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

[lashto]

It does happen in audio.

32/384 PCM or 32/352.8k DXD and DSD1024 not enough for you ?

32/384 sounds like a good start
... but kinda useless without any mics/recordings that are truly 32/384 and without any transducer to play 32/384

 

[JeremyFife]

Isn't that interesting. The missing harmonic effect allows us to reconstruct lower fundamentals by hearing the harmonics, this is why we can "hear" bass which is not being reproduced by the speaker. I wonder if this suggests that an upper frequency version of the "missing harmonic effect" might exist - you hear the fundamental, but reconstruct the harmonics in your head. As far as I know there is no such thing, but just because nobody has done a study doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I believe you are telling the truth, now it makes me wonder how such an experiment could be designed.

As I understand it, if you can hear the harmonic then your brain reconstructs the fundamental. However, since we cannot hear ultrasonics the brain cannot reconstruct anything.

The question will be (no doubt) can we "sense" the ultrasonic in some other way so that the brain has something to work on. I'm pretty sure that we cannot - but this needs an audio science answer to confirm.

With apologies to those audio scientists who have been answering this stupid question repeatedly ...

 

[ElJaimito]

Simple: we hear with our ears, so trying to produce what we can hear seems to be a good starting point for music reproduction.

Sorry. With my psychologist hat on, I have to respond to this! We do NOT hear with our ears. There is no mechanism to transfer sound from the ears to the brain. What is transferred is much more interesting, and can be regarded as a heavily weighted and highly parallel hint and inference system, which remarkably works round the limitation of our nervous system having roughly a maximum nerve transfer rate of around 1 kHz:

Firing Frequency Maxima of Fast-Spiking Neurons in Human, Monkey, and Mouse Neocortex - PMC

Cortical fast-spiking (FS) neurons generate high-frequency action potentials (APs) without apparent frequency accommodation, thus providing fast and precise inhibition. However, the maximal firing frequency that they can reach, particularly in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We hear with our brain. And what it hears is influenced by mood, drugs (alcohol, coffee...) and most importantly expectation and simultaneous sensory experience.

This is why it is necessary to be so rigorous in designing test modalities to give ourselves the best possible chance of ensuring an identified difference is real, and not an artefact of our perceptual system. Try:

The auditory stimulus reduced the visual inhibition of return: Evidence from psychophysiological interaction analysis - PMC

Visual inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism for preventing attention from returning to previously examined spatial locations. Previous studies have found that auditory stimuli presented simultaneously with a visual target can reduce or even ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sound Improves Neuronal Encoding of Visual Stimuli in Mouse Primary Visual Cortex - PubMed

In everyday life, we integrate visual and auditory information in routine tasks such as navigation and communication. While concurrent sound can improve visual perception, the neuronal correlates of audiovisual integration are not fully understood. Specifically, it remains unclear whether...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Auditory context-dependent distraction by unexpected visual stimuli - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Research findings indicate that when a task-irrelevant stimulus feature deviates from an otherwise predictable pattern, participants performing a categorization task exhibit slower responses (deviance distraction). This deviance distraction effect reflects the violation of the sensory...

link.springer.com

...for just a taste of the issues that arise. And this is why A/B/X testing is critically important in making evaluations of perceived differences...

(The eyes are just as bad. Complete parallel processing and image identifying systems embedded behind the retina).

 

[ahofer]

'Suprinsigly' similar to audio: infrasounds have all sorts of healthy applications and ultrasounds not so much (mostly the opposite)

Yet present only in homeopathic quantities in voice or music.

 

[Ron Texas]

The last time I was 25 was so long ago I can't even remember.

 

[lashto]

As usual for car analogies, inapt. No-one pushes for "more" things that are unrelated to the car's performance for its intended purpose (whether speed, handling, efficiency, capacity, crash safety...).

almost any modern car can do 100mph. Not only not needed for 99% of the people 99% of the time, but also illegal/forbidden almost everywhere. Is that your example of a "rational push for speed" done by car people?

I thought you may reply with something like "it does not happen in audio because the audio people are more rational" .. at least, that would've been a good joke

 

[Sal1950]

I did read a few interesting stories from the CD era. With the 70s tech they had, those guys actually did an amazing job. 20-20 was a big wow-achievement for their time. But it's 50 years later, should be fine to ask for a bit more.

The vast majority of recordings today are done at 24/96 or better.
2L masters at DXD 24/352.8
Do we really need "a bit more" than that?
Lets not go insane with file sizes please.

 

[sigbergaudio]

... cause CD goes to 0Hz in theory only. Not sure if there is anything below 10Hz on any CD. And if there was, we can't play it.
... cause of those hundreds of studies I posted which say both infra and ultra sounds do matter. For health/wellbeing and most propbably for the music/sound/vibration experience too.
... cause of accuracy. A live performce 'vibrates' in the 5-50 range (ballpark numbers, I did not actually check). The rest up to 100+kHz is the just-to-be-sure-buffer.
... cause other people hear to 28kHz. And I do care about a bit more than just me. Not exactly a primary reason, but still

I think @krabapple had the right reaction in post #2 when he went "sigh."

