Certainly possible but of course our hearing could be evolving to hear 30hz-15khz better. Our survival might be better served.
-
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 ?!
- Thread starter lashto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hearing range
solderdude
Grand Contributor
The bottle neck was never the software but rather (affordable) hardware. A decade ago the audio range was already exceeded a few times.
That was achieved decades ago already. When you mean 24 bit range is limited by the noise floor than that is correct. The limit is physical so 24 bit is more than enough.
With DS, averaged over minutes and low pass filtered it is possible to reach 24 bit resolution but it will drown in noise.
There is no gain in 32 bits other than for computational reasons or when mixing several tracks in 24 bit at 0dBFS for instance. Pointless for reproduction.
Also pointless to go above 192kHz because the signals above 50kHz (if they are or have not drowned in noise) are not going to be picked up IRL by most instrument and singer microphones.
Needless to say both recording and playback side have been able to record everything that needs to be recorded far above and below the audible range. Even when one extends the audible range up to 30kHz.
There are speakers, headphones, DACs, amplifiers and recordings far exceeding 30kHz around already but many pieces of gear do not reach that nor does it seem to be needed for the majority of people.
Those that think it matters can buy and use gear and recordings exceeding even 30kHz. So is there really a need to rethink the '20-20kHz' band which is considered to be sufficient, again no one speaks of cutoff points here ?
That 'limit' in gear is not a limit at all.
Yes, most measurements in audio start at 20Hz and stop at 20kHz which seems to be your concern. I actually agree a bit and measure headphones from 10Hz to 30kHz for that reason, if only to see how steep the drop off is.
Amps and DACs can and often are measured even lower and higher.
Your cries for better extending gear and measurements have already been answered decades ago.... but for the majority of testing 20Hz to 20kHz is enough.
A better question would be at which cutoff points:
+/- 0.1dB, -0.5dB, -1dB, -3dB, +/-3dB, -10dB, -20dB, all of these are in use... this makes a LOT of difference and even quite an audible one... yet all of them measure 20Hz-20kHz
This is where the revolution should start... getting measurement guys and manufacturers to add the cut-off points to their frequency response numbers and include how and to what standard they were made.
Good luck getting the industry to do something as simple as that.
Fortunately there are manufacturers (often in the pro world) that already do that and there are no 20-20k numbers there.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
How To Ruin A Mix: Enough Already With The Cymbals - ProSoundWeb
Maybe death metal engineers can get away with the constant drone of metallic hash noise, but for everyone else, please continue to read on...
www.prosoundweb.com
and try:
- Thread Starter
- #484
It is of course much easier to lower the standards
If you talk to an audiologist, they'll say your hearing is 'perfect' if it fully covers the approx 100Hz - 8 kHz range.
I guess most of us can do that and we can already celebrate 'perfection' ... and the audio industry can also say that they are already way past 'perfection' ..
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Audiologists can measure up to 16kHz but as for them it is mostly about intelligibility of speech. The 100-8kHz range is all they need to examine that and they look at the bottom line of detection at some frequencies to see how much sensitivity is left to gauge hearing loss.
They do not care nor measure LF and HF extension of the hearing.
They do not care nor measure LF and HF extension of the hearing.
At 20hz-20khz you're correct. They're already way past perfection. No quotes.
JeremyFife
Major Contributor
I have to admire the OP's stamina and pursuit of a principle.
Personally, I just couldn't be bothered with something that is clearly a total waste of time for any practical purpose. Doesn't even seem worthwhile in terms of 'better' engineering.
Still an occasionally entertaining thread, and I'm learning snippets too which is always nice
Personally, I just couldn't be bothered with something that is clearly a total waste of time for any practical purpose. Doesn't even seem worthwhile in terms of 'better' engineering.
Still an occasionally entertaining thread, and I'm learning snippets too which is always nice
- Thread Starter
- #488
people keep saying that in this thread. But I have not seen a single example of a 'normally' priced mic/speaker/hp/amp that can cover even 20-30 in a 100% linear way.
This seems to be the only speaker on the face of earth that (almost) covers my 1-120 wish:
https://www.lansche-audio.com/products/no-9-2/
The FR specs say 18Hz - 150kHz. Wonderful. But then starts the long list of caveats:
- it weights 300+ kg. I'll need a new house for it. And I am more of a monitors+subs guy. So, not gonna happen anytime soon (and I am not even talking about the price!)
