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

[Human Bass]

It would be useless. 20khz is already an extremely high pitch. Go listen to a 16khz sine, it is already piercing.

 

[MRC01]

Here's a quick example of the spectrum of castanets I just pulled from a CD recording. It is a flute quintet with a single castanet player. Here's the spectrum when just the flutes are playing:

When the castanet player starts clicking away with the flutes, the spectrum becomes this:

 

[lashto]

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?

We surely do . IMO, audible or not is not an end-all argument. But that would be a somewhat offtopic/parallel discussion.

Here's my 'bottomline': those infra/ultra sounds are present in a live performance and I want them in my home too. A 'simple' accuracy wish.

Whether that will make a difference or not, I don't know. Almost nooone knows, because the 20-20 limitation usually starts at the microphone level ... most of the time, that stuff is not even recorded. But apparetly everyone-but-me knows it is not important. How exactly?!

Did anyone actually try?
Can anyone post a study/paper/etc that investigated those ultra/infra-sounds and clearly concluded that they do not matter ... and/or that 20-20 actually gives you a 100% identical experience ?! I found zero.
OTOH, I found several hundreds that say the exact opposite.

(https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/download/1292/588/6660#:~:text=The violin, with a broad,comparison to the other instruments.)

nice paper, thanks for the link.

 

[lashto]

Here's a quick example of the spectrum of castanets I just pulled from a CD recording. It is a flute quintet with a single castanet player. Here's the spectrum when just the flutes are playing:
View attachment 376135

When the castanet player starts clicking away with the flutes, the spectrum becomes this:
View attachment 376136

nice examples.
But that is not what a castanet plays, it's just the spectrum of what was recorded on the CD: i.e. there is nothing above 20kHz "by default"

Also, a typical microphone does not even cover the 20-20 range. Top3 most popular according to Thomann (big seller of audio pro/recording equipment):
https://www.thomann.de/intl/shure_sm_7b_studiomikro.htm: 50-20
https://www.thomann.de/intl/shure_sm57_lc.htm: 40-15
https://www.thomann.de/intl/rode_nt_5.htm: 20-20
Only one of those can (barely) record 20-20.

https://www.grasacoustics.com/microphone-guide/frequency-range. These are (suposedly) some of the best mics in the world. And still, not a single one of them covers the 1-60 range I proposed in the OP.

 

[MRC01]

I mentioned jangling keys earlier, so here's the spectrum for that. I recorded this with a Rode NT1A mic at 96-24. The limiting factor here is the mic, as it's all-purpose not specifically designed for high frequencies. Yet ultrasonics show up strong here despite the mic attenuating them. To really see the spectrum you'd need a better microphone. There's a lot here that only your dog or cat can hear.

 

[EJ3]

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.

I agree! And if we could exceed light speed? Maybe we could get to work before we left home??!

 

[solderdude]

We surely do . IMO, audible or not is not an end-all argument. But that would be a somewhat offtopic/parallel discussion.

Here's my 'bottomline': those infra/ultra sounds are present in a live performance and I want them in my home too. A 'simple' accuracy wish.

just use 24/96 recordings and you have 5Hz - 40kHz recordings.

 

[popej]

Can anyone post a study/paper/etc that investigated those ultra/infra-sounds and clearly concluded that they do not matter ... and/or that 20-20 actually gives you a 100% identical experience ?! I found zero.

ABX has like 50 years of history:

ABX Double Blind Tests: Filters, Fourth Order

Today you can do ABX at home. Why don't you try yourself?

 

[lashto]

I mentioned jangling keys earlier, so here's the spectrum for that. I recorded this with a Rode NT1A mic at 96-24. The limiting factor here is the mic, as it's all-purpose not specifically designed for high frequencies. Yet ultrasonics show up strong here despite the mic attenuating them. To really see the spectrum you'd need a better microphone. There's a lot here that only your dog or cat can hear.

View attachment 376142

thank you, I was actually looking for exactly that sound & spectrum!
This thing was actually DBT-ed as audible. IIRC, there is a 16/44 vs 24/192 test by @amirm somewhere on ASR .. and I seriously doubt he can still hear 20+. (.. or maybe it was an mp3-320 test .. can't remember)

But nooo .. we dont need 24/192 .. we don't need more than 20-20 .. and we should be more grateful for the severely truncated stuff that we get.
/sarcasm

just use 24/96 recordings and you have 5Hz - 40kHz recordings.

I do. Actually, for my just-to-be-sure wishlist I would pick 32/192 as minimum.
However, that is a bit of a scam at the momemnt .. since most mics cannot even record 20-20

 

[Chromatischism]

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)

So who's pushing Hi-Res audio?

 

[doalt]

So, why are we in the audio world supossed to be happy with that seriously truncated 20-20 audible range?!

I think I understand the argument of pushing technical boundaries for engineering excellence. But this question may be comparing apples to oranges.

The other examples you mentioned are on the consumer side, and they have at least some possibility of getting end user's attention. With a more-than-retina phone one could stick it to his/her face and notice the difference. With a high-res mouse one could scale the hell up on his/her mouse sensitivity and notice the difference. Even though they are not common use cases, they serve to demonstrate the excellence of the product and may justify the cost.

