• 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 ?!

Yes, some of the problems are big. Or even huge. Nowhere near impossible, though.
Not impossible by any means. If you really wanted to you could build a speaker that has reasonable directivity up to 30khz yourself. The technology to do so only costs hundreds or thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands, you don't need a special lab or anything, etc. It would be a bigger pain in the butt than designing a speaker that only does 20hz-20khz but the techniques would be fundamentally the same.


And those studies/podcasts/etc seem to strongly disagree with the "not worth it" part. Just some examples from that easy to listen and enjoyable podcast: lab animals did live longer on sound recorded and played above 50kHz... it also affected the behavior, mind-state and wellbeing of tested people and there were 'easily' measurable EEG-effects.
Lab animals and humans are known to have dramatically different hearing ranges. I would also expect that the effect on health from audio would be different for animals and humans even if we were hearing the same things. Chocolate kills dogs, it makes people happy and even improves their health in certain ways - generalizing from animal to human (or vice-versa) is a good way to get turned around.

Do you have a link to the study that measured EEG and well-being of people fed 50khz music?

My bottom line: most people can't hear a difference whether the music includes ultrasonics or not so it's not worth building speakers with supertweeters, since the added expense is far from trivial, and the benefit is expected to be small or nil. I don't think the idea is funamentally stupid or crazy but I don't think it's worth pursuing at an industry level.

But, I would definitely encourage you to try something with it yourself if you have the interest and budget. Idea: Get some nice coaxial speakers (KEF or Genelec or something), 3D print a mounting bracket of some kind to place a supertweeter in the center, use FIR to ad-hoc a crossover for it (you will need 2 outputs on the DAC for this) and see if you can find anyone to pass an A/B/X test with the supertweeter in/out.

Doing it this way will inevitably make the normal treble response a little worse (putting a piece of plastic in front of the tweeter) but I think it's the least bad way to experiment with it.
 
This getting to be a little like MQA. We will re-mining existing catalogs to bring out the hidden content,

that *already happened*

Seriously, are so many people here just not aware the 'hi rez' has been a thing for well over twenty years now....oveer 30 if you count CD remasters sourced from 96kHz digitization? Or hs everyone just forgotten the hype?
 
Last edited:
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?
CD sample rate is 44.1 kHz. Not 40 or 41. Do you know why?

I think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

It's a tedious rehash.


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.


Too late. 48kHz audio recording has been a standard for ages. In fact as of 2018, the AES recommendation for PCM based recording rate is 48kHz . Do you know why?
 
Last edited:
48kHz audio recording has been a standard for ages. In fact as of 2018, the AES recommendation for PCM based recording rate is 48kHz . Do you know why?
I'm guessing it's to reduce aliasing artifacts. Mind you, that's just a guess.
 
But you have nothing to support that.

I don’t think the question of audible vs. perceivable is really where we need to go here. *

It has been shown that a significant proportion of young adults can in fact hear sound above 20kHz (post #1 in this thread), some of them considerably above it. It is also known that actual musical instruments contain harmonics well beyond 20kHz at significant energy levels, see for example Petrosino/Canalis in 2016. The instruments they looked at were violins, cellos, saxophones, cymbals, charangos and bandoneons.

So why are people still attacking the premise of the thread? It should be clear that those young adults would benefit from having music recorded and played back at more than 20-20k bandwidth. It would likely sound more realistic to them. And before anybody goes to embarrass themselves with another dog or bat joke, or by going on another I-can’t-hear-it-so-it-matters-to-noone bender – please don’t. The premise is sound.

The question for me is, what do we make of it? Are those young folks, whose hearing will drop below 20k soon enough, worth rejiggering our recording, storage, disemination and playback systems? And to be clear, digital recording, storage and playback is likely out of the woods with 48k sample rates. The issue is more on the analog side, starting with microphones and ending with speakers. Then there is the personnel problem. Will the mixing and producing of actual, say, 24kHz content require old geezers and pros with shot hearing to be replaced by people that can actually hear that well?

So these are the questions, and it seems the majority of people here reckon that it’s not worth the cost and effort, and that the golden-eared youngsters can go f* themselves, so to speak. They’re not usually the ones with the money, anyway ;)


* with audible meaning “can be heard as an isolated tone”, and perceivable meaning “can change how audible content sounds”
 
I don’t think the question of audible vs. perceivable is really where we need to go here. *

It has been shown that a significant proportion of young adults can in fact hear sound above 20kHz (post #1 in this thread), some of them considerably above it. It is also known that actual musical instruments contain harmonics well beyond 20kHz at significant energy levels, see for example Petrosino/Canalis in 2016. The instruments they looked at were violins, cellos, saxophones, cymbals, charangos and bandoneons.

