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

[Killingbeans]

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

Alright, lets move some goal post just for the heck of it:

TVs and monitors should show both infrared and ultraviolet light (maybe even from radio waves to x-rays).
Infrared remote controls should send their data on a spectrum well into both radio waves and visible right.
Microwave ovens should cook with a spectrum all the way from AM radio to visible light.

Seriously, what's the point?

 

[NTK]

For a truly "high fidelity" experience, your TV needs to be able to reproduce the full spectrum of sunlight and give you a tan when you watch a beach movie. And don't forget to put on sunscreen before watching.
/s

 

[PGansz]

Alright, lets move some goal post just for the heck of it:

TVs and monitors should show both infrared and ultraviolet light (maybe even from radio waves to x-rays).
Infrared remote controls should send their data on a spectrum well into both radio waves and visible right.
Microwave ovens should cook with a spectrum all the way from AM radio to visible light.

Seriously, what's the point?

The point is your fallacy game is on-point.

 

[Killingbeans]

The point is your fallacy game is on-point.

Very well. In what way are my arguments unsound?

What's the point of moving a goal post if scoring maximum points is already child's play?

I absolutely get the argument about higher minimum requirements causing the overall quality to increase, but my counterargument is that the only products in todays market, that are poor enough to mess up the basic "flat from 20 to 20kHz" requirement, are likely so badly designed that the frequency response is the least of their problems.

 

[lashto]

Reference please.

Those infra/ultra sounds may or may not be audible but the negativity in this thread is quite deafenning. And it is mostly just for the (eristic?) sake of it.

Many still keep 'pretending' that there is no proof/reference when it is posted all over the thread (like your post does).
Even the OP contains a link (the BBC podcast) about the measured benefic effects of 20+. And many related studies are linked in other posts. Published and replicated science, not some "I think so" blalala.

Another favorite of the negative crowd seems to be missrepresenting the linked research.
Many keep posting stuff like "we're talking about levels over 100dB" when I specifically and quite carefully did the exact opposite:
... the OP contains the audibility limits as measured below 100dB SPL.
... the thousands of beyond-20-20 studies talk about clear effects way below 100dB. Like "headaches at 75dB for 2 mins".
... those Japanese studies use natural noises from tropical woods which are nowhere near 100dB.
Moreover, studies at 100+dB are actually quite rare because of the very problematic health concerns.

And another all-time favorite is the neverending we-cannot-hear-it 'argument'. Fully and beyond-any-doubt invalidated by many hundreds of studies and observations spanning 100+ years. Which all say that inaudible sounds have very clear, quantifiable and measurable effects on a human's health, wellbeing, mood, decisions etc.. at pretty much any level.

Not to mention the constant nitpicking on whatever ... and the zero amount of proof posted for the "20-20 is forever enough for everyone" viewpoint.

I chose to answer your post @sigbergaudio just because it was very short and one of the latest. Otherwise, I do not see much reason to waste anyone's time with those kind of 'arguments'.

 

[lashto]

there is also a pretty serious 'confusion' in this thread about who needs to provide proof for what.

Here's the baseline hypothesis on FR: an orchestra produces sound in the 1-100+ frequency range (proof linked in OP). If you want to replicate the live-listening experience, you have to record and reproduce the entire frequency range produced by that orchestra.
That is the common-sense, base-hypothesis which needs zero proof (because it just states an obvious A=A)

One can try to reduce that range for various (more or less practical) reasons and state things like "20-20 is enough". But that is where you actually need a science/study to prove your FR-cut does not have any detrimental effects. A study that claims and proves beyond any doubt things like "20-20 is forever enough for everyone and everything" and/or "listening live to a grand orchestra is the same as listening to a 20-20 truncated recording of it".
The later may never be true but it is possible to do an FR-isolated experiment, with more practical constraints: "listening to a 20-20 recording of an orchestra though a 20-20 playback system is the same as listening to a 1-120 recording of the same orchestra through a 1-120 playback system".

Have not seen any trace of such a 20-20 science/study/proof posted around here.
But I seen and linked a huge stack of proof for the exact opposite .. and still waiting for a solid counter argument worth talking about.