- even their smallest model weighs 50+kg and is too big for my 'taste'. And I guess no independent asr/erin/etc test will happen anytime soon (if only because of weight/logistics).
- that 150kHz spec seems to be just some number. Yes, the corona tweeter has ~0 mass and in theory can play to MHz or whatever. But their lead engineer stated that their measurement mics only go to 40kHz, see page 6 here. Admitedly, it is a 10 years old interview.
- the same 10 years old article shows some measurements too (page 5). That tweeter has pretty serious distortion above 90dB SPL. Not a huge issue for my usual listening levels but for $100K or whatever is the price, it should be a bit better.
Or maybe you have a better example of speaker/tweeter thant can actually play ultrasonics to 120 kHz...
Last edited:
Robin L
Master Contributor
So, you want playback gear that covers a frequency range that the vast bulk of people can't hear anyway, but when you see an example of what that would mean as an actual, available, design you express dissatisfaction because it's too expensive and inconveniently heavy/bulky?people keep saying that in this thread. But I have not seen a single example of a 'normally' priced mic/speaker/hp/amp that can cover even 20-30 in a 100% linear way.
This seems to be the only speaker on the face of earth that (almost) covers my 1-120 wish:
https://www.lansche-audio.com/products/no-9-2/
The FR specs say 18Hz - 150kHz. Wonderful. But then starts the long list of caveats:
If anyone has some newer info on those Lansche's, please link it.
- it weights 300+ kg. I'll need a new house for it. And I am more of a monitors+subs guy. So, not gonna happen anytime soon (and I am not even talking about the price!)
- even their smallest model weighs 50+kg and is too big for my 'taste'. And I guess no independent asr/erin/etc test will happen anytime soon (if only because of weight/logistics).
- that 150kHz spec seems to be just some number. Yes, the corona tweeter has ~0 mass and in theory can play to MHz or whatever. But their lead engineer stated that their measurement mics only go to 40kHz, see page 6 here. Admitedly, it is a 10 years old interview.
- the same 10 years old article shows some measurements too (page 5). That tweeter has pretty serious distortion above 90dB SPL. For $100K or whatever is the price, it should be a bit better.
Or maybe you have a better example of speaker/tweeter thant can actually play ultrasonics to 120 kHz...
As regards the tweeter having serious distortion above 90db spl, you haven't noticed that high frequency output drops dramatically as the frequencies get higher.
Sorry, but I can't take you seriously. It appears that you can't be satisfied.
- Thread Starter
- #490
that's what she said .. my audiologist I mean
solderdude
Grand Contributor
What you haven't seen is measurements showing they can do that.
For speakers ... sure below 20Hz (-1dB) is a tall order and can only be done using DSP.
Speaker and headphone amps easily measure below 10Hz and well above 30kHz.
as an example the cheap Topping L30-II
Amir stopped above 100kHz but am sure it can go on to 1MHz.
While were at Topping: speaker amp 80kHz -1dB, 120kHz -3dB
A20D DAC... not too expensive measurements up to 100kHz
As said for speakers the usual measurements go up to 20kHz that doesn't mean they can go above that. The same with headphone measurements. I have measured quite a few reaching 30kHz and have measured some even down to 3Hz (Austrian Audio Hi-X60).
Below the 30 year old Sennheiser HD580 ... 30kHz no problemo
cheap HE400i:
Do you really believe the speaker below truncates above 20kHz ? Just because it isn't measured doesn't mean it does.
The one below clearly starts peaking at 20kHz so is bound to have energy above 20kHz.
The measurement gear simply is not calibrated above 20kHz (mine isn't either) so it is not shown but it is there.
There are plenty of speakers that do not even reach 20kHz though and not all of those sound 'muffled' or lack 'sparkle' either.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #492
nope, did not "fail" anything.
The output only drops -7-8dB at 20kHz but then it raises again and at 40kHz is less than 5dB down. Both the drop and the (re)raise are quite mild, no "dramatic" drops anywhere in the measured 20-40 range .. and no idea aftewards. No fail, no drop, no drama ... just a big "nooone knows".
as opposed to the rest of people in audio who are totally satisfied
- Thread Starter
- #493
DACs/ADCs can do 1-120, not a problem (they have other issues but somewhat offtopic here).
