the instruments), the 'local atmosphere', acoustic mixing of instruments and their position and sound-reinforcement (or not) for instance don't seem to be the more important factors for the differences.

I always find watching music videos sounds better/more realistic than when playing them and not watching the video part. Sight during a live event (and loudness) are an important aspect that is not present in 2ch reproduction.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom