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

[solderdude]

I think cymbals are the most common musical instrument that we'd expect to have the most ultrasonic content.

I found a dry recording of a single cymbal crash that sounded like it had a lot of high frequency content, here.

Here is the spectrum of that recording, plotted in Audacity.

View attachment 388008
At 20khz it's at -53dB, the peak at 600hz is -33dB. So we are down a mere 20dB across 19,400hz. Quite a lot of HF here.

So, this recording drops off quickly after 20khz, let's be generous and assume this is because of the mic / recording format, and the real sound would just keep going more or less linearly as it appears in this chart.

And this is the best-case scenario I can think of for hearing ultrasonics in real music. Blasting cymbals at maximum volume, just to get a faint whiff of an audible difference.

We're left with arguing for the tactile sensation of ultrasonics being important, which I guess is plausible, but I'm just going to say it's not well-established enough for people to go out and spend money on it.

Here is a high-res recording of a cymbal crash that is not limited to 20kHz in a studio.

Even at the hit (purple trace) the total SPL is close to 120dB SPL (measured up close).
20kHz is at 80dBSPL (so 40dB lower).
At 30kHz 60dBSPL so 60dB down.
At 40kHz = 30dBSPL so 90dB down.
At 60kHz you would end up with 20dBSPL (even if the crash was recorded with a recording mic reaching that, 192kHz file and the JBL (or any other speaker that can reach that)
When you ever heard music with peaks in it reaching 30dB SPL you would realize this is playing so soft that you cannot even hear anything in your average living room.
That level compared to standing very close to a cymbal hit with 115 dBSPL in the most sensitive part of our hearing.
How likely is it that @lashto would need to hear those softer than a whisper sounds (40kHz) standing next to a deafening cymbal crash.

That is something entirely different to hearing test tones at 80dBSPL (or 10kHz square-waves) and thinking overtones is what they can hear.

The experiment is very simple. Use a recording that has relevant to music ultrasonic content and sample it down to 44.1/24 and up-sample it back to the original bitrate, and then use ABX and see if you can spot the difference with gear.

If you can't tell the difference then CD is good enough for you. @lashto should do this for himself to prove 100kHz BW makes sense. I believe he already found out he can't even hear 20kHz so he cannot pass the test above anyway. That is unless he believes bone conduction or other mechanisms in his brain can 'detect' 40dB SPL HF content while listening to deafening music.

@lashto is doing the 'what if' thing and thinks just because speakers, gear, audio formats exist that reach well beyond 20kHz that this proves that >20kHz is needed for 'realism'.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Here is a high-res recording of a cymbal crash that is not limited to 20kHz in a studio.
View attachment 388061
Even at the hit (purple trace) the total SPL is close to 120dB SPL (measured up close).
20kHz is at 80dBSPL (so 40dB lower).
At 30kHz 60dBSPL so 60dB down.
At 40kHz = 30dBSPL so 90dB down.
At 60kHz you would end up with 20dBSPL (even if the crash was recorded with a recording mic reaching that, 192kHz file and the JBL (or any other speaker that can reach that)
When you ever heard music with peaks in it reaching 30dB SPL you would realize this is playing so soft that you cannot even hear anything in your average living room.
That level compared to standing very close to a cymbal hit with 115 dBSPL in the most sensitive part of our hearing.
How likely is it that @lashto would need to hear those softer than a whisper sounds (40kHz) standing next to a deafening cymbal crash.

That is something entirely different to hearing test tones at 80dBSPL (or 10kHz square-waves) and thinking overtones is what they can hear.

The experiment is very simple. Use a recording that has relevant to music ultrasonic content and sample it down to 44.1/24 and up-sample it back to the original bitrate, and then use ABX and see if you can spot the difference with gear.

If you can't tell the difference then CD is good enough for you. @lashto should do this for himself to prove 100kHz BW makes sense. I believe he already found out he can't even hear 20kHz so he cannot pass the test above anyway. That is unless he believes bone conduction or other mechanisms in his brain can 'detect' 40dB SPL HF content while listening to deafening music.

@lashto is doing the 'what if' thing and thinks just because speakers, gear, audio formats exist that reach well beyond 20kHz that this proves that >20kHz is needed for 'realism'.

Very good illustration. I did however say something to this effect on page 1 of this thread, so I am not very hopeful the message will have much effect..

 

[Hayabusa]

The experiment is very simple. Use a recording that has relevant to music ultrasonic content and sample it down to 44.1/24 and up-sample it back to the original bitrate, and then use ABX and see if you can spot the difference with gear.