In audio, consumer products are already beyond the 20-20k range. There are 384khz DACs and speakers that claim to play 30k-40khz. The question is what content can actually showcase the benefit of such extended range to a regular consumer in his/her own home, or even in a showroom? If there is none, how can we persuade audio companies to spend the extra cost and produce something that consumers won't pay for?

So who's pushing Hi-res audio?

Yes this too. Supposedly we already have over 24khz audio but I am not sure how many of those actually have the higher frequencies.

 

[krabapple]

So my take on this is: so what if someone wants to increase the high frequency limit for recordings? Not the first time this has been proposed (see DSD, MQA, etc). If it became available, I would stupidly want to "upgrade" to it even though I know full well I can't hear it.

The HF limit for recordings has been higher than 20kHz for decades now. Recording at 96kHz sample rate (0-48 kHz bandwidth) is common, even if delivery was at CD rate. 48kHz SR deliver of audio has been standard on DVD since forever.

The reasons for this are not that anyone hears music or soundtrack content above ~20 kHz.

 

[oleg87]

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

What are you talking about? Hi-res audio *was* pushed. Sony’s been trying to make it happen for decades. The problem, of course, is that it offers zero value.

 

[krabapple]

are you saying there is no marketing in audio?

No one here but the willfully obtuse would fail to understand what I meant by 'marketing' as a reason for touting higher numbers (in this case, for bandwidth)

my bet is on lack of vision and/or skills.

You lose on both counts. The 'vision' for 'hi rez' has been touted for decades now, since Bob Stuart started shilling for it in the 1980s ; the skills and technology have been around for as long.

 

[krabapple]

yep, that is one of the issues: current audio tech isn't even capable of covering 20-20 in a 100% clean manner

Another untruth, unless you are referring to transducers, or to a preposterous, unreal in a universe with laws of physics standard of "100% clean"

 

[lashto]

ABX has like 50 years of history:

ABX Double Blind Tests: Filters, Fourth Order

Today you can do ABX at home. Why don't you try yourself?

interesting idea. Did you also spend some time thinking about that test?
I actually did, here are some 'findings':

• there are no reliable commercial recordings that go outside 20-20. Only way to test is to buy a mic and record your own music. Mic alone costs several thousands.
• I have no audio equipment that reliably plays outside 20-20. And there isn't that much in the consumer area, particularly in the speaker area (although some do claim). That would be another multi-thousand investment in pro level übersubs, super-tweeters etc.. which I'll have to somehow test myself because that kind of testing is done by ~noone.
• I am just a sample of one .. one of those old guys who can barely hear 15-16 kHz. Not exactly the most helpful/relevant test.

So .. not gonna happen soon. Neither for me nor for anyone else.

 

[krabapple]

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?


View attachment 376123



(https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/download/1292/588/6660#:~:text=The violin, with a broad,comparison to the other instruments.)

“Student research”, but fits the bill.

Yes, can we all just agree that a theoretically infinite series of harmonics are generated by musical instruments (except for a synthetized pure sinusoidal), but in the real world their amplitude quickly reduces to inaudibility beyond 20kHz if not before? No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[popej]

So .. not gonna happen soon. Neither for me nor for anyone else.

Great summary of the problem.

 

[lashto]

You lose on both counts. The 'vision' for 'hi rez' has been touted for decades now, since Bob Stuart started shilling for it in the 1980s ; the skills and technology have been around for as long.

Hi-res recording means nada if there is no equipment to play it. Or mics to actually record it. Or mix-room engineers who actually care about it.
That does not sound like much of a vision to me. And the skills/equipment are still missing in 202x.

Hi-res during the 80's was a pretty empty bottle. Still is, largely. Not a big wonder that it does not sell very well (actually, I'd say it sells amazingly well for an "empty bottle").

 

[krabapple]

interesting idea. Did you also spend some time thinking about that test?
I actually did, here are some 'findings':

• there are no reliable commercial recordings that go outside 20-20. Only way to test is to buy a mic and record your own music. Mic alone costs several thousands.

You really seem to lack some knowledge here. There have been commercial hi rez releases that 'go well outside ' 20-20k, released on DVDA, SACD, and BluRay since around the year 2000*. You can verify the existence of 'signal' beyond 20kHz with any waveform viewer that has a spectral analysis function.



*not all such 'hi rez' releases actually have any content above 20kHz ....a rather amusingly frequent number of them e..g on HDtracks, do not ....which is one of the signs of marketing hype in that realm, aimed directly at true believers like lashto. But there certainlydo exist releases which were recorded and released at 'hi rez' rates.

• I have no audio equipment that reliably plays outside 20-20. And there isn't that much in the consumer area, particularly in the speaker area (although some do claim). That would be another multi-thousand investment in pro level übersubs, super-tweeters etc.. which I'll have to somehow test myself because that kind of testing is done by ~noone.

"Super tweeters' have been around for decades too. Subs that 'go' below 20Hz are hardly uncommon.

• I am just a sample of one .. one of those old guys who can barely hear 15-16 kHz. Not exactly the most helpful/relevant test

So .. not gonna happen soon. Neither for me nor for anyone else.

Yet will you go on spouting about how important it is for it to happen?