oleg87
Addicted to Fun and Learning
With the death of physical media we are slowly, though not surely, getting there - it's not uncommon for new releases to stream at >= 48khz.
-
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
Punter
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2022
- Messages
- 294
- Likes
- 1,368
I was recently putting together a batch of switching boxes for outside broadcast use which contained a mall booster amp for headphones. During the process of assembling and testing the units I was setting up the gain on the booster amps using a set of Beyer DT190 headphones. These are commentator cans and have full ear coverage and high levels of isolation. I was feeding 800Hz into the amp for testing but just for shits and giggles, I wound the incremental frequency up to see where my threshold of hearing was. I couldn't sweep the frequency, I just had the pre-set frequencies in the oscillator. To my shock and surprise, I hit the wall at 12.5K! The next preset was 15k and ..... no dice. I wound up the gain but to no avail, my 60 year old ears were not receiving any information. However, my enjoyment of recorded music is not affected as this roll-off is onlyy denying me the merest fragments of most musical instruments.
In truth, anyone composing music would rarely specify a major part of any arrangement that would use the upper limit of most instruments, not the least of which because these upper ranges don't sound very good. The top C of a piano for example, sounds pretty nasty. That "plink" has none of the power or sustain of mid-range notes so unless you're making a point or going for a little shock, you'd just leave it alone. The same goes for most conventional instruments barring purely electronic ones, the upper limit sounds pretty ugly. Spectrum analysis of music generally shows not much happening over about 12-13Khz and any harmonics in this upper range will be practically inaudible. It never ceases to amaze me that the "golden ear" brigade are almost always males over the age of 40 who would have a similar upper range of hearing to me. They claim to be able to detect so many subtle nuances and properties of music, usually connected with the thresholds of perception, though few of them will have had a hearing test to check their own biological equipment. So where HiFi is concerned, there's no point in shifting the accepted thresholds of hearing with respect to frequency when the bulk of HiFi hobbyists are well below the 20-20 band anyway.
In truth, anyone composing music would rarely specify a major part of any arrangement that would use the upper limit of most instruments, not the least of which because these upper ranges don't sound very good. The top C of a piano for example, sounds pretty nasty. That "plink" has none of the power or sustain of mid-range notes so unless you're making a point or going for a little shock, you'd just leave it alone. The same goes for most conventional instruments barring purely electronic ones, the upper limit sounds pretty ugly. Spectrum analysis of music generally shows not much happening over about 12-13Khz and any harmonics in this upper range will be practically inaudible. It never ceases to amaze me that the "golden ear" brigade are almost always males over the age of 40 who would have a similar upper range of hearing to me. They claim to be able to detect so many subtle nuances and properties of music, usually connected with the thresholds of perception, though few of them will have had a hearing test to check their own biological equipment. So where HiFi is concerned, there's no point in shifting the accepted thresholds of hearing with respect to frequency when the bulk of HiFi hobbyists are well below the 20-20 band anyway.
I have a special B&K 1/4" instrumentation/measurement microphone that is pretty flat up to 50K Hz. The trade-off for this performance is however noise. This small condenser mic is just less sensitive than the more common 1/2" and 1" capsules. I am not willing to audibly degrade my noise floor (which I can hear) for improved ultrasonic performance, which I cannot hear.
Anyway, if you wanted to do the full bandwidth recording experiment, you would have to start with the microphones. They exist, but they exhibit worse noise than SOA.
Anyway, if you wanted to do the full bandwidth recording experiment, you would have to start with the microphones. They exist, but they exhibit worse noise than SOA.
danadam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 2,020
That didn't really answer my question.
Let's say we have 44.1k recording with 21,550 Hz tone in it. The filter will somewhat attenuate that tone and will not fully attenuate the image at 22,550 Hz. We can potentially have IMD at 1,000 Hz. Ok.
Now let's say we have 48k recording with 21,550 Hz and 22,550 Hz tones in it. The filter will somewhat attenuate the first tone and attenuate a bit more the second tone. All images are fully attenuated. Isn't the potential for IMD at 1,000 Hz the same as in 44.1k case?
MRC01
Major Contributor
21550 is below Nyquist so we'll assume it is part of the recording - not an alias. Optionally, it can be filtered out since it's above the passband.
The image at 22,550 is above Nyquist so it is by definition ultrasonic noise and should be entirely attenuated. If it's not, then we could get intermodulation as you suggest. OK.
This is a different case. In the first case, the 22,550 tone was ultrasonic noise, by definition, since it was above Nyquist. It could not be in the original recording. But now, it's below Nyquist so if it's there at all, we assume it is part of the recording, not an ultrasonic noise alias.
MRC01
Major Contributor
Actually that is not bad for your age. My wife at 64 can only hear 8 kHz when it is close & loud, and can't hear the birds in her beautiful garden unless they are right next to her. There is a lot of personal variation. At 56 I can still hear the LCD screen on my smart remote, about 15 kHz but that seems to be my limit. I never could hear 20 kHz even as a teen, but I could hear up to about 18 kHz. And it's not all about the highest freq we can hear. Over the years people can develop specific notches at mid-treble frequencies, for example "violin ear" in the left ear for violin players.