 

[lashto]

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 measured to 120+dB. I fully agree with that and did not see many protests against "measuring as high/low as technically possible".
HD for speakers/headphones is measured at 115dB SPL. Fully agree with that too. There were some protests but there are excellent reasons for doing so.
But when it comes to audibility and beyond-20-20, even 100dB SPL is too much and/or it does not matter.

Consistency is king around here. But the king is currenly on vacation ..

 

[sigbergaudio]

@lashto

Who has to prove what: You are making claims, you have to prove. No confusion.

Beyond that : The way you argue is problematic and makes this more difficult for you than it could have been. You early on talked about hundreds of studies, now apparently it's thousands. Still you refuse to provide even a single reference to a specific claim when I ask for it.

Do you have even a single reference to a study indicating benefit of beyond 20khz IN THE CONTEXT OF MUSIC REPRODUCTION that is not this this Japanese fellow?

 

[sigbergaudio]

@lashto I also explained to you on the very first page why this was irrelevant to music due to the fact that even with pure tones the sound had to be unrealistically loud to be relevant to music, and is guaranteed to be masked out by the rest of the music due to typical energy distribution in music content. You have yet to (even try to) explain why my argument is invalid.. You just keep repeating the same thing.

 

[lashto]

How does increasing FR to above 20k fix the non-flat response above 5-6k?

in the exact same way in which a car engine built for 120mph usually works best at 60mph. And one built for 60mph-only will seriously struggle at that speed (most will not even achieve 60mph in any practical way).

The F1&co people are building those beyond-car vehicles and their innovations trickle down to the whole industry. Which was only able to reach 100mph at affordable/practical costs because of those pioneers going way beyond. Many just for the sake of going.

The exact same is true in audio & most other places. If you design for only 20-20, your device will never (fully) achieve that. Start your design with a 1-100 target and you will finally get clean 20-20. .

 

[pkane]

in the exact same way in which a car engine built for 120mph usually works best at 60mph.

That, I'm afraid, is nonsense. Nonlinear frequency response in the audible range isn't fixed by increasing bandwidth.

 

[lashto]

@lashto

Who has to prove what: You are making claims, you have to prove. No confusion.

The only 'claim' I made is A=A.
Proof is only needed for B=A. For example 20-20-audio = 1-100-audio.

Beyond that : The way you argue is problematic and makes this more difficult for you than it could have been.

There is very little me-oppinion in this open-question thread (if any). I am just a messenger.
But you are right, those messenger types can be very annoying and the good people know that you have to shoot them

You early on talked about hundreds of studies, now apparently it's thousands.

I actually did count them in some previous post. About 700 studies just from the citations in the first 2-3 big metas I posted. It's 100+ years of studies and observations done by ~every health/enviromnent agency on earth, most health companies and all sorts of other concerned researches.
AFAICS, everyone in the science depatment knows that "inaudible matters" and is very concerned about it.

Still you refuse to provide even a single reference to a specific claim when I ask for it.

Because I did already and you refuse to read...

Do you have even a single reference to a study indicating benefit of beyond 20khz IN THE CONTEXT OF MUSIC REPRODUCTION that is not this this Japanese fellow?

And if one complains about missrepresentation, the answer is ... more of it
Here's the real identity of 'this japanese fellow':

• multiple groups of Japanese/Asian researchers who either participated in the (multiple) initial studies or replicated some of them.
• a dedicated institute of Information Medicine, (partially) started because of the hypersonic research. No need to speak Japanese, just wait a few seconds and you'll see "Hypersonic Effect" in the main picture.
• just one other japanese fellow. A knows-nothing guy with publications cited by other 10000+ know-nothings.
• tens of science journals and organizations that did publish this kind of research including Nature, JAS, AES...

And for your own pleasure here's an (indeed problematic) duplicate-post:
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.

Not sure how the conclusion could've been more crystal-clear than that... but please do state your next wish

 

[SIY]

Here's the baseline hypothesis on FR: an orchestra produces sound in the 1-100+ frequency range (proof linked in OP). If you want to replicate the live-listening experience, you have to record and reproduce the entire frequency range produced by that orchestra.
That is the common-sense, base-hypothesis which needs zero proof (because it just states an obvious A=A)

I bolded the incorrect (or, at best, requires proof) part of your hypothesis.

