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

[bodhi]

I'm just here wondering that if even the ability to detect ultrasonics with trained subjects, in very specific test conditions, is at least a bit questionable and something as trivial as ABX can prevent detection then isn't it almost ridiculous to suggest that ultrasonics would have any meaning in normal, everyday listening situation?

I mean we are very willing to accept all kinds of little defects in speakers if those are really not noticeable or are easily masked in any normal listening situation. And those differences are order of magnitude stronger than these ultrasonic sounds. There just seems to be so much more meaningful improvements to achieve before even thinking about ultrasonics. And even those improvements are hard to justify when there just isn't that much improvement to be had.

There seems to be to discussions here treated as one: 1) would it be interesting to have ultrasonic speakers if cost was no object, just as an interesting experiment 2) does it make any sense to manufacture, much less to buy, ultrasonic capable speakers.

 

[Brian Hall]

isn't it almost ridiculous to suggest that ultrasonics would have any meaning in normal, everyday listening situation?

Yes, it is. Snake oil. Completely useless to reproducing audio for humans.

 

[krabapple]

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

..and as if on schedule, having found the work of the amazing Mr. Oohashi (check out his research into zombie states!) , your journey of discovery brings you to the Reiss meta-analysis. Which if nothing else is an object lesson in the role of included and excluded studies in meta-analysis.

It's cute that it's all new to you.

But honestly, all this stuff was found wanting years ago. * And as you see, honest to Bob (Stuart), it didn't change any paradigms. Which is your complaint.
It's borderline amusing how obsessed you are with this puny molehill of an issue, when the veritable mountain is right there in front of you and all of us who love home audio: the patent non-transparency of loudspeakers *within the 20Hz-20kHz band* combined with commonly-not-great room acoustics *within the 20Hz-20kHz band*. And that's just on our side. On the production side it's the frickin' wild west, always has been, so the circle of confusion spins on and on and on....

But what we're really suffering from is the supposed lack of ultrasonic content and the gear to play it flat from near DC out to 30kHz. Right.


(*AES used to have 'comments' section for its online library papers, but those seem to have vanished, otherwise I'd link to the ones on Reiss's paper)

 

[Sal1950]

I wonder how much of an issue this is in the real world when it comes to gear?
My 30+ yo Adcom amps state a power bandwidth of -3db 1.7hz to 100khz.
My JBL 3600 speakers are not ultrasonic with a top end of -6db at 30khz but still fairly good extension for a horn.
A very major portion of my newest music is 24/96 so what's left to improve or worry over?

 

[kemmler3D]

so what's left to improve or worry over?

If you really wanted ultrasonics in your music, you'd still need to convince studios to use ultrasonic microphones, make sure to use a 96khz workflow at minimum, (I guess) use monitors with far-treble extension, and try to keep ultrasonic content at a reasonable level despite not being able to hear it.

If I ran a studio I'd be pretty unimpressed with the ask, but that's just me.

 

[krabapple]

Not all music is recorded with microphones. And it's child's play to record content outside 20Hz-20kHz if the signal source isn't 'acoustic'.

 

[kemmler3D]

Not all music is recorded with microphones.

This is true, but unless you only sample or synthesize, you need special gear to capture ultrasonics.

 

[Brian Hall]

This is true, but unless you only sample or synthesize, you need special gear to capture ultrasonics.

I think most places would have gear to filter out the useless ultrasonics to avoid problems. Just like any good DAC.

 

[Sal1950]

If I ran a studio I'd be pretty unimpressed with the ask, but that's just me.

Yep, all in all life for the music enthusiast is pretty damn good.
If you had told me back in the 60s or 70s that today I'd be listening to 9.1 discreet channels of sound,
from a source capable of supplying a perfect copy of the studios microphones output, I never would have
believed it. What an awesome and exciting trip it's been. !!!

 

[krabapple]

Yes, sampled and synthesized music is quite rare...oh wait, it's very much not.

And you know that guitar and bass and other electro-acoustic instruments can be plugged 'directly' into an ADC, yes? DI boxes with respectable response out past 20 kHz are hardly 'special'

On the capture side, even my cheap-ass pocket-sized Behringer USB ADC can digitize at 48kHz SR (i.e. 24 kHz bandwidth)

 

[Robin L]

Yes, sampled and synthesized music is quite rare...oh wait, it's very much not.

And you know that guitar and bass and other electro-acoustic instruments can be plugged 'directly' into an ADC, yes? DI boxes with respectable response out past 20 kHz are hardly 'special'

On the capture side, even my cheap-ass pocket-sized Behringer USB ADC can digitize at 48kHz SR (i.e. 24 kHz bandwidth)

My Tascam 05 and 40 handheld digital recorders can go up to 24/96. I always record using 24 bits (more headroom) but don't see the point in using anything other than 44.1 considering my sources.