However, on the brighter side, normal age related loss of high frequency hearing does not impair musical enjoyment for most people.
Don't forget that transients & timing are also important. For example when I ABX test high frequency attenuation using recordings having lots of HF energy like castanets or jangling keys, I can detect a cut at frequencies slightly higher than I can hear as pure tones. I can hear the subtle smearing and lack of crispness of the transients before I can hear the pure tones.
Does anyone really care about "hearing" the high frequency noise from castanets and jangling keys? Sounds like a waste of time to even consider it.
MRC01
Major Contributor
Some audiophiles do. Pretty much the definition of the hobby is interest in, or striving for, convincingly realistic reproduction of music.
More generally, it's not just castanets or jangling keys but also other small percussive sounds that are dulled or smeared without extended HF response.
Nothing above human audible range matters. Talking about dulled or smeared sounds is audiophool BS which they waste money on with snake oil crap.
MRC01
Major Contributor
I never said above human audible range. By "extended HF response" I meant extended to the range of human hearing, not ultrasonics. Dulled or smeared transients can be perceived when high frequency filters are applied in the passband. I have some audio clips you can ABX test to demonstrate what it sounds like.
No point. "Dulled or smeared" BS is what the MQA and other scammers were saying they "solved". I'm 62. My hearing cutoff is still slightly above 16 khz in spite of playing in heavy metal bands for years. I feel no need to hear transients from jangling keys. Nothing I consider music would benefit from that added noise.
CD quality is more than enough for actual music.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
You're not supposed to be happy with that.
Compact disc was always specified from the earliest working groups from DC to 20kHz. Most high quality players were flat from a few Hz and up from the 1980s on. A large value DC blocking/coupling capacitor was the only reason they didn't go to DC. (and the problems that would have brought)
A 1989 TOTL Sony:
Amplifiers, preamplifiers, vinyl cartridges and phono stages were often 50kHz out to hundreds of kilohertz in many cases. Some power amplifiers were specified out to several megahertz...
But measurements need to have a specified bandwidth. The greater the bandwidth, the more noise and artifacts. 20Hz-20kHz is about as tight as you can specify and still be classified as somewhat HiFi.
Back in the day, amplifiers with low power outputs and inexpensive builds, would specify 40 or 50Hz to 15kHz responses.
Me, I like a DC-Daylight design or at least something flat out to 100kHz in preamps, power amps and integrateds. They just sound better than bandwidth challenged designs- to me.
MRC01
Major Contributor
They can also refer to actual differences that can be reliably identified in an ABX test, with filters applied in the passband. Yet like many words, they are also abused by marketers and sellers of snake oil.
That's fine, the process of ABX testing subtle differences can be tedious and fatiguing, even while also being interesting and fun. If you're not into that, no problem. But your lack of interest doesn't make it any less real.
Well, I did say it is good enough for most people, most of the time, with most music.
And with speakers that matched that spec +-? (something) too.
You haven't looked around enough. There are such recordings. They are empty experiments. There's thousands of them. Try https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=32
As to gear, my current headphones have these specs: HEADPHONE FREQUENCY RESPONSE 5-40,000 Hz. The DAC resolves 32/384. That should cover the range you claim doesn't exist in audio by a factor of 4 at the least.
Doesn't make a darn difference on what me or for that matter millions of other people can hear, or the frequency ranges musical instruments operate within. But by all means look for FX playback and focus on listening to test tones - so much musical enjoyment there. This topic was discussed and tossed aside 40 years ago for good reasons.
Last edited:
Tell
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2024
- Messages
- 556
- Likes
- 825
Depends on the size and viewing distance of the final picture, how much you want to be able to crop in post, straighten up the image etc. So just as with audio it's always nice to capture stuff at as high resolution as possible so you have a lot to work with to get as a pristine end product as possible in the end. Personally I'm quite fine with my 24mpix Sony A7iii, but if I'd print stuff or shoot a lot of birds I'd probably go for a A7r instead with it's higher megapixel count.
grumpy day?sigh. This again?
What's heard with 'pure tones' is not necessarily translatable to normal music listening. Nor were the test conditions remotely akin to normal listening. This was investigation into what was *possible* for humans to hear, not into what they do hear , routinely.
Which is quite young and quite loud.
20 Hz is within the conventionally accepted audible range.
....when the playback level of the pure tone in the setup shown above was at least 91.9dB
..when the playback level of the pure tone in the setup shown above was at least 101.3 dB
You seriously want to hang your argument that ultrahigh frequencies matter for home audio listening,on this?
The 'low' frequencies they refer to are in the audible range (20-200 Hz) and the infrasound below that can be 'perceived' if 'level is sufficiently high'. There are plenty of audiophiles who already fetishize subwoofer output below 20 Hz, so what exactly is new here?
100dB is 'fairly ok'? Not for anything more than a short time, if you want to keep your hearing intact.
The OP makes clear valid points supported by evidence...
So why do you even respond?
The upper-limit of the fundamental tone... Ever heard of harmonics?
I think his points have been mostly refuted through the thread, so what do you suggest to be still valid points (in the context of music reproduction in your home)?
Similar threads
