• Welcome to ASR. 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 ?!

"Super tweeters' have been around for decades too. Subs that 'go' below 20Hz are hardly uncommon.
Actually if you search in the mainstream marketplaces for various "subs", especially in the more economy/mass-market segments, "subs" that can go below 20Hz are the exception rather than the rule!

Most (lifestyle) "subs" are in fact just woofers, not sub-woofers
 
Actually if you search in the mainstream marketplaces for various "subs", especially in the more economy/mass-market segments, "subs" that can go below 20Hz are the exception rather than the rule!

Most (lifestyle) "subs" are in fact just woofers, not sub-woofers
Yep!
Although many take it as "anything that gets you sound below the speaker's woofer"
 
Last edited:
Actually if you search in the mainstream marketplaces for various "subs", especially in the more economy/mass-market segments, "subs" that can go below 20Hz are the exception rather than the rule!
Although many take it as "anything that gets you sound below the speaker's woofer"
Well those "handles" are all relative. LOL
But truthfully its a rare speaker that can go below 40 or 50 hz and deliver much SPL without tons of distortion.
The big fad today is little stand mounts with a single 5 or 6" woofer so a decent "sub" box with a 12" driver and amp is a tremendous help to get any music in the bottom octave.
 
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.



high enough for you ?

How many recordings are there out there that top out > 40kHz with 'useful information' ?

I also heard the famous Magnat plasma tweeters back in the day when my ears were young. It sounded fine... alas they used a CDP as a source so limited to 20kHz while it could do 80kHz (or 120kHz).
 



high enough for you ?

How many recordings are there out there that top out > 40kHz with 'useful information' ?

I also heard the famous Magnat plasma tweeters back in the day when my ears were young. It sounded fine... alas they used a CDP as a source so limited to 20kHz while it could do 80kHz (or 120kHz).
The Gallo CDT tweeters apparently top out at 35KHz... and have 180 degree dispersion...

So all the local bats are covered!
 
Well those "handles" are all relative. LOL
But truthfully its a rare speaker that can go below 40 or 50 hz and deliver much SPL without tons of distortion.
The big fad today is little stand mounts with a single 5 or 6" woofer so a decent "sub" box with a 12" driver and amp is a tremendous help to get any music in the bottom octave.
No fad 5 or 6" woofers here (not a 12" either) but a pretty well integrated 8":
My Dahlquist M-905's (2 way speakers):
Dahlquist M-905
Dahlquist M-905
Measure 24 inches high, 13-1/2 inches wide, and 12-1/4 inches deep. (not much in the way of a Spousal Acceptance Factor aside from a very nice walnut veneer)
Each speaker weighs 35 pounds, and for optimum results they should be mounted on Dahlquist ST-9 stands (they are), which match the finish of the speakers and support them about 11 inches above the floor, with a backward tilt of 3.5 degrees for optimum coverage of the listening area. Like most free-standing speakers, the M-905 gives its best performance when it is placed at least a foot from the wall and angled slightly inward toward the listener.
The 8-inch woofer of the M-905 is a polyvinyl-acetate-laminated cone operating in a vented enclosure. The outlet of its tuned port is on the front panel of the speaker cabinet. At 2,500 Hz there is a crossover to a 1-inch soft-dome tweeter.
The rated frequency response is 40 to 24,000 Hz (no parameter's given).
The wall panels are of varying thickness, and there is special internal damping and bracing designed to suit the individual characteristics of the drivers in the system, all to minimize coloration of the sound by the box.
The front panel is coated with a 3M flocking material whose thousands of fibers are electrostatically aligned perpendicular to its surface during application. The flocking and the flush-mounting of the tweeter are said to minimize diffraction from front-panel discontinuities, preserving image focus.

Now for a few (SURPRISING) measurements (from: HiFi Classic):
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.
We measured the sensitivity of the M-905 as 87 dB SPL.
The system’s minimum impedance was about 4.8 ohms in the 8,000- to 10,000-Hz region, and it measured 7 ohms at 150 to 200 Hz. Its maximum impedance was 28 ohms at 60 Hz, and there was a broad peak of 18 ohms in the vicinity of 1,500 Hz.
We measured the woofer’s distortion with a 4-volt drive level, corresponding to a 90-dB SPL at 1 meter.
The distortion was less than 1 percent from 100 Hz down to almost 60 Hz, the effective crossover to the port.
Below that crossover the distortion rose to 5 percent at 45 Hz and 9 percent at 35 Hz.
In high-power tests with single-cycle tone bursts, the woofer began to sound “hard” at about 350 watts into its 8.5-ohm impedance at 100 Hz.
At higher frequencies the amplifier clipped-
at outputs of 490 watts at 1.000 Hz and 1,380 watts at 10,000 Hz—before distortion became visible on the acoustic waveform.
Quasi-anechoic FFT measurements showed an overall group-delay variation of about 0.1 millisecond between 4,000 and 20,000 Hz and 0.5 MS. between 1,000 and 20.000 Hz, convincing evidence of the attention paid to the phase characteristics of the M-905.
The pair of 905's are powered by one NAD 2200.
So what are the crossovers on my custom (by me) two 12" dual 4 OHM voice coil (set to run as one 4 OHM load each) subs with their own bridged mono NAD 2200's?
At the moment, it's 60 HZ for the high pass and 80 HZ for the low pass.
This seems to work pretty well and I see no reason to change it.
One day (when I get some measuring gear), I'll see what the in room measurements are and perhaps get some gear to make some tweaks.
But, it currently sounds fine to me.
 
