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

[lashto]

But you have nothing to support that.

Pretty sure that ~each one of the linked hundreds of studies supports that "Inaudible is not the same as Effectless". That is also very solid common sense, especially since invisible/tasteless/smellless are not effectless either. Not even close.

Infrasonic
There are already new branches of (medical) science, regulatory approved treatments, devices etc. Inaudible (at least according to 20-20 fans) and very effectfull. Not many negative effects documented for that area, seems to be all good and surprinsingly healthy. But I guess one can demolish a house with some of those freqs.

Ultrasonic
Every single work/environment safety agency says that those are very effectfull and often quite harmful. Thousands of scientists and studies just for that part. And we are not talking about "blasting infrasonics" but about "75dB of ultrasonics for 2 minutes causes headaches". Inaudible and effectfull again.
But I guess most would prefer to talk about the positive effects of ultrasonics ... also present in those links/studies that noone wants to read but just 'knows' they are 'wrong'. Quick alternative for a (relatively) small portion: just google "hypersonic effect".

 

[lashto]

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

since you asked so nicely...

Positive effect of inaudible high-frequency components of sounds on glucose tolerance. Guess not many know or care about "glucose tolerance" but everyone should be familiar with the larger context: stress.
Some of those ultrasonics may be quite useful in this thread .. and generally in the world of audio/philes

Frequencies of Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Differentially Affect Brain Activity: Positive and Negative Hypersonic Effects

... sound containing significant quantities of high-frequency components (HFC) beyond the human audible range evokes a significant increase in the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in the midbrain and the thalamus [1], [2] and in the occipital alpha frequency component of spontaneous electroencephalogram (EEG) as compared with an otherwise identical sound from which the HFCs are removed [1], [3], [4].
In addition, the inclusion of HFCs renders a sound more pleasant [1]–[3] and evokes a specific behavior, that is, the listener spontaneously increases the comfortable listening level (CLL) of the presented sound [2]–[4]. We call such phenomena collectively “the hypersonic effect.” The phenomena induced by the inclusion of HFCs in EEG [5] and the resulting subjective impression [6] have been replicated by other research groups. The hypersonic effect is induced only when HFCs are presented to the listener's entire body surface but not when presented exclusively to the listener's ear [7].

 

[sonitus mirus]

Pretty sure that ~each one of the linked hundreds of studies supports that "Inaudible is not the same as Effectless". That is also very solid common sense, especially since invisible/tasteless/smellless are not effectless either. Not even close.

Infrasonic
There are already new branches of (medical) science, regulatory approved treatments, devices etc. Inaudible (at least according to 20-20 fans) and very effectfull. Not many negative effects documented for that area, seems to be all good and surprinsingly healthy. But I guess one can demolish a house with some of those freqs.

Ultrasonic
Every single work/environment safety agency says that those are very effectfull and often quite harmful. Thousands of scientists and studies just for that part. And we are not talking about "blasting infrasonics" but about "75dB of ultrasonics for 2 minutes causes headaches". Inaudible and effectfull again.
But I guess most would prefer to talk about the positive effects of ultrasonics ... also present in those links/studies that noone wants to read but just 'knows' they are 'wrong'. Quick alternative for a (relatively) small portion: just google "hypersonic effect".

There is plenty of music already available with ultrasonic frequencies, and nobody is showing that it makes any difference. 75dB at 12kHz for 2 minutes would give me a headache.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Pretty sure that ~each one of the linked hundreds of studies supports that "Inaudible is not the same as Effectless". That is also very solid common sense, especially since invisible/tasteless/smellless are not effectless either. Not even close.

Infrasonic
There are already new branches of (medical) science, regulatory approved treatments, devices etc. Inaudible (at least according to 20-20 fans) and very effectfull. Not many negative effects documented for that area, seems to be all good and surprinsingly healthy. But I guess one can demolish a house with some of those freqs.

Ultrasonic
Every single work/environment safety agency says that those are very effectfull and often quite harmful. Thousands of scientists and studies just for that part. And we are not talking about "blasting infrasonics" but about "75dB of ultrasonics for 2 minutes causes headaches". Inaudible and effectfull again.
But I guess most would prefer to talk about the positive effects of ultrasonics ... also present in those links/studies that noone wants to read but just 'knows' they are 'wrong'. Quick alternative for a (relatively) small portion: just google "hypersonic effect".

Not sure why I bother replying since after 15 pages you are obviously not going to change your mind.

"Thousands of scientists and studies just for that part." - exaggeration like this doesn't help argue your case. And this is an audio forum, not a medical forum. At least personally I only care about the relevance for music reproduction. From that perspective, a study showing that someone gets a headache after being exposed to ultrasonics is irrelevant. At best it supports that we should NOT include this in music reproduction where goal is enjoyment.

