Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz.

129.33.19.254
Posted on August 31, 2009 at 15:07:58
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 "From some listeners, threshold values of 88 dB SPL or higher were obtained for a tone at 24 kHz"

"Thresholds at 22 kHz were obtained from six listeners. Even at 24 kHz, thresholds were measurable for four out of 15 listeners."

88 dB on average is actually quieter than I usually listen personally.

I wonder what "scientists" with strong ties to The Audio Critic and HydrogenAudio have to say about that...

Yes but........, posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:20:58
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 It is true you can hear say 25KHz if it is loud enough, I used to be able to hear the 40KHz carrier that old burglar alarms used too. It was often 100 - 110dB SPL typically.
Loud enough is the key issue however.

I used to work with ultrasonic acoustic levitation systems for containerless manufacturing and got to play with / make sound sources that operated up to about 76KHz. One array of sources could produce 172dB SPL at 22KHz, enough intensity to levitate a sample of lead or with acoustic friction, light a cigarette.
Even though these were highly directional, hearing protectors were needed.

As the investigation here showed, at 88dB SPL, some of the people could detect the presence of a 24HKz tone.
It is also a far jump to interpret that as meaning this is important information to reproduce or that it would be audible in the presence of other signals.
Keep in mind that you can “detect” a tone in the 3-4KHz range 700,000,000,000 times easier than at 24KHz.

In your ears hear in frequency slices, called a “Bark”, about 1/6 octave wide in the mid band, two equal loudness tones within the same bark are heard as one tone. One tone is masked by the other or hidden from your ears detection like how masking systems which produce broadband noise, shortly becomes inaudible, but can still mask distant conversations in a office cube farm.

If you have a single tone one finds there is a ‘masking slope” on either side of it, in the mid band this slope is about –10dB per octave.
So, if one produced a tone at 2KHz and a second tone an octave higher, the higher tone has to be greater than –10dB relative to the lower, to be detected.
Your ears are not “flat” in response, they have a response that favors the 2-4KHz range with a roll off on either side. At the low end, your Eustachian tubes provide a “leak” to the back side of your eardrum, this prevents you from hearing excessive levels of very low frequencies so weather changes don’t deafen you. Up high your ears roll off also.
Refer to the equal loudness curves to see the response and change in response with level average ears exhibit.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Sound/eqloud.html


This response affects masking thresholds tremendously.
For example at low frequencies, for example at 20Hz, your ears decreased sensitivity with lower frequencies, against a silent background, makes about 7% 3rd harmonic at 60Hz have the same apparent loudness as the fundamental at 20Hz. As a result most people have never heard distortion free bass.
Up high, one can see that the sensitivity to say 5KHz is about 20dB or 100 times greater than the sensitivity at 15KHz. This, combined with the masking curve means that against a silent background, the third harmonic of 5KHz at 15Khz, has to be about 7-8dB louder than the fundamental to be detectable against a silent background.
That is to say and as work by Earl Geddes and others suggest, that one is extremely tolerant of high frequency distortion because of your ears decreasing sensitivity the higher the components are.

In the case of 24KHz, lets pretend one has more than just 24KHz present like in the study.
Lets say you had music as the signal a broad band thing, lets say that you had energy around 8KHz. From the equal loudness curve one can see the threshold for detection is about +15dB SPL. We know from the test that at 24KHz, a few people were able to detect it at 88dB SPL so one can mentally extend the equal loudness curve too.

Using the masking slope and differing sensitivity, one finds that to be detectable, the 24K component has to be about 60dB ( a million times) louder to be detectable with an 8KHz signal.

The point I guess is that while one “can” hear above 20KHz, one would also find that even the sound of steam escaping has a spectrum which self masks higher frequency components to your ears above some frequency.
Any kind of musical signal or broad band sound made by a mechanical device will produce a spectrum which has the lower HF components having more energy than the highest HF components. This tilt, further increases the difficulty perceiving the very high components in the presence of lower frequency HF components

Now, a point to ponder. Work by Gary Kendall at Northwestern showed that in some cases a person could detect an interaural time difference as small as the equivalent of a 200KHz signal. This is not “frequency response” but the ability (with headphones) to detect a tiny time difference between ears, part of “stereo hearing in X, Y and Z” with only two points of reference..
Considering how poorly most loudspeakers preserve time, that has proven to be a good area to work in.
Best,
Tom Danley
Here - some examples of instruments that produce content above 22 kHz., posted on September 3, 2009 at 08:29:47
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Note crash cymbals, for instance.

"Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:59:29
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 If an instrument didn't produce harmonics, it would only be producing a fundamental sine wave, and nothing else. And if such an instrument was audible within the 20Hz-20kHz range, it would have *zero* energy above 20 kHz.

Or to state it another way, if the instrument is audible between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, and has energy *above* 20 kHz, the instrument *does* have harmonics. So based on the data provided, the "instruments without harmonics" really *do* have harmonics.


RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 10:26:15
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 "If an instrument didn't produce harmonics, it would only be producing a fundamental sine "

That is not correct. The term 'harmonic' only denotes the spectral components that are integer multiples of a recognisable fundamental.

Strictly speaking fundamentals and harmonics apply only to steady-state continuous signals, i.e those signals where a Fourier series exists for.

All other signals, i.e. the non-steady ones, do not have a Fourier series, only a Fourier transform, or a continuous spectrum. It makes no sense to
speak about harmonics in such a spectrum.


bring back dynamic range
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 6, 2009 at 01:48:30
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3309
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 Werner, I believe that the timbre or tonal character of an instrument is determined by complex harmonics due to the construction of that instrument (this would include the string, wood, construction of the instrument, how the note this struck or initiated, etc). Or a piano playing A440 would sound just like a guitar playing A440. The initial attack or note and the decay and interaction of the instrument's construction all contribute to the complexity of the timbre. Check out the linked article.

Thanks!

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 6, 2009 at 12:16:20
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Yes, we all know that (I hope). And your point is?


bring back dynamic range
" During the attack, there is no such valid series, and the concepts of fundamental and harmonics..., posted on September 7, 2009 at 04:29:16
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3309
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 are invalid..."

Initial attack harmonic notes can be played on many stringed instruments.

FWIW! :^)

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 10:36:08
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 If an instrument does *not* have a steady-state tone, such as a piano, guitar, or cymbal, how would one describe its frequency characteristic, if it cannot be described as a fundamental and harmonics?


RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 22:09:01
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 What's the fundamental of a click?

Please have a look at the Fourier transform, and its implications.
Can you imagine something like a continuous spectrum?


bring back dynamic range
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 4, 2009 at 10:16:14
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 While what you say is true with regard to Fourier series and harmonics, it is also true that if you perform an FFT of a click it will not contain a continuous spectrum, it will have discrete components that are a function of the rise time and decay of that click. The risetime will give very high frequency components, while the decay other lower frequency components. You are right that there is no fundamental, just a deconstructed pulse.

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 5, 2009 at 01:04:43
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Interesting. Could you please show me how to get a discrete spectrum from a non-periodic single-event signal?


bring back dynamic range
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 8, 2009 at 08:51:17
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/12.htm#a

What you see here is an FFT spectrum of a 148 microsecond risetime rimshot on a snare drum. Note, that while it does contain a LOT of frequencies it is not a continuous spectrum.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/11.htm#a

This is a 60 microsecond sample of a claves strike from a standing start to 104 dB. This is also a non-periodic signal and yet a FFT spectrum is easily obtainable while there is no fundamental and harmonic structure there is still structure that is related to shape of the rise time.
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 8, 2009 at 09:45:45
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Get real. Both are continuous.

But what do you mean with "This is also a non-periodic signal and yet a FFT spectrum is easily obtainable"?

One can do an FFT on any signal.




bring back dynamic range
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 9, 2009 at 04:38:49
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Ah, now I see.

You do not understand the term "continuous spectrum", confusing it with "continuous signal" or "periodic signal".

A continuous spectrum is a spectrum that does not consist of separate, discrete spectral lines.

There is a nice duality (one of many):

A continuous-time, periodic signal has a discrete spectrum. The simplest example is a continuous sine of frequency f, whose spectrum consists of a single line at f.

