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

[pablolie]

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.

Not sure what objective evidence you refer to. The "higher bar" exists and is catered to by plenty of equipment choices. The OPs argument such equipment doesn't exist has been thoroughly debunked. the 20 20 limit simply doesn't exist anymore. Nor has it for ages.
Whether or not it matters to you or the OP is for both of you to establish with readily available commercial choices. Some of us kept up with tech and made ours.
it's back to the 1970s CD discussion and the I'll informed illusion red book is still the boundary. keep up with available tech. really. whether or not it makes a difference to your music or FX enjoyment is not for me to tell, but for heavens sake stop saying the audio industry is preventing you from experiencing it.

 

[PGansz]

Not sure what objective evidence you refer to. The "higher bar" exists and is catered to by plenty of equipment choices. The OPs argument such equipment doesn't exist has been thoroughly debunked. the 20 20 limit simply doesn't exist anymore. Nor has it for ages.
Whether or not it matters to you or the OP is for both of you to establish with readily available commercial choices. Some of us kept up with tech and made ours.
it's back to the 1970s CD discussion and the I'll informed illusion red book is still the boundary. keep up with available tech. really. whether or not it makes a difference to your music or FX enjoyment is not for me to tell, but for heavens sake stop saying the audio industry is preventing you from experiencing it.

I didn't say anything other than what I said. And I definitely didn't say the audio industry is preventing me from experiencing anything.

Get a grip guy.

 

[pablolie]

I didn't say anything other than what I said. And I definitely didn't say the audio industry is preventing me from experiencing anything.

Get a grip guy.

Then get on with it and get new gear. I got my grip on that, quite literally. You clearly don't.

 

[Brian Hall]

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.

How is an inaudible change an improvement in any way? It is a waste of time and money. It is a very unsound and illogical thing to chase.

 

[sigbergaudio]

How is an inaudible change an improvement in any way? It is a waste of time and money. It is a very unsound and illogical thing to chase.

Literally.

 

[lashto]

@kemmler3D @RandomEar
first of all, many thanks for talking about the actual studies. Much more enjoyable than answering stuff like "troll troll troll"

And yes, I know 'everyone' on ASR knows better than oohashi & co
And yes, those guys have an agenda: they believe in that stuff and want to prove it beyond doubt. Same as ~any other study author ever.
And of course they had to buld their own gear: there is no speaker or mic that can properly deal with 100-120kHz. Should they publish a lot more details about that gear? Sure. And they can do many other things better, it's not like those guys are perfect.
(edit: this may be their mic and its AES paper; there may be a similar paper for the speakers/tweeters)
And it may be intersting, but not sure if worth debating their DBT/SBT procedures. Measurable, physical effects like rCBF, EEG, glucose etc. are way stronger proof for "effectfull ultrasonics" than any DBT.

In spite of the "warm welcoming", those scientists just keep working, relasing new papers and documenting new, measurable effects .. and those papers keep being accepted and published (IIRC, that includes JAS and AES). Some studies/results were already replicated by other groups, some found other effects (see below).

Also, let's not forget that the big picture is "hundreds of studies". Not just some oohashi guy, not just a single, suspicious effect/measurement somewhere. Studies and observations on the effects of ultrasounds go back 100+ years. Basically since the industrial era started.

P.S.
Also not sure if it's worth nitpicking on 1-2 of those studies/results. But it can easily be done both ways.
Here's one study that wiki quotes as (suposedly) debunking the hypersonic effect: Perceptual discrimination of very high frequency components in wide frequency range musical sound
First of all, they do state that it's not just oohashi but other people/studies/effects:

Matsushima et al. [10] reported that high frequency components above 20 kHz containing the natural environment sound of a forest affect the psychological sound evaluation and content of brain waves.

Yoshikawa et al. [11] conducted an experiment using 20 and 40 kHz bandwidth pulse train signals, and concluded that a wider frequency range of the audio system improves the perceptual time-axis resolution.

And this is what they say about some of their own 'debunking':

Through further consideration of these results, however, the following issues on stimuli, subjects, and method of evaluation emerged:
the stimuli recorded by conventional microphones did not include enough high frequency components;
professional audio experts were not necessarily the proper choice of subject for such subjective evaluation...

Test equipment was not good enough, subjects were not appropiate. Is there any real 'debunking' in that paper?
If anyone can provide the full text, it may be an interesting read...