 

[lashto]

The vast majority of recordings today are done at 24/96 or better.
2L masters at DXD 24/352.8
Do we really need "a bit more" than that?
Lets not go insane with file sizes please.

I would settle for 24/192 (at home).
Needed? Not sure.
Wanted just-to-be-sure? Yes please!

The insane file sizes were an excellent argument 10+ years ago. Now we have 30TB HDDs, 100TB SSDs and 4TB microSDs. Storage is not a problem anymore, internet bandwith is not .. and way bigger 'waste' flies everywhere.

 

[Keith_W]

As I understand it, if you can hear the harmonic then your brain reconstructs the fundamental. However, since we cannot hear ultrasonics the brain cannot reconstruct anything.

The question will be (no doubt) can we "sense" the ultrasonic in some other way so that the brain has something to work on. I'm pretty sure that we cannot - but this needs an audio science answer to confirm.

With apologies to those audio scientists who have been answering this stupid question repeatedly ...

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was wondering whether someone with no hearing > 10kHz could reconstruct upper harmonics between 10kHz-20kHz from the fundamental. I am certainly not suggesting that we can reconstruct a 40kHz harmonic.

 

[DonR]

Yet present only in homeopathic quantities in voice or music.

The extra dilution is what gives it its power... or something like that.

 

[Multicore]

Let's ditch the car analogy. I think this is more like wanting movies/TV captured with 200 to 2000 nm sensitive sensors and upgrading the production, distribution and display systems accordingly. Since that would cost a lot and be disruptive the question naturally arises: what's the benefit?

 

[Brian Hall]

The extra dilution is what gives it its power... or something like that.

Audiophools seem to be very similar to those who believe in homeopathic medicine.

 

[lashto]

I think @krabapple had the right reaction in post #2 when he went "sigh."

I am sure the little 'unrest' in ths thread is caused by people who did read all those studies and are eagerly waiting for more

Possible Mechanisms for the Effects of Sound Vibration on Human Health

Part of the problem of creating a scientific foundation for music effects in healthcare is that music is a very complex phenomenon; to control its parameters scientifically is practically impossible...
This paper presents ... the mechanisms of the effect of sound vibration on humans including the physiological, neurological, and biochemical. It begins by narrowing music to sound and sound to vibration. The focus is on low frequency sound (up to 250 Hz) including infrasound (1–16 Hz)
...

pretty good start I would say. And a big one, 1+h for reading alone. Or just search for "40 Hz" and read a few paragraphs on that.

P.S.
you seem to be one of the few people who still tries to build 20-20 speakers. Good luck with that!

 

[sigbergaudio]

I am sure the little 'unrest' in ths thread is caused by people who did read all those studies and are eagerly waiting for more
Possible Mechanisms for the Effects of Sound Vibration on Human Health .. pretty big one, at least few hours needed. Or just search for "40 Hz" and read a few paragraphs on that.

P.S.
you seem to be one of the few people who still tries to build 20-20 speakers. Good luck with that!

You are correct, most speakers cannot do that.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Audiophools seem to be very similar to those who believe in homeopathic medicine.

The critical exception being that homeopathic remedies now require disclaimers in most countries saying they are not scientific.

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission holds manufacturers accountable for any baseless assertions they make about homeopathic products. Can you imagine that with similar audiophile products?

 

[Human Bass]

Not a good start, just a fruitless endeavor.

You dream of hearing the moans of mice making love, but you actually listening to the audiophile autism inside your head.

32/384 sounds like a good start
... but kinda useless without any mics/recordings that are truly 32/384 and without any transducer to play 32/384

 

[JeremyFife]

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was wondering whether someone with no hearing > 10kHz could reconstruct upper harmonics between 10kHz-20kHz from the fundamental. I am certainly not suggesting that we can reconstruct a 40kHz harmonic.

I get that now

 

[Duke]

Is the juice (of expanding the "standard" beyond 20-20k) worth the squeeze? I think not; I think there are enough "10 dB" problems (perceptually if not literally) remaining in between a good live music experience and a good playback experience that the costs of solving what is basically a "1 dB" problem would be an inefficient use of resources, regardless of how impressive it looks on paper.

If the issue of cost-effective use of resources didn't exist, would it still be a good idea? My instinct is "yes", but that may be incorrect! Apparently there is a real-world downside: Increased noise. See what @Digital Mastering System has to say on the subject:

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.

 

[lashto]

You are correct, most speakers cannot do that.

but still, I am complaining too much ...

Considering how many health benefits there are just for the single 40Hz frequency. And that your speakers are some of the very few who can play that freq nice and clear .. your marketing broschure writes itself