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

[RayDunzl]

It's not "supersonic"

ul·tra·son·ic

adjective
of or involving sound waves with a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing.

 

[pablolie]

Because that graph is oversimplified.

How so? You are claiming harmonics below 28Hz and above 20kHz are the missing link to hearable audio nirvana? Or are you pioneering a marketplace that sells audio equipment to dolphins and bats? :-D

PS: Maybe even more species than that = https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

PS2: I can 200% attest to the spectacular superiority of my cat's hearing to mine. I do pass tests that confirm I hear to 17kHz - just recently. My cat not only hears 22kH easily (highest I can reproduce at home), but he detects my girlfriend coming to my place over 5 minutes before she even unlocks the door. He has jumped on my bed over a minute before a small-ish earthquake hits our place. And he did paw me on the face 2 minutes before a 4.3 hit us 2 weeks ago.

 

[MRC01]

How so? You are claiming harmonics below 28Hz and above 20kHz are the missing link to hearable audio nirvana? Or are you pioneering a marketplace that sells audio equipment to dolphins and bats? :-D

PS: Maybe even more species than that = https://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

Neither. Those are your words, not mine. I'm only stating a fact: some natural acoustic instruments produce ultrasonic frequencies. It's a well known fact because it is so easy to measure. Just record acoustic musical instruments with appropriate equipment and you'll see that some have ultrasonic energy.

Earlier I gave a few well known examples I discovered during my own recording. You can find plenty of other documented examples. None of this should be surprising.

 

[EJ3]

Neither. Those are your words, not mine. I'm only stating a fact: some natural acoustic instruments produce ultrasonic frequencies. It's a well known fact because it is so easy to measure. Just record acoustic musical instruments with appropriate equipment and you'll see that some have ultrasonic energy.

Earlier I gave a few well known examples I discovered during my own recording. You can find plenty of other documented examples. None of this is surprising.

Discovered: as in you saw a wave form on a screen? or Discovered: as in you heard the sound made by the wave form as it was forming on the screen?

 

[Chrispy]

No. For some uses maybe reduce it.

 

[MRC01]

Discovered: as in you saw a wave form on a screen? or Discovered: as in you heard the sound made by the wave form as it was forming on the screen?

Discovered: as in you see a wave form on a screen and confirm through repetition and analysis that it is not noise or distortion, but produced naturally by the instrument.

Whether you can hear it, under what conditions, is a whole 'nuther subject.

 

[pablolie]

Neither. Those are your words, not mine. I'm only stating a fact: some natural acoustic instruments produce ultrasonic frequencies. It's a well known fact because it is so easy to measure. Just record acoustic musical instruments with appropriate equipment and you'll see that some have ultrasonic energy.

Earlier I gave a few well known examples I discovered during my own recording. You can find plenty of other documented examples. None of this should be surprising.

None of us disagree about ultrasonic frequencies being around. We know there are. In fact we know that the entire universe showers us with waves and elements that are way beyond our limited 4-dimensional senses to detect. We'd be driven to immediate craziness if those senses suddenly were opened to us.

My point remains - sound we can measure is way beyond what we can hear. Images we can measure are way beyond what we can see. Etc etc. Yes, we know stimuli exist in the universe that transcend our imagination. Go grab a neutrino if you think otherwise. That does not in any way shape or form mean they are in any way relevant to our sensory system. We misuse measurements ("oh music instrument harmonics cover 2Hz to 42kHz in measurements!") to challenge the established and consistent measurement of the human hearing system. It's like saying "If my car could hit lightspeed I'd get to work faster" instead of realizing the total folly of it.

 

[MRC01]

None of us disagree about ultrasonic frequencies being around. We know there are. In fact we know that the entire universe showers us with waves and elements that are way beyond our limited 4-dimensional senses to detect. We'd be driven to immediate craziness if those senses suddenly were opened to us.

Perhaps you, but I was addressing @Brian Hall who said:

Those harmonics appear to all be below 20khz. Nothing musical above 20khz. Just noise.

My point is to clarify that the ultrasonics are not "noise" (the implication being measurement error or equipment-induced), but actual harmonic frequencies produced by the instruments.

... That does not in any way or form they are in any way relevant to our sensory system. We misuse measurements ("oh music instrument harmonics cover 2Hz to 42kHz in measurements!") to challenge the established and consistent measurement of the human hearing system. It's like saying "If my car could hit lightspeed I'd get to work faster" instead of realizing the total folly of it.

I hope we can discuss the full spectrum of the frequencies that musical instruments produce without misusing the terms or accusing each other of implying other things we haven't said. I was explicitly clear in my earlier comments about the typical range of human hearing and how environmental conditions affect what we hear.

 

[EJ3]

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

Looks like 15 Hz (covering the 16 Hz organ fundamental) to 17 KHz (covering the female voice & violin strings upper harmonics) is the sweet spot.
Good luck on the 16 Hz one. 17 KHz is commonly covered.

 

[Brian Hall]

Perhaps you, but I was addressing @Brian Hall who said:

My point is to clarify that the ultrasonics are not "noise" (the implication being measurement error or equipment-induced), but actual harmonic frequencies produced by the instruments.