There are also some amps linear to MHz. There was a pretty good trend for that during the 80s-90s-00s. But nowadays classD is going backwards, can't even do 20kHz properly.
Recording formats are ok too, 32/768 should be enough .. for now
Still missing in action:
- mics that can properly record 1-120 ... and therefore no recordings either.
- 1-120 transducers.
- few previous posters mentioned that there is no studio hardware/software to properly process 1-120.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
HOW would you ever be able to record and reproduce 1Hz (at 0dB SPL) and what acoustic or electronic music will have that ?
1Hz is a ridiculous demand. For IEMs and closed headphones... several Hz is possible. Not in any music so why would it be needed ?
What musical relevance is there at 120kHz ? Can you show that to be a necessity or even desirable ?
There is no 1-120kHz (what cut-off points) needed nor desired ... why the insistence ?
You've seen only some organ notes (and perhaps some electronic music) can reach 16Hz. This is possible with a subwoofer and/or DSP.
There are amplifiers and tweeters reaching 120k. There are recording formats that reach 120kHz. There are mics that can reach 100kHz.
Fine for research but not needed/essential for audio.
I believe you think the difference between live (not amplified) music and a recording must be outside of the 20-20k range... it isn't nor is it very likely.
1Hz is a ridiculous demand. For IEMs and closed headphones... several Hz is possible. Not in any music so why would it be needed ?
What musical relevance is there at 120kHz ? Can you show that to be a necessity or even desirable ?
There is no 1-120kHz (what cut-off points) needed nor desired ... why the insistence ?
You've seen only some organ notes (and perhaps some electronic music) can reach 16Hz. This is possible with a subwoofer and/or DSP.
There are amplifiers and tweeters reaching 120k. There are recording formats that reach 120kHz. There are mics that can reach 100kHz.
Fine for research but not needed/essential for audio.
I believe you think the difference between live (not amplified) music and a recording must be outside of the 20-20k range... it isn't nor is it very likely.
- Thread Starter
- #495
very glad to hear that! And the 25 thread-pages are way over my most optimistic expectations.Still an occasionally entertaining thread, and I'm learning snippets too which is always nice
Only wish that others will post more related info/studies/science... even the nay-nay sort is highly welcome. The only really new thing I learned was how US senators can have allergies with global effects .. but I am not pretentious
- Thread Starter
- #496
I believe that one huge difference between a live and recorded orchestra is outside the 20-20 range. And that is not some belief, it is measurable and it was already measured and 100% confirmed.
The only open question: how much does that difference matter for one's listening pleasure?!
I believe it counts a lot and I seen enough studies/science to support that (IMO). Some others are not convinced. Perfectly fine as a personal decision, but 20-20-is-enough-for-everyone needs some science/proof. Still totally MIA.
Truth is: none of us knows anything for sure! Because none of us measured, heard or even seen a proper 1-120 recording.
P.S.
yes, 1Hz is a bit ridiculous
For extra lolz, maybe someone can post a proper recording of an eartquake or volcano.
Last edited:
MAB
Major Contributor
@solderdude
It's OK. I showed supertweeters that were cheap and available in the late '70s, during the first >20kHz HiFi craze, it didn't stop OP from pretending these devices were unavailable, and taunting us.
It has been pointed out that the 'research' OP presented is effectively showing that subjects get scalp-itch when subjected to 100dB pure tones above 20kHz, or that OP is confusing sample rate with bit depth, or that citations that ultrasonic healing institutes don't represent evidence, or that many of the citations are by pro-HiRez shills. The citations that don't fall into the above categories are unfortunately thinly documented, with weak conclusions (none are particularly relevant to sound reproduction, no surprise given the availability for decades of supertweeters and amps with bandwidth to drive them). OP hasn't acknowledged the lack of actual sound energy above 20kHz (helps him peddle the 100dB pure tone studies I guess
) The problem seems to be the normal HiFi midlife crisis, where you realize your HF hearing sucks, and you start overcompensating by sticking supertweeters on top of your speakers. Now that OP has announced his true intention (while moving the goalposts), he wants some speakers that look like this for cheap:
No reason will stop this runaway midlife crisis. Your signature says it all:
"People have a tendency to overestimate their hearing capabilities."