 

[lashto]

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.

Indeed, most do seem to be missing this point completely: the first and biggest 'winners' of going beyond 20-20 are the fans of 20-20:

• when your target-specs are just 20-20, that is rarely fully achieved (if ever). Start with a target-spec of 3-30 or more and you'll finally get really clean 20-20. Simple common-sense about "how stuff works".
• if the industry moves into 3-30 or more, the first movers will be sellers of mega-expensive audio gear. Also the snake-oil experts. Any 20-20 fan should be quite happy about that.
• When the new 3-30 gear appears, ~everything build for 20-20 will be considered oldschool, deprecated etc. The 20-20 fans will be able to buy it for pennies and happily use it ever after.

If this is not a win-win for 'everyone', I am not sure what is.

P.S:
not sure if anyone will be suprised if some of the 20-20-die-hards will be the first in line to buy 3-30 gear

 

[Tell]

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.

1000 PPI screens? Where do you find those outside of VR glasses? Sony have released some smartphones with 4K screens at around 600 PPI but seeing that a 1080p screen is on the edge of what human eyes can resolve it's not strange that Sonys screens haven't catched on at all. And there have been years of research on what humans can and cannot see so it's not strange either that we've never seen any 1000 PPI screens.
Computer mice on the other hand haven't had even close to the same research and consensus as both image/eyes and audio/ears so of course we mouse manufacturers/marketing departments and push for higher and higher numbers to sell stuff even though there's no one that would ever notice any difference whatsoever between a 20k and 1K DPI mouse.

 

[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.

Here is your hypermary:
A Study about Emotional Digital Art using Hypersonic Effect

 

[EJ3]

Sony have released some smartphones with 4K screens at around 600 PPI but seeing that a 1080p screen is on the edge of what human eyes can resolve

Odd.
For many, many years, I have heard (hearsay to me at this point) that 8K is on the edge of what human eyes can resolve.
So I have been impatiently waiting ever since I heard that.
I can certainly tell the difference between an 1080p screen & a 4K screen, no matter the size (for whatever reason).
I have had an 8K screen file on one of my computers since (2012?) I think.
It will play on a 1080 screen & is definitely better on a 4K screen.
But I have never been in the presence of an 8K screen, much less in a position to see if I could tell the difference with this particular file.

 

[Hayabusa]

Odd.
For many, many years, I have heard (hearsay to me at this point) that 8K is on the edge of what human eyes can resolve.
So I have been impatiently waiting ever since I heard that.
I can certainly tell the difference between an 1080p screen & a 4K screen, no matter the size (for whatever reason).
I have had an 8K screen file on one of my computers since (2012?) I think.
It will play on a 1080 screen & is definitely better on a 4K screen.
But I have never been in the presence of an 8K screen, much less in a position to see if I could tell the difference with this particular file.

its all about the viewing distance at 4m 1080 vs 4k for 65inch is a tough one to see...

 

[bodhi]

Computer mice on the other hand haven't had even close to the same research and consensus as both image/eyes and audio/ears so of course we mouse manufacturers/marketing departments and push for higher and higher numbers to sell stuff even though there's no one that would ever notice any difference whatsoever between a 20k and 1K DPI mouse.

Also, you have large subjectivist crowd in gaming equipment as well. Claiming that couple of milliseconds of less latency is noticeable and will make a difference in gaming performance. For some reason they are not perplexed about most of the world's best (professional) gamers seeming to do just fine with rather mundane equipment.

 

[EJ3]

its all about the viewing distance at 4m 1080 vs 4k for 65inch is a tough one to see...

OK, thank you for that information. I do not think that I have ever tried to watch a screen from that distance unless I was at a movie theater.
Although in my previous home, in the living room, I could easily be 4 meters (or even 7 meters) away from a screen.
In my current home about 3 & 3/4 meters would be the max.
But, from a practical perspective, about 3 meters is where it would be.
(I have not had a TV [or cable] {and don't stream} since 2007) I do have a 27" 4K computer screen on my desk top.
Both my laptops (2011 & 2012 Dell XPS units) can play CD/DVD/Blu Ray and have HDMI outputs.
But I will be getting something in 4K with a 50" screen (it is being gifted to me) by the beginning of the year.
Mostly for my region free oPPo UDP 205 and my physical CD/Blu Ray/4K collection.