So why are people still attacking the premise of the thread? It should be clear that those young adults would benefit from having music recorded and played back at more than 20-20k bandwidth. It would likely sound more realistic to them. And before anybody goes to embarrass themselves with another dog or bat joke, or by going on another I-can’t-hear-it-so-it-matters-to-noone bender – please don’t. The premise is sound.

The question for me is, what do we make of it? Are those young folks, whose hearing will drop below 20k soon enough, worth rejiggering our recording, storage, disemination and playback systems? And to be clear, digital recording, storage and playback is likely out of the woods with 48k sample rates. The issue is more on the analog side, starting with microphones and ending with speakers. Then there is the personnel problem. Will the mixing and producing of actual, say, 24kHz content require old geezers and pros with shot hearing to be replaced by people that can actually hear that well?

So these are the questions, and it seems the majority of people here reckon that it’s not worth the cost and effort, and that the golden-eared youngsters can go f* themselves, so to speak. They’re not usually the ones with the money, anyway ;)


* with audible meaning “can be heard as an isolated tone”, and perceivable meaning “can change how audible content sounds”

How is it clear that anyone would benefit from having music recorded and played back at more than 20-20kHz? It seems like the conclusions are being misinterpreted.

While some studies indicate that musical instruments can produce harmonics beyond 20kHz, there is no reliable evidence that anyone can identify audible differences in music above this frequency, and although young people might hear test tones over 20kHz if played loudly enough, this does not translate to a perceptible difference in musical quality.
 
The question for me is, what do we make of it? Are those young folks, whose hearing will drop below 20k soon enough, worth rejiggering our recording, storage, disemination and playback systems? And to be clear, digital recording, storage and playback is likely out of the woods with 48k sample rates. The issue is more on the analog side, starting with microphones and ending with speakers. Then there is the personnel problem. Will the mixing and producing of actual, say, 24kHz content require old geezers and pros with shot hearing to be replaced by people that can actually hear that well?

a: There is a difference between hearing (very loud) continuous or intermittent test tones and harmonics at much much lower levels in music.
b: There is still the question of how much it matters for music enjoyment to those young folks.
c: There is plenty of music around in >88kHz sample rates and electronic gear does not all cut-off sharply below 20Hz and 20kHz
d: for speakers producing <20Hz cleanly at high SPL in home audio situations or sound reinforcement is not an easy task

It is only Lashto's premise of the '20-20kHz' nonsense, I assume because this is often stated as the 'audio bandwidth'. For the majority of music lovers this is indeed the 'border' of what is needed.
Most speakers don't even reach 20Hz (at -3dB) unless you pay big money.
<10Hz with IEM's closed headphones can be had for $ 10.- already and the vast majority of electronic equipment can easily reach that (unless it is really cheap garbage)
The 20kHz + is another matter and for those that feel they really need it (mostly audiophools > 40 y.o. that cannot perceive 18kHz even if it were present at 120dB SPL) there is always >88kHz and DSDx(something).
Not much music for young people (with relevant >20kHz content) is actually produced.

So for reproduction of music there is no 20kHz barrier except for 44.1kHz music files. Granted the majority is exactly that or lower (MP3).

The idea that speakers and microphones are all truncated above 20kHz simply is utter nonsense as well yet remains one of the favorite arguments.
Sure there are speakers that do not even reach 20kHz (without a roll-off) and there are purpose made/tuned microphones that start to roll-off below 20kHz but that does not mean Not all mics are designed to pick up 10Hz (without a specific roll-off either) and speakers in a room would have a hard time either.

Many eyes (20kHz + proponents) should be focused on Cameron's tests as he has the gears and ears that go 20% above 20kHz. I wonder how that will go in the future and if he can reliably 'detect' differences in 'realism' between 20kHz+ recordings and sharply truncated recordings (without any tells).

And it is not an 'what's technically possible' thing either. 20kHz + recordings and reproduction was already possible before the CD format even existed and is easily possible (and available for decades in digital formats already.