Most likely for 80% of the people this experiment would tell us we can sample at 32Khz.
for 10% at 40Khz
for 5% at 44.1Khz
for 0.5 % at 48Khz
We should arrange for such a test, curious how the distribution would be...

 

[kemmler3D]

How likely is it that @lashto would need to hear those softer than a whisper sounds (40kHz) standing next to a deafening cymbal crash.

Hold a candle up to the sun and let me know.

 

[Mnyb]

Most likely for 80% of the people this experiment would tell us we can sample at 32Khz.
for 10% at 40Khz
for 5% at 44.1Khz
for 0.5 % at 48Khz
We should arrange for such a test, curious how the distribution would be...

Ive done some not to rigurous ABX sort of tests myself resampled some known hirez recordings myself copied equal amount off original files and downsampled files ( CD quality ) to a playslist and scrambled them a couple of times and had a go , this informal test gave my confidence that for myself i need not to go any further .

For the last 25 years i had equipment capable of >20kHz The digital side was 24/96 now it is 24/192 in my latest upgrade .

Speakers goes to something like 30kHz before the tweeters start to fall off .

In fact my current speakers actually have this "what if" design with a tweeter amp that goes to 40kHz the kef LS60 has Class D for Mid and Bass and a small AB amp for the tweeter to please the market .

I'm not sure about what my HD600 headphones can do ,it migth vary with how i place the cups over my ears .

So in reality neither recordings or almost anyones hifi is hard limited to 20k and have not been for a while .

Many recordings are 24/96 or better so good recordings where it mater have in fact a frequency response akin to 0-40KhZ or better , the majority of pop songs may still be 24/48 in the DAW , but then hf response is not a problem compared to how bad it sounds in general .

Most speakers does not die of at 20k but reach 25-27 k or more before some resonance and then taper of in some squiggly way but output is still there .

So just religiously avoid class-D amps and your there already and has been for a couple of decades

Funny enough no reliable sources has reported anything revolutionary about it , the high end and mags has gushed over hirez since the 2000's but that does not count .

 

[kemmler3D]

Funny enough no reliable sources has reported anything revolutionary about it , the high end and mags has gushed over hirez since the 2000's but that does not count .

Just like nobody from the anti-digital crowd noticed that MoFi was doing digital transfers the whole time. HMMmmmmm....

 

[Julf]

Just like nobody from the anti-digital crowd noticed that MoFi was doing digital transfers the whole time. HMMmmmmm....

Or knew about the digital delay lines in cutting lathes.

 

[solderdude]

Most likely for 80% of the people this experiment would tell us we can sample at 32Khz.
for 10% at 40Khz
for 5% at 44.1Khz
for 0.5 % at 48Khz
We should arrange for such a test, curious how the distribution would be...

The problem with this test is the used gear, which there is no control for, and for people analyzing the files and post 'educated' responses.
After all this is visible with a simple analysis.
I suppose many of this types of tests is already out there.
Like most audibility tests it will only give personal insight... if done right and will not yield definitive numbers.

I'm not sure about what my HD600 headphones can do, it might vary with how i place the cups over my ears .

HD650 at least reaches 30kHz (-10dB) so the HD600 will be very similar. Many headphones drop off earlier and steeper, some go beyond 30kHz.

 

[lashto]

Then why suggest 1Hz to 100kHz ?

I am actually suggesting 120kHz
Mainly based on the "life above 20kHz" study linked in the OP.

Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40 kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement limit of 102.4 kHz.
Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet, to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot, triangle, jangling keys, and piano.

The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most instruments; but
for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another, 0.5%;
forclaves, 3.8%;
for a speech sibilant, 1.7%;
and for the cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at the measurementlimit, so its percentage may be much higher.

So there is quite a bit of sound energy above 20KHz, even speech/voice goes above.
And the cymbal goes over 100kHz so I chose 120kHz as a somewhat random, just-to-be-sure limit...

 

[JustJones]

New improved components so your stereo can offer listening pleasure to our mammal friends from elephants to bats!

 

[Mart68]

No need to install a subwoofer in the system for kitty. But his 75KHz top end is impressive!

 

[lashto]

not sure why everyone keeps talking about audibility. Noone did pretend/argue that any of those ultrasonics were audible (in the 'classic' sense).

There are however more than enough studies that say they do have effects: on peoples' mood, health, hearing etc.. Some even found that 100+ kHz freqs actually can become very audible (in the 10-15kHz range IIRC) through not yet explained mechanisms. Somewhat similar to the old reports from people who can hear radio stations through tooth fillings. And reinforced by other studies who found that people exposed to high level of (industrial) ultrasonics do develop deafness in some very audible ranges (usually temporary deafness).