 

[kemmler3D]

I do want to say that we owe @lashto at least the consideration of not calling this trolling. I've been arguing on the internet for a long time, about a lot of things, and very, very seldom does a troll cite sources, and not once in my life have I seen a troll provide a substantive rebuttal to a critique of a source. Lashto may or may not have bought into some crackpot theory, but they're no troll.

So, that said, taking all the ultra/hypersonic stuff at face value*, I think the only plausible benefit for music is very slightly better definition of transients for percussion. This is just because most musical instruments don't produce much ultrasonic sound IRL or otherwise. Not worthless but not earth-shattering.

The health stuff seems more connected to having ultrasonic signatures of wildlife soak in through your skin, or something, not totally clear to me.

So even if we take that at face value also, I am not sure building speakers for music with significant ultrasonic capabilities is practical. It's hard enough to get a tweeter to work properly from 2khz -20khz, good behavior above 25khz or so is very rare and expensive.

I think this is actually a really bad idea, and it would almost definitely end up harming average listeners. Good performance from 20hz - 20khz is already far from universal. Speakers are not a solved problem like other parts of the chain, so a "better" standard is actually just asking for compromise with the audible performance we have now - at a given price point.

Nothing comes for free, so what aspect of audible performance would you give up to get ultrasonic performance? Or how much more expensive should speakers get to achieve this?

It's not like engineers will just work harder and figure it out. These things have to be built from physical materials with fixed properties, they can't just give the aluminum a pep talk and have it break up higher. All of this will cost real money.

*for the sake of argument.

 

[Tell]

Odd.
For many, many years, I have heard (hearsay to me at this point) that 8K is on the edge of what human eyes can resolve.
So I have been impatiently waiting ever since I heard that.
I can certainly tell the difference between an 1080p screen & a 4K screen, no matter the size (for whatever reason).
I have had an 8K screen file on one of my computers since (2012?) I think.
It will play on a 1080 screen & is definitely better on a 4K screen.
But I have never been in the presence of an 8K screen, much less in a position to see if I could tell the difference with this particular file.

I was talking about smartphones since the guy mentioned high PPI But talking about screens in general the upper limit is around 8K yes, but it depends on the field of view, and looking at something like IMAX where it fills almost all your field of view I'd say that we need up to 16K to get full sharpness.

its all about the viewing distance at 4m 1080 vs 4k for 65inch is a tough one to see...

At 3 meters I can see a difference between 1080p and 4K on y 55", but not everyone can.

Anyways, my point was that there probably ain't any 1000 PPI screens since they're quite overkill (except those in VR glasses), but if there is I'm still curios!

 

[RandomEar]

@kemmler3D @RandomEar
first of all, many thanks for talking about the actual studies. Much more enjoyable than answering stuff like "troll troll troll"

And yes, I know 'everyone' on ASR knows better than oohashi & co
And yes, those guys have an agenda: they believe in that stuff and want to prove it beyond doubt. Same as ~any other study author ever.

Having an agenda is problematic in science. That's not how it should be, although it often is the reality of it. You should have a hypothesis and you should investigate it without prejudice. Having an agenda is the opposite of that and will lead to tainted results.

And of course they had to buld their own gear: there is no speaker or mic that can properly deal with 100-120kHz. Should they publish a lot more details about that gear? Sure. And they can do many other things better, it's not like those guys are perfect.
(edit: this may be their mic and its AES paper; there may be a similar paper for the speakers/tweeters)

Yes, they should publish a full "review" on their equipment in this case, because it is non-standard and critical to the task at hand.

And it may be intersting, but not sure if worth debating their DBT/SBT procedures. Measurable, physical effects like rCBF, EEG, glucose etc. are way stronger proof for "effectfull ultrasonics" than any DBT.

That's not correct. The measured results aren't reliable because there was no DBT. DBT is essential because otherwise those who conduct the experiments and interact with the test subjects can and often will influence them, because the scientists know what stimulus is being played at any given time. They may not intend to influence the subjects, but it often happens unknowingly through tiny aspects like body language. And a different treatment of the test subject can absolutely influence the glucose/EEG/whatever results.