It's OK. I showed supertweeters that were cheap and available in the late '70s, during the first >20kHz HiFi craze, it didn't stop OP from pretending these devices were unavailable, and taunting us.
It has been pointed out that the 'research' OP presented is effectively showing that subjects get scalp-itch when subjected to 100dB pure tones above 20kHz, or that OP is confusing sample rate with bit depth, or that citations that ultrasonic healing institutes don't represent evidence, or that many of the citations are by pro-HiRez shills. The citations that don't fall into the above categories are unfortunately thinly documented, with weak conclusions (none are particularly relevant to sound reproduction, no surprise given the availability for decades of supertweeters and amps with bandwidth to drive them). OP hasn't acknowledged the lack of actual sound energy above 20kHz (helps him peddle the 100dB pure tone studies I guess
) The problem seems to be the normal HiFi midlife crisis, where you realize your HF hearing sucks, and you start overcompensating by sticking supertweeters on top of your speakers. Now that OP has announced his true intention (while moving the goalposts), he wants some speakers that look like this for cheap:No reason will stop this runaway midlife crisis. Your signature says it all:
"People have a tendency to overestimate their hearing capabilities."
Wrong. Why do you keep deliberately spreading misinformation?
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
So, I think you need to take your own premise a little more seriously and think it through. The analogy between audio tech and TV / computer tech only works for the digital stuff.Nothing
And I am actually willing to pay less for a 1-120 speaker. Same as my 2023 4K TV did cost less than my (way worse) 80s PAL TV.
Half of the audio revolution you're talking about already happened in audio a long time ago. The advancements in silicon fabrication that brought faster GPUs and cheaper memory have also helped audio, so we have cheap DACs that can do 384KHz perfectly, etc.
Speakers rely on physical motion, they're a type of motor. Attempts to fundamentally improve on an old-fashioned voice coil have happened, but none has succeeded yet. A better analogy than computer for speakers is internal combustion engines. The engines (and speakers) of 2024 are much better than 1974, but not fundamentally different.
The problem with extending the frequency range either higher or lower is that it depends on physical motion.
Yes, you will need a fundamentally new transducer technology, but this is not trivial by any means. We're already at the point of using beryllium for diaphragms. Maybe MEMS or highly computed DML panels will be it, who knows?
It's just simple physics. And I mean simple, that's why we're not seeing the same revolution in audio as we saw in digital technology.
Digital tech was built on the back of the quantum revolution in physics from the turn of the 20th century. New physics enabled new tech.
Audio is based on classical physics, normal macroscopic wave mechanics. There's nothing new there, nor will there be. If you want more air to move, you just have to move it. The energies and wavelengths in question are fixed.
Maybe there is a more efficient transducer technology out there, but at the end of the day, you simply have to push a lot of air around. For the same reason you can't have a car that runs on a 100w battery, you can't have a 10hz subwoofer in the palm of your hand.
By the same token, there's no easy way around beaming because it's caused by waves interfering with themselves in the air. You can't just have a normal tweeter go up to 50khz and have the dispersion characteristic be good, you need a physically smaller tweeter.
There's no easy way to produce louder, infrasonic bass because you just have to move large volumes of air. That's what low bass IS. It's exponentially more difficult (in terms of energy) to create bass the lower you go in frequency, no matter what. Unlike silicon circuits, there is no straightforward way to get more performance out of the same raw materials. You can't get 1000w more power handling out of the same amount of copper just by being really clever about it.
I hope this answers your question. Audio has evolved exactly like the other domains (via the digital revolution) but when it comes to transducers, your answer is "physics".
I do think your revolution will happen eventually, though. At least to the extent physics allows it. However, I personally think it will happen from the bottom up. Transducer tech like MEMS or similar will be developed for low-cost / small-size applications and eventually scale up for full loudspeakers when the quality and economics make sense.
Last edited:
The frequency range of around 20 kHz may be soon taken for the use of "ultra-sound gesture recognition". For example, see:
Therefore, we may be going to hear a lot more ~20 kHz sound in the near future
Table from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...-Hou/67aa77e58ff6c0c14340bdf8e175bd17a0e2654f
Therefore, we may be going to hear a lot more ~20 kHz sound in the near future
Table from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...-Hou/67aa77e58ff6c0c14340bdf8e175bd17a0e2654f
Similar threads
