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

[sigbergaudio]

Can we please limit the discussion to above 20khz to make it a bit easier?

There is no low end limit in any of today's popular audio formats, and gear and speakers that will happily reproduce it is also available for those who want to do this.

 

[Tell]

I believe that Lashto has convinced himself that:

• people can actually hear (but not through the ear-canal/ear-drum) well above 25kHz, even when the sounds are faint. He bases this on the works he quoted.
• people can actually hear well below 20Hz (also not at high SPL) and use other 'senses' than the auditory channel.
  There is actually some truth in that as the body can feel LF extension which adds to the experience. Unfortunately for speakers in a room this is not really possible. For ear/headphones is possible to go down to 5Hz for instance... but one will be missing the tactile feel.
• Another of his misconceptions is that recordings are all truncated sharply below 20Hz and above 20kHz and that transducers and amps do the same. The fact that most measurements only show 20-20k reinforces his belief as well as the mentioning of 'reaching 20-20k' in the folders and leaflets.
• Then he rants about microphones not reaching those limits and for some (usually specialized) mics that is true as they are shaped in FR and not flat for a reason. There are plenty of mics that far exceed the 20-20k.
• He also seems to believe speakers cannot extend above 20k based on misinterpreted 'info'.
• On top of that it looks like he believes the 'discrepancy' between live (and I assume not sound reinforced) and reproduced sound comes from some or all of the above arguments.
• he is convinced that he 'hears' with more than just his auditory channel. He is right as one also 'hears' with the eyes and body (LF extension at high SPL) and believes that low level >20kHz somehow enters the brain through bone conduction or another 'sensor' that is not defined.

Believing is a powerful incentive to have something proven and that has to be done independently.
I guess what he really wants is to have:

• DACs measured FR (in one plot) of 44kHz, 96, 192, 384 kHz sweeps (all the way down from 1Hz)
• speaker measurements up to 50kHz (from 10Hz up)
• headphone measurements from 1Hz to 50kHz
• amplifier measurements from DC to 1MHz ... just to be sure

All of this to satisfy his FOMO and 'for the science' part for those that think 20-20k is not enough.

DACs measured this way is pretty easy to do
speaker measurements from 10Hz might be a challenge even for a Klippel in a smallish room and above 20kHz requires expensive (calibrated) mics but possible. Don't know how the Klippel handles this.
Headphone measurements below 20Hz require perfect seal and is otherwise easy to do. Above 10kHz (or 15kHz for 5128) will have accuracy issues on HATS and other fixtures so the value of that remains to be seen. Also larger diameter drivers might show comb filtering even when a large membrane vibrates piston alike (which they won't at high frequencies anyway).
FR from DC to 1MHz is possible to do ... or at least to 100kHz. Certainly interesting for tube amps and today's switching amps.
I have seen many amp measurements (by Amir and others) to extend well above 20kHz so that is already covered.

In short.... Lahto's wishlist for making measurements below 20Hz and above 20kHz seems a good idea just because they are basic measurements and some of them are actually possible but rarely seen.

This thread will be an endless argument going back and forth about 'auditory channel', measurements and belief based on some 'research' that shows (or thinks he shows) is evidence.

I'm sure ABX tests will convince him he can't hear it if you truncate below 20Hz and above 20kHz but that may be because he has not seen independent measurements of gear he uses that shows it will reach 5Hz to 100kHz as that's where it matters (I assume using speakers).

Not that I'm interested in stuff above 20kHz, but seeing that Amir measures stuff at and above a SINAD of 120dB as "a sign of good engineering" even though that's well above audible thresholds, why not also measure stuff above 20kHz aswell as "a sign of good engineering" then?
(To me both are about as equally overkill though so I'm not really arguing for it, just for the sake of argument)

 

[Davide]

to paraphrase, that is what I would call The Circle of the Deprecated 70's

The circle 'starts' with some not-so-true ans seriously deprecated assumptions like "humans only hear 20-20" or "music/sound are ears-only experiences" ...
.. continues with "therefore we don't need mics or recordings beyond-20-20"
.. goes into the music studio which truncates 20-20 because it's easy and they 'know' that "nobody needs beyond-20-20"
.. reaches the audio industry as "there is nothing beyond-20-20, why would we build speakers/etc that go there"
.. enters the home of the customer who cannot even test anything by himself (cause there is barely any test material or gear.)
.. and then it goes back to the 70s

And so everyone happily lives everafter .. thoroughly enjoying the limits of the deprecated 70's tech

I fully agree with the always open mind approach: you can never prove that a hypothesis is 100% real, you can only demonstrate through experiments that it is not false. The more it is proven that it is not false, the more the probability that it is true increases, but you can never get to 100%. It is a concept on the border between science and philosophy.

That said, we have to live in the real world, so we have to try to be practical and use science to do so.

There are probably dozens of things in the audio world that can be resized in terms of perception, and only doubt can lead us to prove it.

But it is generally worth raising a concern where there is something to be gained.... if not in perceptual experience, in terms of money, for companies...

In the case of the audible range, leaving aside the fact that every human being works differently, even if it were 8-25k instead of 20-20k, what could be the gain in terms of experience?

I dare no one... 99% of our brain perception is satisfied in a narrower range than even 20-20k. If I miss that 1% I highly doubt anything will change me.

It's a bit like listening to compressed music vs. uncompressed music... yes, perhaps in particularly favorable conditions you'll notice the difference, but in practical terms nothing changes. You enjoy/dislike the song however.

Disturbing certain conventions is first and foremost something that serves as an advantage for some companies... and sometimes the "subversion" also turns out to be valid, because it translates into a better human experience, such as the pixel density or the refresh rate of the screens. Other times not.... (MQA?).

I think that in the case of the audible range there is zero or negligible gain in perception.

But I don't want to express a certainty... as I began, nothing can be considered an axiom.

We can discus in these terms in my opinion, but little useful can come out... however.

 

[EJ3]

Have you read here?

As for the Damping Factor, I don't follow you.
If the output impedance is low enough to minimize the frequency response variations in audio band (usually declared or measured here in the reviews) the Damping Factor says nothing.

As a side note, Bruno P. also said:
In actual fact you wouldn’t even want to have infinite damping because the speaker designer counts on the natural resonance to define the bass response. So it’s rather a good thing that the speaker has its built-in resistance in series with the amp.

The point is that you were saying it would be nice to know Slew Rate, Damping Factor and Transient Response of an amplifier.
But those parameters say nothing more than what is normally declared from manufacturer or measured here/elsewhere.
And anyway you don't need them to compare amplifiers, Distortion/noise measures are more informative.

But this is a bit OT maybe...

Yes, I read that. And I also read SIY's statement above that: "Slew rate is often confused with rise time, which DOES directly relate to bandwidth. They have some relation, but two systems with the same bandwidth can have very different slew rates".
And I am interested in "SLEW RATE" based on only the range that separate passive true sub-woofers cover (which, these days is a niche area). due to that I use separate amps in that range.
At any rate, the amps I use have a published "SLEW RATE" spec, which I have found to be useful for me.
My EMPERICAL experience trumps anyone's theories for me.
So, you and I will just have to agree to dis-agree on this point and move on to something that is relevant to more people.

 

[SIY]

Yes, I read that. And I also read SIY's statement above that: "Slew rate is often confused with rise time, which DOES directly relate to bandwidth. They have some relation, but two systems with the same bandwidth can have very different slew rates".
And I am interested in "SLEW RATE" based on only the range that separate passive true sub-woofers cover (which, these days is a niche area). due to that I use separate amps in that range.
At any rate, the amps I use have a published "SLEW RATE" spec, which I have found to be useful for me.
My EMPERICAL experience trumps anyone's theories for me.
So, you and I will just have to agree to dis-agree on this point and move on to something that is relevant to more people.

Speakers don't exhibit slewing. I think you need to understand what that term actually means.

 

[Davide]

Yes, I read that. And I also read SIY's statement above that: "Slew rate is often confused with rise time, which DOES directly relate to bandwidth. They have some relation, but two systems with the same bandwidth can have very different slew rates".
And I am interested in "SLEW RATE" based on only the range that separate passive true sub-woofers cover (which, these days is a niche area). due to that I use separate amps in that range.
At any rate, the amps I use have a published "SLEW RATE" spec, which I have found to be useful for me.
My EMPERICAL experience trumps anyone's theories for me.
So, you and I will just have to agree to dis-agree on this point and move on to something that is relevant to more people.

If you read well, even the link to Audio Precision, you understand that since Vpeak is constant, the time component (dT) correlates very well with the bandwidth.
However, either your interest in those parameters is unfounded or it is I who miss something. It is in the latter case that I am interested in learning more. Maybe it can also be useful for others.
What's in those parameters that makes you say "this amp is better for my subs then others" ...?
It's not a provocation, really...