The 20-20kHz thing was never a thing except during the 'CD' era before higher bitrates made an entry decades ago.
The 20-20kHz 'range' however, is more that enough (-1dB) for the vast majority of listeners.
 
Last edited:
The question for me is, what do we make of it? Are those young folks, whose hearing will drop below 20k soon enough, worth rejiggering our recording, storage, disemination and playback systems? And to be clear, digital recording, storage and playback is likely out of the woods with 48k sample rates. The issue is more on the analog side, starting with microphones and ending with speakers. Then there is the personnel problem. Will the mixing and producing of actual, say, 24kHz content require old geezers and pros with shot hearing to be replaced by people that can actually hear that well?
I think we already know what to make of it - if there was any significant demand for high-quality ultrasound, it would already be a thing. When the market introduces some innovation that meaningfully improves people's experience, it gains traction (see, for example, high refresh rate displays for computer gaming, certainly not a market driven by wealthy graybeards); hi-res audio has had ample opportunity to do so, and insofar as it has succeeded in cracking the market it's being dragged along by the streaming platforms as a low-cost value add (while most young people are eminently happy listening to lossy Spotify streams that probably have the usual lossy low-pass filter around 17-18khz or so). As far as I can tell, there is no contingent of young musicians or other audio-savvy people deeply unhappy with the present state of affairs or eagerly grasping at alternatives, there is no contingent of young IEM enthusiasts or whatever rating IEMs by how well they reach above 20khz or even discussing that at all.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the question of audible vs. perceivable is really where we need to go here. *

It has been shown that a significant proportion of young adults can in fact hear sound above 20kHz (post #1 in this thread), some of them considerably above it. It is also known that actual musical instruments contain harmonics well beyond 20kHz at significant energy levels, see for example Petrosino/Canalis in 2016. The instruments they looked at were violins, cellos, saxophones, cymbals, charangos and bandoneons.

So why are people still attacking the premise of the thread? It should be clear that those young adults would benefit from having music recorded and played back at more than 20-20k bandwidth. It would likely sound more realistic to them.

No, it is not clear that young adults would benefit from having music recorded and played back at more than 20-20k bandwidth. I refuted that on page one (post #15).
 
c: There is plenty of music around in >88kHz sample rates and electronic gear does not all cut-off sharply below 20Hz and 20kHz

Not much music for young people (with relevant >20kHz content) is actually produced.

So for reproduction of music there is no 20kHz barrier except for 44.1kHz music files. Granted the majority is exactly that or lower (MP3).

The idea that speakers and microphones are all truncated above 20kHz simply is utter nonsense as well yet remains one of the favorite arguments.

Many eyes (20kHz + proponents) should be focused on Cameron's tests as he has the gears and ears that go 20% above 20kHz. I wonder how that will go in the future and if he can reliably 'detect' differences in 'realism' between 20kHz+ recordings and sharply truncated recordings (without any tells).

And it is not an 'what's technically possible' thing either. 20kHz + recordings and reproduction was already possible before the CD format even existed and is easily possible (and available for decades in digital formats already.

The 20-20kHz thing was never a thing except during the 'CD' era before higher bitrates made an entry decades ago.
The 20-20kHz 'range' however, is more that enough (-1dB) for the vast majority of listeners.
The 20-20 KHz thing has been around a lot longer than CDs. That was a big thing with the Reel to Reels and the better cassette decks, as well as half speed mastering & 45 RPM LPs.
1 Pair of my speakers (Dahlquist M-905's) the manual claims 40 Hz-24 KHz.

In testing by HiFi Classics (they were not tested above 20 KHz):
The close-miked woofer (and port) response was also considerably flatter than we have measured from most speakers, with a very small bass-resonance peak. At the system resonance of 60 Hz, the output was only about 2 dB above its average level in the upper part of the woofer’s range, and even that minor output variation was spread over almost two octaves. When the bass curve was spliced to the room-response measurement, the resulting composite frequency response was flat within about ±2 dB from 26 to 20,000 Hz. The horizontal directivity of the tweeter was only discernible in the room measurement above 10,000 Hz.
I cannot confirm that they would go to 24 KHz but based on the measurements, don't see any reason that they wouldn't.
I do remember hearing the annoying noise coming out of the back of CRT TV's, which I had been told was at 19 KHz.
And there are lots of amplifiers that get to beyond 24 KHz (including my mid 1980s NAD 2200's)
So getting getting there is not the issue...
 