I haven't seen anywhere near hundred linked studies. I have seen one that are somewhat related to actual audio, and to my understanding it has yet to be properly replicated, and we also don't know a lot about the methodology. Finally it only claims to find that it is possible to hear it, not that it is beneficial in any way.

Finally; Linking to studies is a very poor way of arguing. Do you do this when you disagree at the pub as well? "Here is a link to a study, read that so that you can see that I am right!" Since you expect us to read them, we should assume you have read them too? So then you should be able to summarize the findings and present a clear argument supporting that we should have the ability to playback higher frequencies than 20khz when listening to music. That is, if you are at all interested to change anyone's mind (rather than just argue for the sake of it).

 

[Timcognito]

since you asked so nicely...

Positive effect of inaudible high-frequency components of sounds on glucose tolerance. Guess not many know or care about "glucose tolerance" but everyone should be familiar with the larger context: stress.
Some of those ultrasonics may be quite useful in this thread .. and generally in the world of audio/philes

Frequencies of Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Differentially Affect Brain Activity: Positive and Negative Hypersonic Effects

But do they have to come from the recording or could one just generate them from some kind of a speaker independent of music.

 

[solderdude]

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

That's actually incorrect. We do know above 8kHz there is an undeniable influence of the fake pinna of the test fixtures.
That only affects accuracy of the measurements according to specific standards.
It is perfectly possible to measure headphone frequency response and extension and is possible to show frequency extension above 20kHz.
The fact that most measurebators stop measuring speakers and headphones above 20kHz is not because for some weird reason speakers/headphones/amps truncate everything above 20kHz.

 

[lashto]

But do they have to come from the recording or could one just generate them from some kind of a speaker independent of music.

AFAIK, they mostly used natural sounds recorded and played above 50kHz. Tropical forest background (like in the linked podcast), asian gamelan music with lots of usonics and other similar music/recordings.
Seriously doubt that anything generated was used: no gear to do/measure it properly, noone knows exactly which ultrasounds are bad/good or why/how do they work ...

As @Verig mentioned above, this stuff would be quite a headache for studio guys .. at least for a while.

P.S.

Sound material
We obtained a 200-second experimental audio sample of gamelan orchestral music on Bali Island, Indonesia, having drawn on our preliminary studies there on the hypersonic effect. The gamelan music was newly recorded live on location using an originally developed system, with a high-speed, one-bit coding signal processor [11] in Direct Stream Digital (DSD) format having a sampling frequency of 5.6448 MHz. The electrical signal contained a wealth of HFCs, even reaching 100 kHz and above.

 

[Timcognito]

AFAIK, they mostly used nature sounds (e.g. tropical forest background) recorded and played above 50kHz.
Seriously doubt that anything generated was used: no gear to do/measure it properly, noone knows exactly which ultrasounds are bad/good or why/how do they work ...

As @Verig mentioned above, this stuff would be quite a headache for studio guys .. at least for a while.

Or it could be the new Marijuana if that study is correct. It could be played in shopping malls to get people to buy more stuff. Or put your girlfriend in a good mood.

 

[lashto]

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.

thanks for the props. And no worries, as long as we do not have the kind of 'yelling' which can stop a thread, it's all fine.
And of course there is nothing holy about the signal ... but every single ASR thread/subject is a holy war

 

[Timcognito]

but every single ASR thread/subject is a holy war

Especially if one perceives it that way.

 

[lashto]

Or it could be the new Marijuana if that study is correct. It could be played in shopping malls to get people to buy more stuff. Or put your girlfriend in a good mood.

I guess you mean "those many studies"
And as we all know, the WAF/GAF is the most important thing in audio

 

[kemmler3D]

since you asked so nicely...

Positive effect of inaudible high-frequency components of sounds on glucose tolerance. Guess not many know or care about "glucose tolerance" but everyone should be familiar with the larger context: stress.
Some of those ultrasonics may be quite useful in this thread .. and generally in the world of audio/philes

Frequencies of Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Differentially Affect Brain Activity: Positive and Negative Hypersonic Effects

Oh, this is Oohashi... did you read the abstract? Some pretty iffy claims just in the introduction.

the sound environment of tropical rainforests, where human genes were evolutionarily formed,

Oversimplifying the facts at best...

whereas artificial urban environmental sounds are completely devoid of such components3,5,7.

I am sure this is not even remotely true...