A continuous-time aperiodic or even single-event signal has a continuous spectrum. The most extreme example is the single dirac impulse, whose spectrum is a flat line from DC to light.

Please have a look at the samples I posted below.




bring back dynamic range
RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 9, 2009 at 01:19:52
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 You do realize Werner that the FFT spectra are not taken from the whole time period but only of the before and at the end of the initial risetime? 146 and 60 microseconds are hardly what I would call continuous repeating signals.

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 9, 2009 at 01:12:23
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 You get real they are not continuous they are FFT spectra of the risetime only. They are by definition not a periodic signal, unless you think a rimshot is a periodic signal or a woodblock clack is a continuous signal. THat is what these signals are they are transients not continuous waves.

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 9, 2009 at 10:39:30
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 When one computes an FFT (or more precisely when one uses an FFT algorithm to compute a Discrete Fourier Transform or DFT) one makes the assumption that the signal is periodic. In practice if the signal is windowed and the calculation period is larger than the windowed interval the resulting approximation will be a good one. The spectrum computed by DFT is discrete, and it only appears continuous if one doesn't zoom in too closely so as to see the individual bins.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 5, 2009 at 01:21:34
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Could you please show me how to get a discrete spectrum from a non-periodic single-event signal?"

All you would need is an acoustic guitar, a microphone, and a spectrum analyzer.......


RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 23:02:34
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "What's the fundamental of a click?"

The closest thing to a "click" in music is a "whip crack"......... But I don't think it's an ideal pulse.......... (I've never seen a scope trace of a "whip crack", so I won't speculate further.)

Take middle "C" of a piano. Isn't it harmonics that make the piano distinguishable from the exact same pitch played from a guitar?


Fourier transformations, posted on September 5, 2009 at 18:21:16
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3309
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 Guys, I remember Fourier as someone who discovered that complex periodic waves in Nature (like an instrument stiking a note) can be mathmatically described by a series of simple sine and cosine waves folded or added on top of each other. The frequency and amplitude of the individual simple sine & cosine waves can be considered a labratory "fingerprint" APPROXIMATING the timbre or tonal character of an individual source.

The different sinusoidal components suggests the complex interaction of harmonics (of the string, for instance & the construction of the instrument) of the initial note as well as the decay. A musical note struck by an instrument is NOT a result of the interaction of a series of simple sine and cosine waves. Fourier analysis is a tool to help interpret and reproduce timbre, in a lab or on paper.

Most natural wave functions are complex. And any tool that helps to mathmatically describe them, helps the understanding of their interactions with other objects and forces in Nature.

RE: "Instruments Without Harmonics?", posted on September 3, 2009 at 23:22:23
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Todd,

you only have harmonics with a periodic signal. This is only ever
approached with instruments that have significant sustain.
Once the note's attack is over and the sound is in sustain, the signal can be modelled with a Fourier series. Before that, during the attack, there is no such valid series, and the concepts of fundamental and harmonics are invalid . A piano has sustain. A guitar has sustain. A trumpet has. Many other natural sounds and instruments have not, or not dominantly.
Please look up the definitions of the Fourier series and transform.



bring back dynamic range
Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 4, 2009 at 10:27:45
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Please look up the definitions of the Fourier series and transform."

The adage- If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.....

If your only tool is a Fourier transform, everything looks like a periodic signal........

Whenever I see a suggestion to "look up" something, it's an admission of not being able to explain the subject matter, and presumption there's some factual material out there backing up the claim. Yet in most cases, such material doesn't even exist.

In regard to fundamentals and harmonics in musical instruments, there is no law that I can find stating that such waveform production **must** be periodic, in the context of Fourier analysis. It is only "periodic" in a temporary sense, where pitch can be recognized. Yet not necessarily meeting the requirements for periodic signals from a "signal theory" perspective, which implies steady state.

If one were to go by periodic signals from a strict and literal standpoint, *no* musical sound meets the requisite, because a true periodic signal does not vary at all over time and goes on *forever*. (This happens to be why I think Nyquist's theorem is flawed for applying to audio DAC design, for no music contains signals that are truly periodic.)