In this case, something trivial like a more calming tone of voice by a scientist might cause the listeners to wander around less and sit still for more time, which results in higher glucose levels. That's why DBT is so fucking important for everything involving human test subjects. Using "hard" measurements like EEG doesn't relax that reqiurement at all.

In spite of the "warm welcoming", those scientists just keep working, relasing new papers and documenting new, measurable effects .. and those papers keep being accepted and published (IIRC, that includes JAS and AES). Some studies/results were already replicated by other groups, some found other effects (see below).

Being published means very little in the science world. Replication studies do matter, though. That's good.

Also, let's not forget that the big picture is "hundreds of studies". Not just some oohashi guy, not just a single, suspicious effect/measurement somewhere. Studies and observations on the effects of ultrasounds go back 100+ years. Basically since the industrial era started.

P.S.
Also not sure if it's worth nitpicking on 1-2 of those studies/results. But it can easily be done both ways.
Here's one study that wiki quotes as (suposedly) debunking the hypersonic effect: Perceptual discrimination of very high frequency components in wide frequency range musical sound
First of all, they do state that it's not just oohashi but other people/studies/effects:


And this is what they say about some of their own 'debunking':


Test equipment was not good enough, subjects were not appropiate. Is there any real 'debunking' in that paper?
If anyone can provide the full text, it may be an interesting read...

I've attached the study. In the first test, nobody could reliably detect the HF content amongst a total of 30 listeners. In the second test, 2 out of 13 people seem to be able to hear sounds >20 kHz in one of the audio samples. Sounds plausible to me.

 

[lashto]

So, that said, taking all the hypersonic stuff at face value*, I think the only plausible benefit for music is very slightly better definition of transients for percussion. This is just because most musical instruments don't produce much ultrasonic sound IRL or otherwise. Not worthless but not earth-shattering.

Gamelan goes to >100kHz, cymbals go to >100kHz, a classical orchestra does the same...
Modern 'generated' music does not (most probably). But maybe it should.

The health stuff seems more connected to having ultrasonic signatures of wildlife soak in through your skin, or something, not totally clear to me.

Yep, the studies say that the effects were only present/measurable with speakers and ~full body exposure .. and most of them could not be replicated with HPs.
Ultrasonic baths may just be the next thing in town ...

So even if we take that at face value also, I am not sure building speakers for music with significant ultrasonic capabilities is practical. It's hard enough to get a tweeter to work properly from 2khz -20khz, good behavior above 25khz or so is very rare and expensive.

I think this is actually a really bad idea, and it would almost definitely end up harming average listeners. Good performance from 20hz - 20khz is already far from universal. Speakers are not a solved problem like other parts of the chain, so a "better" standard is actually just asking for compromise with the audible performance we have now - at a given price point.

Nothing comes for free, so what aspect of audible performance would you give up to get ultrasonic performance? Or how much more expensive should speakers get to achieve this?

It's not like engineers will just work harder and figure it out. These things have to be built from physical materials with fixed properties, they can't just give the aluminum a pep talk and have it break up higher. All of this will cost real money.

*for the sake of argument.

it's hard, it will be expensive (at first), it will take time. Same as with every new tech.

Is it worth it? I think so:

• 8-28 looks like a must have. Proven audible by people, not sure what is left to debate. With a good-practice-buffer, we have 3-30.
• 1-100: the hypersonic effect studies say that the 20-100 range brings (enough) goodies regardless of audibility. Health studies say that any issues in this range may be a serious headache. Other health studies say that the below 20Hz range is good to have too. And a clean/linear 1-100 range will benefit everyone ... just because cleaner is better.

And for anyone who disagrees with 3-30/1-100/whatever: cheaper and better 20-20 devices should be a big enough benefit.

 

[kemmler3D]

And for anyone who disagrees with 3-30/1-100/whatever: cheaper and better 20-20 devices should be a big enough benefit.

It would be, but you're missing my point. 20-20 devices are already as cheap as they can be. Very little actual new technology goes into speakers in 2024. Going below 20hz another octave requires exponentially more power, bigger magnets, bigger drivers. Very not cheap.

Going above 20khz requires different types of drivers, new materials, new designs. Also not cheap.

Many firms have already identified >20khz reproduction and <20hz reproduction as goals. You can buy those speakers today. They're not cheap and they are not setting the industry on a new course. This isn't because there is a lack of knowledge about or belief in ultrasonics in the market, either - outside of ASR you can find lots of people who agree with you.