 

[solderdude]

Not that I'm interested in stuff above 20kHz, but seeing that Amir measures stuff at and above a SINAD of 120dB as "a sign of good engineering" even though that's well above audible thresholds, why not also measure stuff above 20kHz aswell as "a sign of good engineering" then?
(To me both are about as equally overkill though so I'm not really arguing for it, just for the sake of argument)

Well... for speakers it would be possible (and desirable) if Amir had a mic that could do that.
For the headphone fixture it is moot and is inaccurate above 8kHz anyway.
For DACs it makes sense to measure the 44.1kHz as that has the filter closest to the audible range. For 88.2 and 96 the filter is not that important anymore so for DACs 44.1 is the place to measure. Sure... it would be fun (and be more clear to the 20-20k people) if FR was sweeped from say 10Hz to 80kHz or so for 44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96kHz and 192kHz. But takes more time and more reporting.
Amps are already measured high enough, especially interesting for class-D amps as they roll-off pretty quick or even peak under specific loads.
Yep, that means more work/time for Amir as well.

The funny thing is that when measuring up to limits people start to complain about the usefulness of it.
Case in point >96dB SPL for speakers, 114dB for ear/headphones etc.

Amir does this in his spare time (also the occasional other reviewers) and not for profit. Given the huge backlog Amir has it does not make much sense to measure (and report) more than needed. Amir, now, often only reports things when eventful and when not decides not to report.

So it seems like more of a 'time constraint' issue than unwillingness.

 

[Brian Hall]

Not that I'm interested in stuff above 20kHz, but seeing that Amir measures stuff at and above a SINAD of 120dB as "a sign of good engineering" even though that's well above audible thresholds, why not also measure stuff above 20kHz aswell as "a sign of good engineering" then?
(To me both are about as equally overkill though so I'm not really arguing for it, just for the sake of argument)

SINAD is an indicator of a good, clean design and manufacturing.

Ultrasonics above 20khz are completely useless. A DAC that doesn't filter out ultrasonics is broken/badly designed.

 

[EJ3]

Speakers don't exhibit slewing. I think you need to understand what that term actually means.

There seems to be some confusion (perhaps I worded something wrong)
When I look back on it I think I was meaning dampening factor.
: the amps have a slew rate. The speed of the voltage change over time.
Yesterday was a crazy day, my wife & I had to go to my 90 year old mothers house and take her to the hospital (where she still is, but she is doing much better & may (I'm hoping) be able to be out tomorrow.
There was a lot going on in my mind & plenty of interruption's & I probably should not have attempted any though processes that also involved typing (with out interruptions, I can get a whole 12 words a minute at full tilt). But I am sure that I messed up what I was doing & saying, just as I can still tell that my mind is not on doing this.

 

[SIY]

Yesterday was a crazy day, my wife & I had to go to my 90 year old mothers house and take her to the hospital (where she still is, but she is doing much better & may (I'm hoping) be able to be out tomorrow.
There was a lot going on in my mind & plenty of interruption's & I probably should not have attempted any though processes that also involved typing (with out interruptions, I can get a whole 12 words a minute at full tilt). But I am sure that I messed up what I was doing & saying, just as I can still tell that my mind is not on doing this.

My best wishes to you- I've been there, it's so difficult.

 

[EJ3]

My best wishes to you- I've been there, it's so difficult.

Thank you so much. My father had Alzheimer's & passed away 11 years ago the day before yesterday. My mother (even yesterday morning) was doing aerobics & swimming but afterwards could barely push herself to get into the shower.
The effects of whooping cough from when she was a child during WWI in Austria are now becoming a problem.

 

[EJ3]

Thank you so much. My father had Alzheimer's & passed away 11 years ago the day before yesterday. My mother (even yesterday morning) was doing aerobics & swimming but afterwards could barely push herself to get into the shower.
The effects of whooping cough from when she was a child during WWII in Austria are now becoming a problem.

 

[Yuhasz01]

I don't know how accurate this is, but this chart is often used as a reference to what you are asking.

Useful chart for audio nurds and music listeners. One should note only two, violin and female voice, go over 16kHz(fundamentals and harmonics). Objective perspectives and measurements are fine but so is subjective listening to music. Very little significant music occurs at greater than 13-15 kHz: maybe 10%(?) 15%.

 

[Yuhasz01]

Sorry. With my psychologist hat on, I have to respond to this! We do NOT hear with our ears. There is no mechanism to transfer sound from the ears to the brain. What is transferred is much more interesting, and can be regarded as a heavily weighted and highly parallel hint and inference system, which remarkably works round the limitation of our nervous system having roughly a maximum nerve transfer rate of around 1 kHz:

Firing Frequency Maxima of Fast-Spiking Neurons in Human, Monkey, and Mouse Neocortex - PMC

Cortical fast-spiking (FS) neurons generate high-frequency action potentials (APs) without apparent frequency accommodation, thus providing fast and precise inhibition. However, the maximal firing frequency that they can reach, particularly in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We hear with our brain. And what it hears is influenced by mood, drugs (alcohol, coffee...) and most importantly expectation and simultaneous sensory experience.