The various ultrasound hypothesises are only about the whole-body-effect of sound.
And since I posted enough hard science about the whole-body-effect, here's something different, a bit of 'popular' science.

Touch The Sound: a nice movie about a musician who plays multiple instruments and even won Grammy Awards in spite of being "legally deaf"

 

[solderdude]

I am actually suggesting 120kHz
Mainly based on the "life above 20kHz" study linked in the OP.



So there is quite a bit of sound energy above 20KHz, even speech/voice goes above.
And the cymbal goes over 100kHz so I chose 120kHz as a somewhat random, just-to-be-sure limit...

Just because some instruments have frequencies above the audible limit does not mean they are picked up by humans nor that they contribute anything to human perception and thus need to be recorded for the off chance that cats and mice might be enjoying that.

Its a bit like saying ... well our eyes are sensitive to the electromagnetic spectrum from 480THz (deep red) to 750THz (violet) so our monitors should be able to emit everything between 300THz (your 1Hz) and 2PHz (your 120kHz) just because that spectrum exists and it may be relevant (in one's dreams).

Sure IR is perceived as warmth and UV tans our skin but is that a reason for optical applications to have that range ?

 

[gamerpaddy]

if you increase the SPL enough you can feel any inaudible frequency, just work on a ultrasonic cleaner for a while and your ears feel fatigued and have pressure on them, even tho you just hear the slight buzz from cavitation not the actual hundreds of watts of ultrasound.

 

[lashto]

New improved components so your stereo can offer listening pleasure to our mammal friends from elephants to bats!

View attachment 388602

and what exactly is wrong with your cat/dog/etc having more musical enjoyment? Or at least not being tortured by some "sound I did not pay for" in the ultrasonic range.
And btw, one of the ultrasonic studies involved lab-rats which apparently lived longer when listening to ultrasonic records of their natural environment.

And btw2,
I have a cat and she's even part of the testing procedure for any new component: if she leaves the room, the component leaves too
kinda like this guy .. hard to say if he enjoys or hates it but looks like he does hear something new/different

... could be some of this "great sound"

 

[lashto]

Just because some instruments have frequencies above the audible limit does not mean they are picked up by humans nor that they contribute anything to human perception and thus need to be recorded for the off chance that cats and mice might be enjoying that.

Its a bit like saying ... well our eyes are sensitive to the electromagnetic spectrum from 480THz (deep red) to 750THz (violet) so our monitors should be able to emit everything between 300THz (your 1Hz) and 2PHz (your 120kHz) just because that spectrum exists and it may be relevant (in one's dreams).

you just made a very good analogy FOR the infra/ultrasounds
And the literature supports it very well: same as infra-red, the infra-sounds have a lots of health applications. Anyone tried an infrared sauna?

Sure IR is perceived as warmth and UV tans our skin but is that a reason for optical applications to have that range ?

Big YES. There are a known health/sleep issues with LEDs (screens, lightbulbs etc) which produce too much blue/UV and not enough (invisible) infrared.

 

[EJ3]

You seem to have a tendency to appeal to authorities. Not sure either Olive or Toole would refer to themselves as audiophiles.

I'm going to call out here that maybe Oliver & Tool might not call themselves "audiophiles" but, in the general public (those who mostly know even only an inkling about them) do call them "audiophiles".

 

[Julf]

I'm going to call out here that maybe Oliver & Tool might not call themselves "audiophiles" but, in the general public (those who mostly know even only an inkling about them) do call them "audiophiles".

AFAIK Drs Olive and Toole tend to refer to themselves as researchers. Both have expressed their criticism towards the subjectivist audiophile culture.

 

[EJ3]

AFAIK Drs Olive and Toole tend to refer to themselves as researchers. Both have expressed their criticism towards the subjectivist audiophile culture.

Just saying what a large segment of other's (who don't know any better), call them.

 

[lashto]

@solderdude here's another bunch that did not get the 20-20-is-enough memo: the EISA Awards (The Expert Imaging & Sound Association)

The prize for integrated amplifier 2024-25 went to HiFiRose 280/180 . Specced 10Hz-100kHz and boasting some interesting features like "Active crossover to support Super Tweeter frequencies." And the marketing goes like

The human hearing range is known to have an upper limit of 15 - 20KHz. So why would it be necessary to build an amp with a higher range?
Using modern research and experience it's now perhaps a good time to question this belief.

Interestingly, it is also a classD device (GaN). Hope it gets measured. Slim chances but who knows, maybe I will update my oppinion of classD...