Fourier analysis is a mathematical supplement to the discussion of fundamentals and harmonics of musical instruments, but *not* requisite. For there are a lot of thorough discussions of fundamentals and harmonics of musical instruments that have zero mention of "Fourier" in the entire discussion. (If "Fourier discussion" were to be interjected into a junior high school class discussing fundamentals and harmonics of musical instruments, the students would suddenly become lost.) Such an example is the link below.........


RE: Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 5, 2009 at 00:57:08
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 "Whenever I see a suggestion to "look up" something, it's an admission of not being able to explain the subject matter,"

There is an alternative explanation. I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you in detail (I already have two toddlers
for that). Especially when 1) there is plenty of good reading material out there and 2) you tend to ignore all anyway.

If you want to remain ignorant, fine.

But one more time:

(I) A periodic signal has a discrete frequency spectrum. In a discrete frequency spectrum it is valid to talk about a fundamental and its harmonics.

(II) A non-periodic signal has a continuous frequency spectrum. Such a spectrum, obviously, has no notion of fundamental and harmonics.

(II) applies, more or less, to the attack phase of any musical instrument, (I) applies, more or less, to its sustain phase. What's so difficult about this? These mathematical concepts describe exactly what's happening.

BTW Shannon has utterly nothing to do with periodicity of the signal. And forget Nyquist: it is not his theorem, only his frequency.


bring back dynamic range
RE: Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 5, 2009 at 01:11:55
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 We were discussing the time of day, not how the clock works....... [-;

But anyways.......

(I) A periodic signal has a discrete frequency spectrum. In a discrete frequency spectrum it is valid to talk about a fundamental and its harmonics.

(II) A non-periodic signal has a continuous frequency spectrum. Such a spectrum, obviously, has no notion of fundamental and harmonics.

(II) applies, more or less, to the attack phase of any musical instrument, (I) applies, more or less, to its sustain phase. What's so difficult about this? These mathematical concepts describe exactly what's happening.

Lets jump back to the original discussion...... Toss the Fourier stuff out the window.......

If one plucks a string on a guitar, it is *not* periodic because the intensity of the waveform is variable. But there is a distinct pitch. You're contending that this would *not* qualify as a fundamental with harmonics? (I just hope a guitar player doesn't read what you contend..... Part of guitar playing is known as "harmonics", in this very context.)

If what you're contending is true, there are *lots* of erroneous "physics" tutorials out there...........


RE: Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 5, 2009 at 01:20:48
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 "If one plucks a string on a guitar, it is *not* periodic because the intensity of the waveform is variable. But there is a distinct pitch. You're contending that this would *not* qualify as a fundamental with harmonics?"

No.

After the attack of the plucking the decaying note is close enough to periodic to make the extraction of an F series, while strictly not allowed, still possible in a way that allows to recognise a fundamental and its harmonics. When doing so you pretend that the attack and transient stuff didn't happen and that what you are looking at is periodic-ish.

And the reason you can get away with this is that a guitar note has a sustain that typically lasts much much longer than its attack.


bring back dynamic range
RE: Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 5, 2009 at 01:24:08
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "And the reason you can get away with this is that a guitar note has a sustain that typically lasts much much longer than its attack."

What about a xylophone? The decay is much faster, but the pitches are still distinct.


RE: Fourier Analysis is NOT Requisite In the Discussion of Fundamentals and Harmonics in Music..............., posted on September 5, 2009 at 08:20:11
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Todd,

Forget Fourier, think Laplace, it's a better model for most instruments. Especially things that are excited by an impulse like guitars, pianos, xylophones, drums...

The pole-zero diagram of the instrument's response helps to visualize what it will do when hit. If the poles of it's transfer function don't leave the real axis it has no frequency, only an impulse response. If they do, and except for some drums I think they all do, then you can visualize how the various resonances, each represented by a pole pair will decay over time. Just gaze at a table of the Laplace transform pairs and it's pretty easy to see what the f(t) would sound like.