 

[krabapple]

I think most places would have gear to filter out the useless ultrasonics to avoid problems. Just like any good DAC.

Most places (recording studios) have ADCs that can run beyond 44.1 kHz sample rate: 48, 88, 96, 192... you can digitize plenty of the ultrasonic hash, if you want to.

 

[krabapple]

My Tascam 05 and 40 handheld digital recorders can go up to 24/96. I always record using 24 bits (more headroom) but don't see the point in using anything other than 44.1 considering my sources.

Indeed, this has been standard for decades now.

Which leads me to wonder what decade some ASR readers live in.

 

[JustJones]

Adam, Genelec, Kef, Focal are a few that have models to go over 40khz.

 

[majingotan]

Most places (recording studios) have ADCs that can run beyond 44.1 kHz sample rate: 48, 88, 96, 192... you can digitize plenty of the ultrasonic hash, if you want to.

You need the max headroom that your ADC allows to avoid aliasing when recording and mixing tracks. For musical playback, a properly designed DAC does not need more than 44.1 KHz to reproduce perfect audio

 

[kemmler3D]

Yes, sampled and synthesized music is quite rare...oh wait, it's very much not.

And you know that guitar and bass and other electro-acoustic instruments can be plugged 'directly' into an ADC, yes? DI boxes with respectable response out past 20 kHz are hardly 'special'

On the capture side, even my cheap-ass pocket-sized Behringer USB ADC can digitize at 48kHz SR (i.e. 24 kHz bandwidth)

Yes, I've been doing recording-type stuff since the '90s, and ultrasonic-capable recorders were not new then either, but mics with good fidelity well into the ultrasonic range are "special".

Most synths shouldn't be producing a lot of ultrasonic content, AFAIK every softsynth I've used will filter it out or not generate it in the first place. If you are sampling stuff, it's no more likely to have ultrasonic content than any other existing recording.

 

[Tell]

I wonder how much of an issue this is in the real world when it comes to gear?
My 30+ yo Adcom amps state a power bandwidth of -3db 1.7hz to 100khz.
My JBL 3600 speakers are not ultrasonic with a top end of -6db at 30khz but still fairly good extension for a horn.
A very major portion of my newest music is 24/96 so what's left to improve or worry over?

Your ears, they can't even hear everything that 16/44.1 can hold.

 

[Moonbase]

I wonder what the range is at normal levels like 85db’s. I suspect your going to be 30hz to 16khz .

 

[ElJaimito]

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

I have looked at both these references, as well as others presented earlier. IMHO they are poop. I would want to see a LOT of replications before relying on anything in there. Nor do I have confidence in the statistical analysis (ANOVA dodgies, 25 final participants but with no mention of drop-out rates or negatives in the study) and the second paper evaluates "feelings" together with self-reported measures. This is as far as one can get from any sort of gold-standard approach, indeed is entirely subjectivist. Of course this stuff is hard to do right, but these studies establish nothing AFAIAC. As I say, I would want multiple replications by different institutions with a statistically significant population, and across multiple nations, before even entertaining the idea that there may be something to it. Direct brain monitoring by electrode of responses to ultrasound might be more convincing, but I am not going to volunteer, and I'd still want to see statistically-significant by population results..

In case people are not aware, there is a massive problem in science, especially the soft sciences, at the moment -- but this is also happening even in physics (note many cold-fusion papers being withdrawn). There's an informal discussion here:

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is notable that some results are only found in distinct populations. For example:

Foreign Afflictions: Mental Disorders across Country Borders

Are non-Western conditions truly distinct from those in the U.S. and Europe?

www.scientificamerican.com

(I am not picking on Japan: the same applies - though not always recognised - world-wide).

The big problem with most soft science research is that it is either done on university students (who are not representative of the population at large) or on captive audiences (patients at a particular clinic or hospital, say) -- and ditto.

Which brings me back to the only relevant issue, IMO: does infrasound or ultrasound in any way at all influence enjoyment of music? And my own answer is, "No". And it never did, even when I could hear 22kHz. There is no music much above 8 kHz or below 33 Hz or so (22 Hz organ pipes are felt, but not as music).

I started recording when I was 7, using a very basic tape recorder, and a crystal mic, maybe able to grab 8kHz. Oddly, music didn't sound too bad at the time, see note above. And that was (cough) 64 years ago. I now have 192 kHz capable equipment, but I have never used it for music work, and never will...

 

[dlaloum]

Once again it seems that the developers of the cd we’re pretty astute in their 16/44 sample rate.

For recording/processing purposes 32 bits would be great! - but for reproduction/playback purposes, 16/44 hits the spot.