The problem is nobody can really hear a difference (or doesn't want to piss off their neighbors with infrasonic bass) and nobody wants to pay that much extra for this stuff. The juice is simply not worth the squeeze - this is why the market has failed to produce what you think they have simply failed to understand.

 

[lashto]

Having an agenda is problematic in science. That's not how it should be, although it often is the reality of it. You should have a hypothesis and you should investigate it without prejudice. Having an agenda is the opposite of that and will lead to tainted results.

I can only see the type of 'agenda' any scientist has: make a hypothesis and then work hard to prove it.
Anyone else can investigate their results "without prejudice". Some did already and some were able to replicate ... looks good to me.

Yes, they should publish a full "review" on their equipment in this case, because it is non-standard and critical to the task at hand.

Too tired to search now. The full review for their mics is available, most probably there are similar details for everything else.

That's not correct. The measured results aren't reliable because there was no DBT. DBT is essential because otherwise those who conduct the experiments and interact with the test subjects can and often will influence them, because the scientists know what stimulus is being played at any given time. They may not intend to influence the subjects, but it often happens unknowingly through tiny aspects like body language. And a different treatment of the test subject can absolutely influence the glucose/EEG/whatever results.

In this case, something trivial like a more calming tone of voice by a scientist might cause the listeners to wander around less and sit still for more time, which results in higher glucose levels. That's why DBT is so fucking important for everything involving human test subjects. Using "hard" measurements like EEG doesn't relax that reqiurement at all.


Being published means very little in the science world. Replication studies do matter, though. That's good.

Of course, many things can go wrong and the more checks the better. The replication studies do exist, though. What is still missing?

I've attached the study. In the first test, nobody could reliably detect the HF content amongst a total of 30 listeners. In the second test, 2 out of 13 people seem to be able to hear sounds >20 kHz in one of the audio samples. Sounds plausible to me.

The 28kHz study I posted does not have any major faults. Done by some top experts in the area .. and it cites many others that replicated audibiliy to 24-26 kHz. Apparently not good because "it's just test-sounds". Not exactly a flaw but anyway, yours makes the ~same point with music.

A meta study done by an AES guy: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution AudioPerceptual Evaluation

There is considerable debate over the benefits of recording and rendering high resolution audio, i.e., systems and formats that are capable of rendering beyond CD quality audio.
...
The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional levels.

 

[lashto]

It would be, but you're missing my point. 20-20 devices are already as cheap as they can be.

ASR is doing a pretty good job in that respect.
And still, last time I visited a big audio show, most of the stuff was "not for me". A huge amount of money and energy wasted into e.g. 300K speakers which were mostly same-stuff-in-a-different-box

Very little actual new technology goes into speakers in 2024. Going below 20hz another octave requires exponentially more power, bigger magnets, bigger drivers. Very not cheap.

Going above 20khz requires different types of drivers, new materials, new designs. Also not cheap.

Or maybe it is not expensive at all ?!
Those japanese guys were able to DIY 120kHz mics, 120KHz speakesrs and a whole 120kHz audio chain. No idea about their budget but pretty sure they did not 'waste' a few billions over 10+ years. I would be surprised if they even spent a single million .. or more than the advertising budget of a medium audio company.

Many firms have already identified >20khz reproduction and <20hz reproduction as goals. You can buy those speakers today. They're not cheap and they are not setting the industry on a new course. This isn't because there is a lack of knowledge about or belief in ultrasonics in the market, either - outside of ASR you can find lots of people who agree with you.

@solderdude did post quite a list. Just one looked ok-ish up to 40kHz. Do you have some better examples? (at any price)
AFAICS, mainstream does not seem to be anywhere close to 100kHz .. or even 50kHz. And many/most are still struggling with 20kHz.

The problem is nobody can really hear a difference (or doesn't want to piss off their neighbors with infrasonic bass) and nobody wants to pay that much extra for this stuff. The juice is simply not worth the squeeze - this is why the market has failed to produce what you think they have simply failed to understand.

nowadays the market for new stuff is mostly 'invented'.
Apple created one for retina screens and others are going 1000+PPI. Not aware of any proven benefits of 1000+ PPI .. or of a single human being that asked for it.
Looks like 1-100 audio actually has a lot more substance than most other 'amazing' new technologies ...