Have fun, Rick

samples, posted on September 5, 2009 at 02:23:36
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999






A xylophone is a tuned instrument. It operates by resonance in the metal bits, which implies sufficient sustain. I don't have recordings to show, but from the remains of my boys' xylophone I estimate the decay still at 0.5-1s. That's hardly a quick transient.

--
Figure 1

I don't have single-note anechoic samples of guitar or piano (oh why do they all insist on playing chords???), but here's an electric bass.

The total duration of the note is 800 ms.

The green spectrum is of the whole note, including attack and final decay to zero.

Notice how it is continuous from 45Hz up to over 10kHz. This is because the signal is dominated by its attack.

The red spectrum is taken over the initial attack only. Again it is continuous and with more HF than the whole note.

The blue spectrum is taken from some 500 ms of the sustain (white area). This section is sufficiently period to allow the development of a distinct fundamental and its harmonics.


--
Figure 2

This is a capture of a single cymbal.

Again green is the full-duration spectrum. Red is the initial attack. Blue has been taken over 500 ms of the sustained signal.

Observe how now all three spectra are continuous and show a distinct lack of a single fundamental and its discrete harmonics.

If you would zoom in on the waveform you wouldn't see much periodicity, just a noisy chaos.


--

Real musical instruments live in the range between a sustained organ note on the one hand (a gated true periodic signal), and a fast unipolar click on the other hand. The former is (almost) in F-series domain, with a discrete spectrum, the latter is (firmly) in the F-transform domain, with a continuous (and near-infinite) spectrum.
Again, real instruments are in-between these.



bring back dynamic range
No nails anywhere.. No use for a hammer :-), posted on September 4, 2009 at 17:23:34
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "If your only tool is a Fourier transform, everything looks like a periodic signal........"

"On those who step in the same river, different and different waters flow."

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

As either a transient burst or a filtered noise source, posted on September 3, 2009 at 11:16:03
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 ... represented in the former by the percussive instruments in Hon's table (or at least the transient attacks, which in the case of the piano are far more broadband than the sustained note). And in the latter by the speech sibilant.

All harmonic instruments boil down to second-order harmonic differential equations, the same as for almost any sinusoid encountered in nature, and not all instruments can be accurately modelled in such a way. Besides, the short time scales involved might preclude a resonance from forming.

RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 2, 2009 at 06:23:28
Awe-d-o-file
Manufacturer

Posts: 6093
Location: 2 hr. west of DC
Joined: January 10, 2004
 88db is a much higher threshold than frequencies used in a hearing (threshold) test: 100hz- 8khz. I can't remember the formula but they are AT LEAST 40-50db higher. That would make an ugly curve.........


ET





Question "Authority", the mainstream media sucks - Go Independent and hold BOTH parties accountable instead of just the other guys!

I need music to help forget the reality of today
The question then becomes "Will high-frequency content at -50...-40dB enhance sound quality in any way?", posted on September 2, 2009 at 07:37:46
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 There's no doubt in my mind that it does - but everybody has to be his own judge on that.

RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 1, 2009 at 20:13:38
Logan
Audiophile

Posts: 350
Location: Auckland
Joined: September 18, 2004
 Is this relevant? Please disregard if not.

Some years ago the Physics and Architectural Design departments of a university I was associated with called for volunteers to undergo listening tests with respect to design of audio studios. I signed up out of interest, despite the fact that I was then in my early 60s. They welcomed this because as one researcher said, not all potential listeners are 23 year-old golden ears.

I was told that one test involved speaker positioning for hearing high frequency sounds. I was to judge the audibility of a 10kHz signal at various speaker positions, and would then be subjected to 14, 18, and 22 kHz signals from blind speaker positions behind an acoustically transparent curtain.

Unfortunately I couldn't do this test because I couldn't hear anything at even 10 kHz.

Some months later I was told that this was in fact an honesty test. No signals whatsoever came from the speakers. Yet all subjects except for me claimed to hear the 14 and 18 kHz "signals", and a significant number "heard" 22 kHz. Make of this what you will. But I never heard of any outcome or publications resulting from this research - perhaps the finding that they had but one reliable subject, who was too old anyway, had something to do with this.

RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 1, 2009 at 20:11:01
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 I used to hear 24KHZ myself, when I was a young adult. Test it, myself. Some others, especially women, could hear even better and higher.

And this relates to audio how?, posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:02:08
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Are you going to argue the superiority of vinyl because CDs only get up to 22 khz? Or is your point that you think everything would sound lots better if we could get up to 24 khz?

What? What is your point? I don't care what the Audio Critic or those guys over at Hydrogen audio think.

What exactly is your point?

I believe I made my point in the discussion below. N/T, posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:53:15
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

Facts are of no importance? nt, posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:07:27
Norm
Audiophile

Posts: 14914
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

Depends on the facts and whatever it is we are discussing, posted on September 1, 2009 at 22:37:12
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Not all fact are important. Look this +20khz discussion isn't important for almost all practical purposes. IMO when CDs came out many audiophiles thought they sucked because they had never heard higher frequencies come out of their stereos. I clearly remember when it wasn't unusual to find speakers and phono cartridges with rising high frequencies. Why not it was rare to find an LP that extended out to even 14 khz? And beyond that to think even pretty good vinyl playback systems could actually extract much information from a musical signal above 10khz is almost laughable.

But sure as night follows day there's audiophiles out there, who believe because of the quality of their gear and their listening ability that they can hear extended high frequencies that don't even exist in the recording. Unfortunately this is a fact that is actually relevant to this discussion.
Really... What about high frequencies that DO exist in the recording?, posted on September 2, 2009 at 07:50:45
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 You can google yourself for the list of musical instruments that actually produce frequencies above 20 kHz. If that's not enough, consider the fact that abilities of software are pretty much unlimited (which is only applicable to certain kinds of music, of course).

Better yet - forget all that shit, and compare RBCD and hi-rez of the same recordings on a quality system. May be that will alleviate whatever issue you have with the topic at hand.

LOL! Aren't you the guy who admits a preference for popular music and recordings!, posted on September 2, 2009 at 10:09:38
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Me too. Why care if instruments extend out beyond 20khz? What matters is if such frequencies actually exist on the media and whether or not the playback system can extract them.

On most recordings, including Classical, high frequency extension does not extend beyond 14khz on vinyl. Pop music is even more limited. Of course there are exceptions. But even given the exceptions, and a vinyl media, most vinyl playback systems can't extract the information anyways.

Now having stated my disbelief in vinyl having much in the way of high frequency extension let me mention CDs. Me understanding is that brick wall filtering sounds really bad so even CDs are rolled off well below their limits as well in order to circumvent the negatives of the sharp filter roll-offs.

"Better yet - forget all that shit, and compare RBCD and hi-rez of the same recordings on a quality system. May be that will alleviate whatever issue you have with the topic at hand."

Now I'm not exactly sure what you mean by hi-rez but I can tell you for sure just because I heard more high frequency energy or extension when listening to such a release there's no reason why I should conclude it had anything to do with the media. More likely than not, differences heard, will be because of the production and not the media.

I'm not denying more extension isn't a good thing - but I am saying for all practical purposes it's a moot issues. Put it this way - I think SACD can sound much better than RBCDs. Depending on the production I may prefer a RBCD to it's vinyl counterpart on new music releases. But as an audiophile and a music lover only RBCDs and vinyl LPs make sense. SACD was a major flop and other hi-rez alternatives are simply curiosity's.

And beyond that we need to take great care when comparing media as production is much more likely to be what's influencing what we are hearing.
RE: LOL! Aren't you the guy who admits a preference for popular music and recordings!, posted on September 3, 2009 at 06:52:23
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 810
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
 Firstly cymbals (and other metal percussion) radiates the vast majority of their energy between 20kHz and 80kHz.

Secondly cutting heads have a hf extension to 50kHz, I own a moving magnet cartridge with an elliptical needle which goes flat to 40kHz and analogue multitrack tape recorders go up to 35kHz.
The limiting factor is the microphone used, although small diaphragm condenser mic also easily reach 30kHz. Some like Earthworks or Bruel&Kjaer go well beyond that.