As soon as someone says "common sense," bullshit meter should rise into the 90s.

 

[MAB]

a dedicated institute of Information Medicine, (partially) started because of the hypersonic research. No need to speak Japanese, just wait a few seconds and you'll see "Hypersonic Effect" in the main picture.

That one really sealed the deal.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Veils are now lifted.

All of the quantum healing institutes were necessary verification of quantum mechanics.

If only Boltzmann had a Institute of Thermodynamic Medicine he would have died a happy man.

You ride that Gish gallop pony, you cowboy!

 

[sigbergaudio]

@lashto

I'm not sure who is not reading.

1) As I have stated before, I am not interested in medical studies. Someone measuring brain waves does not prove benefits in the context of music reproduction. You are missing the point. No one is denying it is possible for some human beings to hear high SPL, high frequency sounds. The question is what practical significance this has for music reproduction. Based on the available information, it is overwhelmingly likely that the answer is none at all.

2) You are not claiming A=A, you are claiming that it is obvious that we need higher than 20khz for audio reproduction, but are not following up this claim with anything resembling supporting proof.

3) You are only looking for proof for your own ideas and ignoring the rest of the data. For the rest of us, "can be" in the conclusion of a paper is nowhere near crystal clear. On the contrary it means the result is inconclusive.

 

[lashto]

I bolded the incorrect (or, at best, requires proof) part of your hypothesis.

or you can even delete it:

If you want to replicate the live-listening experience, record and reproduce the entire frequency range produced by that orchestra.

or you can re-formulate to an even higher scientific level of nitpicking pleasure:

The simplest, most obvious and most fool-proof way to replicate a 1-100+ orchestra is to record and reproduce 1-100+.

And the main point stays ... and noone needs to prove it ... and the burden of proof is still on the 'other' side.

 

[SIY]

You are not claiming A=A, you are claiming that it is obvious that we need higher than 20khz for audio reproduction, but are not following up this claim with anything resembling proof.

Mostly, it's a backwards error. Yes, if you reproduce an acoustic field from DC to daylight exactly, you'll have perfect sonic fidelity. That is quite different than saying that in order to have sonic fidelity, you have to reproduce DC to daylight. That's the hypothesis being tossed out there with no evidence and no inclination to gather any. Russell's Teapot.

Putting aside, of course, that high bandwidth stuff is commercially available, but no-one seems to have demonstrated its superiority.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Putting aside, of course, that high bandwidth stuff is commercially available, but no-one seems to have demonstrated its superiority.

This sentence sums it up. These arguments have been thoroughly debated and concluded years ago.

 

[sigbergaudio]

or you can even delete it:

or you can re-formulate to an even higher scientific level of nitpicking pleasure:

And the main point stays ... and noone needs to prove it ... and the burden of proof is still on the 'other' side.

It's somewhat arrogant to put forward a claim, and then argue that the burden of proof does not belong to you (who made the claim), but anyone who contradicts you.

This is fine if you just want to troll, but not if you want anyone to listen.

 

[lashto]

@lashto

I'm not sure who is not reading.

can I be?

1) As I have stated before, I am not interested in medical studies. Someone measuring brain waves does not prove benefits in the context of music reproduction. You are missing the point. No one is denying it is possible for some human beings to hear high SPL, high frequency sounds. The question is what practical significance this has for music reproduction. Based on the available information, it is overwhelmingly likely that the answer is none at all.

And the science quoted just above and just for you says the exact opposite.
A very non-medical meta study.
Done by a digital music, EE, AES, PhD researcher.
with music:

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the ability of test subjects to perceive a difference between high resolution and standard, 16 bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz audio.

with hundreds of people listening to music:

All 18 published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis involving over 400 participants in over 12,500 trials.

and with pretty clear and pretty positive conclusions about beyond-20-20:

Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional levels.

P.S.
quite sure I am not the only one annoyed about the 'endless' repetitions in this thread. But who knows, maybe someone will post the science/evidence that says 20-20-audio = 1-100-audio.
Otherwise, I'll have a break... the EU footbal championship may be a bit more enjoyable. Not necessarily for Norway, but you can't have it all