I can only see the type of 'agenda' any scientist has: make a hypothesis and then work hard to prove it.
That's a guarantee of bad science. And why Oohashi (and his students) and Kunchur are cranks, at least when they work in the audio field. In science, we try to find ways in which we are wrong,, where there are other explanations.

Classic essay by arguably one of the the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

And a perfect prescient analysis of this sort of crank stuff.
 



high enough for you ?
Thanks. I did post that townsend supertweeter earlier. Specs ok, but not 3rd party checked. Plus the lovely price of $1500/piece (IIRC). The LCY is somewhat better at 'only' $555.

I'm looking for 'normal' tweeters, stuff in the $50 range or so. Even better, already built into speakers. DIY stuff made for 0.1% of people is welcome but not exactly a 'revolution'.
How many recordings are there out there that top out > 40kHz with 'useful information' ?
no idea. Some examples were posted around ASR but we are mostly talking about 'exceptions'.
I also heard the famous Magnat plasma tweeters back in the day when my ears were young. It sounded fine... alas they used a CDP as a source so limited to 20kHz while it could do 80kHz (or 120kHz).
I heard some Lansche at audio shows (specced at 150 kHz). It was a while ago (pre-covid) and I did not pay much attention. Not sure about those plasma things and their ozone/etc sideeffects ... but I'll surely pay a bit more attention next time.
 
Last edited:
at least 40 kHz enough ? .. € 60.-

so... while fun to see such a tweeter can do that it is only on-axis.

50kHz ... $ 60,-

Why would one want 100kHz if it isn't in any recording and when it is it will be at very, very low SPL.

What would be missing or is it FOMO ?
 
Guess everyone is tired of 'arguing'. And people (suposedly) enjoy listening to music much more than reading looong posts ...

Here's something very different:

or maybe you prefer blues/jazz:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
at least 40 kHz enough ? .. € 60.-

so... while fun to see such a tweeter can do that it is only on-axis.

50kHz ... $ 60,-

Why would one want 100kHz if it isn't in any recording and when it is it will be at very, very low SPL.

What would be missing or is it FOMO ?
some FOMO some DOHM .. the usual :)

(Desire Of Having More)
 
when someone does some sort of meaningful blind A/B testing where people sit and listen to "normal" musical recordings that have been "hard clipped" below 20hz and above 20khz and compare them with unclipped recordings of the same tracks on a system capable of reproducing content below 20hz and above 20khz and the listeners reliably ID the stuff that's been clipped I'll believe this is an issue of relevance in the real world.
 
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".

And again, I refer to recording methods that bypass mics. Which have been around for a long time.

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.

It was you who brought up sampling in the first place, as a source for ultrasonics.

Regardless, the point was that bandwidth limits of average mics don't mean that ultrasonic content doesn't make it onto recordings. Again, indeed, there are plenty of 'hi rez' releases that do have ultrasonic content. Some audiophile labels boast of their products' upward bandwidth extension.


Don't forget the OP is very concerned about 'infrasonic' content too -- stuff below 20Hz. And that certainly can exist on commercial releases too., being easily synthesized, for example.

Actually if you search in the mainstream marketplaces for various "subs", especially in the more economy/mass-market segments, "subs" that can go below 20Hz are the exception rather than the rule!

Most (lifestyle) "subs" are in fact just woofers, not sub-woofers
I didn't say they were the rule and I certainly didn't point to the 'economy/mass market segments". But they are certainly available commercially and e.g., whole threads on audio forums are devoted to them, and to playing <20Hz content at home..
 
Why would one want 100kHz if it isn't in any recording and when it is it will be at very, very low SPL.
Braggin rights my friend, braggin rights.
 
I can only see the type of 'agenda' any scientist has: make a hypothesis and then work hard to prove it.

No, absolutely not.

That is not how science is supposed to work. Come up with a hypothesis based on what you think you know and then run tests to see if the hypothesis is correct.

If the tests prove your hypothesis is wrong, then come up with a new or modified hypothesis, one based on the evidence and test that. Rinse and repeat as your hypothesis gets closer to explaining something about the real world.

Working hard to try to prove a bad hypothesis is dumb and wrong.
 
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.
You're still missing the point of the practical implications of setting immovable goal posts.

I will state that my propensity for ICE race cars has cost me hearing capacity over 15.5khz, but like SINAD stats and other inaudible "state of the art" measurements routinely touted on this platform, I'd rather have clean measurements and performance across the board because I prefer great engineering.

For Pete's freaking sake people...
 
Back
Top Bottom