Hypersonic effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The biggest problem with Oohashi's work is apparently that nobody has been able to reproduce it. We aren't talking room temperature superconductivity here - this is a fairly simple procedure to get right in a lab. Which suggests that there's something amiss with the original work.

From what I can tell nobody else has actually shown results in this area. It doesn't mean it's definitely wrong, but it doesn't look good.

 

[RandomEar]

since you asked so nicely...

Positive effect of inaudible high-frequency components of sounds on glucose tolerance. Guess not many know or care about "glucose tolerance" but everyone should be familiar with the larger context: stress.
Some of those ultrasonics may be quite useful in this thread .. and generally in the world of audio/philes

Frequencies of Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Differentially Affect Brain Activity: Positive and Negative Hypersonic Effects

Honestly, I wouldn't discount the idea that reproducing more than 20 kHz could be useful because the audible range of young adults simply goes past that number. And maybe 20 Hz isn't the lower limit for everybody and we would be better served with [ranbdom lower number]. That being said, these two studies are not really what this thread was originally about. They don't claim audbility for ultrasonic sound and are more about some obscure secondary effects on the body from sound we don't hear. So this is a totally different topic from "we need more range because some people can actually hear past 20-20".

I've also taken a quick peak into both studies. The first by Kawai et al. looks decently well designed at first glance, but it has some major weak point when looking a bit harder:

• The speaker setup that was used (OOHASHI Monitor Op.8 ) has been constructed by one of the authors. They claim "-10 dB at 120 kHz" but I could find absolutely no measurements or even full specs on those speakers.
• The study is single-blind. That's one step in the right direction, but everything related to social sciences, psychology or medicine in general that isn't done with double-blind studies remains questionable.
• The evaluation of the data was done sighted, which is critical if the author does have an agenda - which seems to be the case here.
• The individual datapoints for the iAUC look odd to me, because the spread is much, much higher than the indicated standard deviation would suggest. Not sure if there is some error in there.

The second study by Fukushima et al. looks very weak to me. They're also using one of those self-designed speakers with unknown qualities and the data they show is essentially just noise. There are changes by one or two percent in the normalized EEG response with error bars of at least the same size.

 

[EJ3]

the sound environment of tropical rainforests, where human genes were evolutionarily formed,
Oversimplifying the facts at best...

Maybe they meant tropical paradise.
Just the setting that I have been missing on the climate control of my car...
The vehicle climate control starts being looked into at 6:00minutes in
and Tropical Paradise get's selected:

 

[krabapple]

since you asked so nicely...

Positive effect of inaudible high-frequency components of sounds on glucose tolerance. Guess not many know or care about "glucose tolerance" but everyone should be familiar with the larger context: stress.
Some of those ultrasonics may be quite useful in this thread .. and generally in the world of audio/philes

Frequencies of Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Differentially Affect Brain Activity: Positive and Negative Hypersonic Effects

The inevitable resort to Oohashi.

 

[Brian Hall]

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.

and of course, noone cares that we cannot even reliably measure HPs above 10kHz. Even though many measurement rigs cost >20K.


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?

If you really care to try out a very inexpensive super tweeter, the Sony SSC-S5 includes a super tweeter they claim goes up to 50khz.

 

[Brian Hall]

But do they have to come from the recording or could one just generate them from some kind of a speaker independent of music.

Some snake oil company needs to release one of those ultrasonic insect and mouse repellent devices with XLR and I2S connectors to satisfy people who are crazy enough to want that.

 

[Timcognito]

Some snake oil company needs to release one of those ultrasonic insect and mouse repellent devices with XLR and I2S connectors to satisfy people who are crazy enough to want that.

I know it doesn't anything to raccoons, my concoction of 50% ammonia, 30% water and 20% PineSol has them staying away. Must repeat when it rains.

 

[pablolie]

... (i.e. nothing outside this 50 years old tech limitation of 20-20)

You have been repeatedly shown that limit hasn't existed for a while. There are plenty of equipment choices covering additional FR extension. But the benefit to most of us (except you, paradoxically) is a more linear and balanced behavior in the range that matters, rather than the attempt to hear stuff beyond 20kHz "clearly". and there have been a hundred discussions about sub-bass and its significance to music... and the fact it's easy and cheap to get these days, from deep ranging subs to stuff you can attach to your listening chair to "feel" it.

So I'll finally join the group of people that call you a troll. Your premise was shown flawed, yet you don't acknowledge the obvious one bit.

 

[PGansz]

It's amazing to me reading the responses that the overall objective evidence, and argument, is that simply setting a higher bar, at worst case, will inevitably improve the 20-20 range regardless if anyone hears outside of it.

OP's argument is unquestionably sound in this regard.