Last edited:
The 20-20 KHz thing has been around a lot longer than CDs. That was a big thing with the Reel to Reels and the better cassette decks, as well as half speed mastering & 45 RPM LPs.
1 Pair of my speakers (Dahlquist M-905's) the manual claims 40 Hz-24 KHz.
Reel to reel could easily go above 20kHz but at the expense of low frequency extension.
Vinyl too was capable of >20kHz with the right needle/cartridge and roll-off was not sharp in many cases.
FM radio was limited in FR though, also quite steep (because of the 19kHz pilot tone, which usually had a steep notch filter.

FR specifications are a rather pointless metric when cutoff points are not specified, certainly with speakers/headphones. In electronics this can be measured accurately.
And even there, aside from class-D the frequency response rolls of slowly and usually above 20kHz.

TV line frequency (in Europe) was 15.625kHz (not 19kHz) and 15.734kHz for US.

A lot of testing indeed was done between 20-20kHz for a lot of devices but FR usually below and beyond it.
Specs for transducers is another matter though.
 
Reel to reel could easily go above 20kHz but at the expense of low frequency extension.
Vinyl too was capable of >20kHz with the right needle/cartridge and roll-off was not sharp in many cases.
FM radio was limited in FR though, also quite steep (because of the 19kHz pilot tone, which usually had a steep notch filter.

FR specifications are a rather pointless metric when cutoff points are not specified, certainly with speakers/headphones. In electronics this can be measured accurately.
And even there, aside from class-D the frequency response rolls of slowly and usually above 20kHz.

TV line frequency (in Europe) was 15.625kHz (not 19kHz) and 15.734kHz for US.

A lot of testing indeed was done between 20-20kHz for a lot of devices but FR usually below and beyond it.
Specs for transducers is another matter though.
Transducers:
Since I experienced subwoofers with stereo systems in the mid 1970's (yes, ones that would get to & below 20 Hz) that end of things has been solved for many years.
And many companies have made claims of their speakers going to somewhere in the 20+ KHz range (I seem to remember some claiming more that 30 KHz).
As to whether they could actually do that and with what variations: I have never seen a test proving that any do.
Until then, I will call it hearsay.
But, until we have testing of some that had these claims (or some "so called" super tweeters) up into that (inaudible to me, anyway) range, we will never know.
Is that testing worth it?
Not to me, other than, if a speaker actually did that, I would think:
"Well, that is interesting".
And file it in my brain under: Trivia that I will likely never need.
Since I have experience some of these speakers when I was younger and had very excellent hearing (and they had no discerning effect on me one way or another),
I do not know if the actually did what they say or if they did what they say & I just could no discern it.
IF they could do what they say, then that would be good to know.
So it would then be worth checking them out now to see if they had some effect on me that perhaps was not through my ears (or that I had just not paid attention to).
But I suspect that, with my current hearing, it would not matter (unless, they actually generated some effect that I perceived in some manner not related to what I can hear through my ears).
 
Last edited:








to give but a few examples.

The fact that most people stop measuring speakers at 20kHz does not mean the tweeters cannot reach above it.
The ones that start to peak at 20kHz will certainly go higher than 20kHz anyway, also the ones that measure flat up to 20kHz are certainly reproducing above 20kHz.
For the same reasons headphones are usually only measured up to 20kHz. These measurements are not accurate above 10kHz anyway.
I measure them up to 30kHz (where the mic starts to drop off) and have seen quite a few headphones reaching to at least 30kHz.
 
Last edited:








to give but a few examples.

The fact that most people stop measuring speakers at 20kHz does not mean the tweeters cannot reach above it.
The ones that start to peak at 20kHz will certainly go higher than 20kHz anyway, also the ones that measure flat up to 20kHz are certainly reproducing above 20kHz.
For the same reasons headphones are usually only measured up to 20kHz. These measurements are not accurate above 10kHz anyway.
I measure them up to 30kHz (where the mic starts to drop off) and have seen quite a few headphones reaching to at least 30kHz.
Thanks: I was sailing around on ships (aside from when I took six week annual vacations) all over the Indian Ocean & Western Pacific from 2001-2018 and paying almost no attention to home or studio audio during that time.
I have been aware of this type of item (and, in fact, had heard some in passing).
But I will definitely dig into what you have put out here tonight.
Got to get going with my wife to exercise right now.
 
as expected, most responses are from the category "20-20 ought to be enough for everyone". Answering yours cause it is the most concise :)

There was the exact same reaction when Apple introduced the retina screens: laughing, go away, nooone needs it and so on and on ... 'surprinsingly', the tune changed after they sold millions of those devices.