Ultrasonics are noise that we are incapable of hearing. Just like ultraviolet light is outside the range our eyes can see. Do you want a TV to produce infrared and ultraviolet ranges to be considered good? How about x-rays? Can we leave that out?

Reproducing and amplifying ultrasonic frequencies will accomplish nothing other than bothering the dogs and other small animals within hearing range.

I hope we can discuss the full spectrum of the frequencies that musical instruments produce without misusing the terms or accusing each other of implying other things we haven't said. I was explicitly clear in my earlier comments about the typical range of human hearing and how environmental conditions affect what we hear.

A dog whistle is not a musical instrument.

 

[kemmler3D]

My point is to clarify that the ultrasonics are not "noise" (the implication being measurement error or equipment-induced), but actual harmonic frequencies produced by the instruments.

Right, instruments can sometimes produce ultrasonics in their high harmonics - although they're low in amplitude, they exist. Cymbals can often include ultrasonics in the attack. And you can always appeal to synthesizers in these discussions, which produce whatever frequencies you want.

Nobody is saying these frequencies are important to actual music listening, but calling them noise is technically incorrect, they're part of the signal, even if you can't hear them or reproduce them properly.

 

[lashto]

More detail on frequencies that matter. From: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119164746.app2

View attachment 375985View attachment 375986

here's an easier, nicer chart form

yes, the fundametals are all below 10kHz.
But that fundamental is just a sort of "beep" sound. Everything else about an instrument's 'sound' is in the so called envelope and in the 10++ harmonics it generates. And those go way over 20kHz.

 

[lashto]

Not really progress, is it? More like a peacock showing feathers. Pointless.



Lack of information above 20kHz making music more realistic and/or more enjoyable?

as expected, most responses are from the category "20-20 ought to be enough for everyone". Answering yours cause it is the most concise

There was the exact same reaction when Apple introduced the retina screens: laughing, go away, nooone needs it and so on and on ... 'surprinsingly', the tune changed after they sold millions of those devices.

And just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's all unnecessary .. it still does not explain the big discrepancy between audio and ~all other industries/domains.
Everyone else is still pushing for more, even if it's not needed and/or there are no clear studies. I am also not aware of any benefits of 1000 PPI screens or 20000 DPI mice but still, everyone is pushing those limits.
In audio, everyone seems to be pushing for ... ~nothing (i.e. nothing outside this 50 years old tech limitation of 20-20)

 

[ZolaIII]

I now hear 17 to 16500 Hz in my 44th year but it's not about that. 16 KHz to 35 Hz true peek capacity is what you should aim at. There is very little in recorded music materials above 12.5 KHz so 16 is really enough and in electronic music peaks are about 32~35 Hz so you need capable system there (DR) to keep up with it and equal loudness compensation requirements.

Edit: and that's a really good thing to know as with age how your, mine and everyone else's hearing becomes worse regarding top end you still won't lose almost anything regarding enjoyment of music listening.

 

[lashto]

..
because marketing?

are you saying there is no marketing in audio?

my bet is on lack of vision and/or skills.
There is also the deafening lack of consumer push. But it's not like anyone was asking for 300 PPI retina-screens 10 years ago. It was pretty much a one-man-push by Steve Jobs. He got the vision and was able to gather the money & skills. And after all those not-needed 'giggles', it turned out that he was actually aiming too low

 

[lashto]

Another Floyd Toole quote:

"I have dedicated my work to solving the "10dB" problems first, the 5dB problems next so on."

yep, that is one of the issues: current audio tech isn't even capable of covering 20-20 in a 100% clean manner
And with such "10dB problems" stillon the table, it's indeed kind of pointless to talk about "1dB issues" .. or maybe not ...

 

[ZolaIII]

are you saying there is no marketing in audio?

my bet is on lack of vision and/or skills.
There is also the deafening lack of consumer push. But it's not like anyone was asking for 300 PPI retina-screens 10 years ago. It was pretty much a one-man-push by Steve Jobs .. and it turned out that he was actually aiming too low

A lot of it and a bad one, we use to call it snake oil.
I whose first one to celebrate when they made 4K display for smartphone (and it whosent Apple thank God nor you need one on 6" display) as from then they could focus on improving more quality related issues (better brightness/contrast/calibration) and they did tho we aren't there yet.

 

[Midwest Blade]

Once again it seems that the developers of the cd we’re pretty astute in their 16/44 sample rate.

 

[ahofer]

here's an easier, nicer chart form

yes, the fundametals are all below 10kHz. But that fundamental is just a sort of "beep". Everything else about an instrument's 'sound' is in the so called envelope and in the 10++ harmonics it generates. And those go way over 20kHz.

But we keep coming back to *at what (relative) level*. Recording spectral analysis will give you some answers. Have we even established that these higher harmonics are discretely audible in music?

(https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/pa...h a broad,comparison to the other instruments.)

“Student research”, but fits the bill.

 

[MRC01]

... A dog whistle is not a musical instrument.

Castanets are musical instruments (though some may debate that ).
They are a good choice for AB testing low pass filters because they have so much HF content, you can hear subtle differences with castanets that are inaudible when using other sounds for testing.