This is why it is necessary to be so rigorous in designing test modalities to give ourselves the best possible chance of ensuring an identified difference is real, and not an artefact of our perceptual system. Try:

The auditory stimulus reduced the visual inhibition of return: Evidence from psychophysiological interaction analysis - PMC

Visual inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism for preventing attention from returning to previously examined spatial locations. Previous studies have found that auditory stimuli presented simultaneously with a visual target can reduce or even ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sound Improves Neuronal Encoding of Visual Stimuli in Mouse Primary Visual Cortex - PubMed

In everyday life, we integrate visual and auditory information in routine tasks such as navigation and communication. While concurrent sound can improve visual perception, the neuronal correlates of audiovisual integration are not fully understood. Specifically, it remains unclear whether...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Auditory context-dependent distraction by unexpected visual stimuli - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Research findings indicate that when a task-irrelevant stimulus feature deviates from an otherwise predictable pattern, participants performing a categorization task exhibit slower responses (deviance distraction). This deviance distraction effect reflects the violation of the sensory...

link.springer.com

...for just a taste of the issues that arise. And this is why A/B/X testing is critically important in making evaluations of perceived differences...

(The eyes are just as bad. Complete parallel processing and image identifying systems embedded behind the retina).

Thank you for pointing out the obvious that many miss here in this discussion or do not wish to understand: "perception" of sound(neuroscience)

 

[PGansz]

I'd rather go the other way with speakers:

1. If you are serious about bass you should have 2+ subwoofers already
2. If you care about hifi you are anyway so old that you cannot hear above 15kHz

So let's optimize speakers for 80Hz to 15kHz

That should bring prices down, not bigger woofers and additional drivers to reach beyond 20-20.

You're still missing the point.

I'm 39. My hearing threshold is only 4yrs off the average. You should get your hearing tested. I find many people believe they're better at things than they are.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I'd rather go the other way with speakers:

1. If you are serious about bass you should have 2+ subwoofers already
2. If you care about hifi you are anyway so old that you cannot hear above 15kHz

So let's optimize speakers for 80Hz to 15kHz

That should bring prices down, not bigger woofers and additional drivers to reach beyond 20-20.

This is a great idea! (At least the part about the bass) If only there was a manufacturer out there that had this approach!

 

[MC_RME]

It covers the human ear's useful range. Those high frequencies above 20khz that only very young people can hear are not pleasant sounds. They are actually used as a deterrent to keep teenagers from loitering around certain areas. They can hear those unpleasant irritating high frequency sounds and it drives them away.

Teenagers = mosquitoes.

 

[Yuhasz01]

Vuust, P., Heggli, O.A., Friston, K.J. et al. Music in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci23, 287–305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00578-5
"Music processing in the brain — namely, the perception of melody, harmony and rhythm — has traditionally been studied as an auditory phenomenon using passive listening paradigms. However, when listening to music, we actively generate predictions about what is likely to happen next. This enactive aspect has led to a more comprehensive understanding of music processing involving brain structures implicated in action, emotion and learning. Here we review the cognitive neuroscience literature of music perception. We show that music perception, action, emotion and learning all rest on the human brain’s fundamental capacity for prediction — as formulated by the predictive coding of music model."

 

[PGansz]

But that’s the issue: how is a product better if it doesn’t improve at all on its basic function? That was why I mentioned a carburetor on an EV: extra bandwidth beyond the audible range is just as useful.



Hmm, I actually see a lot of almost completely flat line frequency responses for all non-transducer electronics. This is not hard to do in 2024, and costs little.



But you still haven’t provided a good reason for this. What will actually improve that needs improving?



how does the non-flat FR of some speakers below 20kHz justify extending their response beyond 20kHz?


That’s the thing: you still have not actually mentioned, much less, provided support for the need for these “obvious benefits.”

Well let's see how we address this for the twelfth time...

Speaker measurements of great speakers are basically flat from 100 to 5/6k. Given this is a sweet spot, you can see why.

Now, open the goal posts, perhaps that changes a bit. Or is that too complex? Seriously guys...

Wonderful analogy of a carburetor on an EV...good grief.

 

[pkane]

Well let's see how we address this for the twelfth time...

Speaker measurements of great speakers are basically flat from 100 to 5/6k. Given this is a sweet spot, you can see why.

Now, open the goal posts, perhaps that changes a bit. Or is that too complex? Seriously guys...

Wonderful analogy of a carburetor on an EV...good grief.

Why would you think that? How does increasing FR to above 20k fix the non-flat response above 5-6k?