And just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's all unnecessary .. it still does not explain the big discrepancy between audio and ~all other industries/domains.
Everyone else is still pushing for more, even if it's not needed and/or there are no clear studies. I am also not aware of any benefits of 1000 PPI screens or 20000 DPI mice but still, everyone is pushing those limits.
In audio, everyone seems to be pushing for ... ~nothing (i.e. nothing outside this 50 years old tech limitation of 20

Ever raced sailboats?
 
Ever raced sailboats?
did a bit of sailboating but nowhere near racing. Mostly just been a +1 guy on a few sailboats: trying to enjoy, survive and help wherever possible :)
Do you have some sailboat-racing insights which are relevant for this discussion?
 
Last edited:








to give but a few examples.

The fact that most people stop measuring speakers at 20kHz does not mean the tweeters cannot reach above it.
The ones that start to peak at 20kHz will certainly go higher than 20kHz anyway, also the ones that measure flat up to 20kHz are certainly reproducing above 20kHz.
For the same reasons headphones are usually only measured up to 20kHz.
good collection, thank you. Most of it is what we all seen before: tweeter kinda goes to up to 30-40kHz, the -3dB point is much lower than that and the linearity is ... not.
But that Monitor audio speaker looks surprinsigly good up to 40kHz. Nice one.
These measurements are not accurate above 10kHz anyway.
and of course, noone cares that we cannot even reliably measure HPs above 10kHz. Even though many measurement rigs cost >20K.

I measure them up to 30kHz (where the mic starts to drop off) and have seen quite a few headphones reaching to at least 30kHz.
I know your measurements and quite a few others. Yes, some HPs seem to go quite high.
But it looks like all bets are off above 10kHz already. Or I got something wrong and you can actually guarantee that any of those HPs is good/linear/usable above 20 kHz? Or even above 10kHz?
 
and of course, noone cares that we cannot even reliably measure HPs above 10kHz. Even though many measurement rigs cost >20K.

It has to do with the accuracy in build quality of the whole contraption. You can buy clones for much, much less but they do not adhere to the original standards and use cheaper mics.

I know your measurements and quite a few others. Yes, some HPs seem to go quite high.
But it looks like all bets are off above 10kHz already. Or I got something wrong and you can actually guarantee that any of those HPs is good/linear/usable above 20 kHz? Or even above 10kHz?

my measurements are not made on industry standard fixtures.
They also don't have a pinna and ear canal.
This is what makes some industry standard fixtures inaccurate above 8kHz or so.
The BK5128 is more reliable between 8kHz and 15kHz but are not guaranteed to be accurate above that. This is why headphone measurements usually stop at 20kHz... because it is not accurate and that's what measurements are supposed to be. (reliable, accurate, repeatable).

So it is not that measurements seem to go quite high but they actually DO go that high and may even extend beyond 30kHz but my mic capsule is not accurate above that range.
 
It has to do with the accuracy in build quality of the whole contraption. You can buy clones for much, much less but they do not adhere to the original standards and use cheaper mics.



my measurements are not made on industry standard fixtures.
They also don't have a pinna and ear canal.
This is what makes some industry standard fixtures inaccurate above 8kHz or so.
The BK5128 is more reliable between 8kHz and 15kHz but are not guaranteed to be accurate above that. This is why headphone measurements usually stop at 20kHz... because it is not accurate and that's what measurements are supposed to be. (reliable, accurate, repeatable).

So it is not that measurements seem to go quite high but they actually DO go that high and may even extend beyond 30kHz but my mic capsule is not accurate above that range.
Many/most people are using such self-made measurements rigs. Not just reviewers but also HP manufacturers. Fine with me.
Much better than nothing and the so-called professional rigs cost 20-30-50K and do not seem to be much better (in terms of accuracy of highs/ultrasonics). Everyone who posts headphone measurements uses a disclaimer like "unreliable above 10kHz". Including people like Toole/Harman who use the (suposedly) best-of-the-best rigs.

I think the correct and very scientific conclusion for HPs is: we don't know shiit above 10kHz :)
 
Back
Top Bottom