• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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 ?!

Does not seem possible .. nowadays at least.
I think infinite bandwidth is mathematically impossible for any physical system. However, this is just a strong intuition, not something I happen to be able to show equations for. I am sure someone around here knows more.

And I just can't find a single, proper, 120kHz recording to try
Perhaps that's a sign. Even the "everything matters" people with funny rocks on their systems and cryo-treated gold cables (some of whom actually do recordings and stuff) don't bother with it. ;)
 
But I was refering to the clean-to-infinity aspect of ADC/DAC: i.e. no filter, no 'tricks', just generate clean A & D signals at any and all frequencies. Does not seem possible .. nowadays at least.
Or at any time in the future. Nothing goes to infinity except Buzz Lightyear.
 
Concert halls are large higher frequencies dissapates faster in air . Wonder how much if any ultrasound is left at the typical listening distance ?
So listening to actual live acoustic music in a large venue might not contain much ultrasounds at all ?

Investigate 2L recordings, they have very high sample rate recordings or DSD and are generally technically excellent and do recordings of mostly classical . If there is no ultrasound in them it’s not because they did not try .

Microphone placement is an artistic and practical choice of the recording engineer, maximum capture of ultrasound may not coincide with the best overall sound . I think extremely closely microphone placement is key here , so maybe some modern more produced jazz recording when the cymbals are close to the microphone ?
But the engineer can’t really now as he like other Homo sapiens are incapable of monitoring this mostly because of anatomy .
So you need to look at spectrums .

I think Julf is correct here the original studie with these fantastic claims are bunk , if there where something to it similar real results would pop up all the time from real scientists.

Buy a dog whistle, they are very loud and some of them are only ultrasound apart for the slight wheeze produced by the air.
Aka a Galton pipe . Galton a 19 century reasearcher used these to determine the hearing range of different animals.
Before electronics tuned pipes or whistles were the tools available.
So our typical limits human, cat ,dog etc where mostly established with real acoustical sources .
 
Using a Tsutomu Oohashi paper as the "killer evidence" :facepalm:
 
sub 20Hz is more rattling windows and furniture.
Kick in the chest is much higher up and more related to SPL.
 
plasmatweeter from Magnat MP02 did just that. It just requires changing electrodes every 500hours or so but you will get omnidirectional > 20kHz goodness from 4.5kHz to 150kHz. Worked at 27MHz...
Great for reproducing CDA and watching YT vids...
interesting one. According to the internets it also weighs 10kg, produces some serious ozone and consumes 200W. All that for only €1500/piece, 30+ years ago. Very tempting :)
And even so, it looks like many brave souls did try them. There are even youtube vids playing whatever.

In comparison, the Lansche tweeter is quite a masterpiece. Below is a teardown of a Lansche Corona (seems to be the previous/old model). And that guy's site looks very interesting/promising
(german video but the english captions seem to work ~fine)

 
Can a super tweeter like THIS actually do anything to sound? My hearing now stops at around 14khz so count me out anyway.
 
Can a super tweeter like THIS actually do anything to sound? My hearing now stops at around 14khz so count me out anyway.
no idea but your 14kHz range is not the point here. The theory says that audible/inaudible does not matter, the sounds are still perceived: possibly as better musical enjyment, possibly as a headache ... the jury is still out :)

Some guys say it's audible: "the sound is more crisper and clearer"
Some other guy says audible too: better/bigger soundstage and more 'air'.
Is any of those guys credible?! I won't bet on that.

The tweeter seems ok-ish on paper although the 70dB efficiency is veeery low .. and I found no other measurements .. and it does not look particularly 'serious', more like a gimmick.
OTOH, it is the cheapest hypertweeter by far and as plug-n-play as it gets. It can even go into a headphone.

Many thanks for the link, I may actually try one if I manage to find some hobby-time this year.
 
no idea but your 14kHz range is not the point here. The theory says that audible/inaudible does not matter, the sounds are still perceived: possibly as better musical enjyment, possibly as a headache ... the jury is still out :)
"Theory" in the sense of "speculation" or "conjecture" rather than the scientific use of the word...
 
Investigate 2L recordings ... If there is no ultrasound in them it’s not because they did not try
did sound like a good idea. Unfortunately their demo-recordings page looks like this.
Found a download of a so called 192kHz demo disc of theirs. Admitedly of very questionable provenience!

About half of their 'highres' recordings looks like below. Super trusty highres that is :)
spectrogram-16.png


Most of the others are cut somewhere between 30-50kHz. Look like 96kHz recordings at best.

But a few look ~legit 192kHz. A Haydn Quartet below.
spectrogram-15.png


The spectrogram still seems quite strange, e.g. why are there 'empty' bands at ~70/50/40 kHz?! And the whole 40-80kHz band is quite empty/quiet and then the 80-90kHz band has approx the same sound energy as 30-40kHz. May be the dubious source, may be my software (sox), may be...

Anyway the answer for you should be quite clear: yes there is quite a bit of sound above 20kHz .. even in such a fairly dubious recording.

P.S.
and btw, cymbals are suposed to have the highest high-freq energy and there is none in this recording. This is just a small string quartet and it still goes to 90+kHz. A full grand orchestra should have a lot more high-freq energy. If someone can provide such a recording I'll do the spectrogram.
 
Last edited:
just a very, very small subset of the jury is still out.
For the rest of the jury the verdict is clear.
:)
don't know about your jury but mine is quite far out .. and not only on this subject but pretty much on anything that can (even remotely) be called science .. and frankly that's the only 'jury' I care about :p

Anyway .. a Happy new Year to you too!
 
Back
Top Bottom