If you say so I believe you but..., posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:33:04
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Most recordings don't have useful musical content at 20khz and are rolled off far below that frequency.

And beyond that I can't believe that a majority of vinyl playback systems are capable of accurately retrieving a 20khz frequency (lots lower actually) from a complex musical waveform pressed into a vinyl groove.

And one more thing - even if I heard a high rez recording or even a low rez recording that sounded extended and could be proven to contain energy at 20khz I'ld still not be convinced of the significance of what I was hearing until I understood exactly what it was.

Ever heard of moving coil cartridges?, posted on September 2, 2009 at 14:58:59
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "On most recordings, including Classical, high frequency extension does not extend beyond 14khz on vinyl."

Let me get this straight: most vinyl recordings don't go about 14 KHz and most LP playback systems don't go above 14 kHz. So there is no need for playback to go any higher? Do I understand you correctly?

Perhaps you are a music lover, but you certainly aren't an audiophile if you believe that the "average" performance of recordings and equipment is sufficient. Ever heard of moving coil cartridges? These have no trouble being flat to at least 20 kHz.

High frequency energy is certainly present in acoustic music. I have measured output from tapes (R2R and cassette) above 20 kHz. I have CDs with energy right up to the 22 kHz limit. And I have a hi-res digital recording of a jazz trio with energy to 30 kHz and a Mahler symphony with energy above 40 kHz.

Sadly, the 1939 Bruno Walter Mahler 1st that I have goes only to about 7 Khz. But that's another subject...

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Yea and they had a rep for rising high frequencies (I own two btw), posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:21:21
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Perhaps you are a music lover, but you certainly aren't an audiophile if you believe that the "average" performance of recordings and equipment is sufficient."

I only have a say on the equipment side. As far as the recordings go I'm at the mercy of others and whatever they deliver is what it is. It makes no sense, in terms of recordings that I am interested in playing, to concern myself with frequencies above 20Khz as for the most part the recordings I listen to are rolled off far below even that threshold.

I've already noted that the high resolution formats are nothing but curiosity's. I can be an audiophile without jumping on and getting burned by every bandwagon that passes by - yea I bit on the SACD bus but have long since bailed. The fact is few recordings have significant or useful energy out to 20khz and far far fewer go beyond.

Just to clarify. I don't doubt high frequency extending beyond 20khz may be important to our enjoyment of recorded music - but unless there exists such a format with a worthwhile library of recordings truly pushing that extreme (not just sounding like it does) it's simply not worth the time or the effort.
RE: Yea and they had a rep for rising high frequencies (I own two btw), posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:36:44
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "unless there exists such a format with a worthwhile library of recordings truly pushing that extreme (not just sounding like it does) it's simply not worth the time or the effort."

No problem for me. I have no problem buying lots of hi-res downloads. These come in a variety of "formats", but it's just a small matter of programming to accommodate variations. I guess it depends on your taste in music.

There was a fair amount of time and effort spent in getting a working computer music system, of course. But this has many other benefits than just increased resolution.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Two things, posted on September 4, 2009 at 13:28:44
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 First I did a search for high resolution recordings. The selection I found looked worse than the selection I found with SACD.

Second, even if a release exists as a high resolution release, doesn't mean it was created as one. We all know low resolution recordings can be converted to high resolution but we should understand something is lost in this process.

Given the already existing history of recorded music there needs to be a revival of recording technologies that actually appeals to artistic interests not just audiophile desires before I'm going to get all excited and jumping up and down about new technology.

It's not like if all new recordings were capable of supporting 30khz extension they would in fact do so. Further the already existing library of recorded history doesn't even come close.

This is a moot issue, academic one for sure, but moot none the less.
"energy to 30khz"! Even a CD has measurable energy at 30khz -nt, posted on September 3, 2009 at 00:42:12
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

And 100% of it would be pure distortion -nt, posted on September 3, 2009 at 10:01:19
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

I'm sure you're aware of difference between actual recorded content and artifacts., posted on September 3, 2009 at 08:27:01
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Or Nyqust's theory is only applicable when it's convenient for you?
Wow, tough crowd., posted on September 3, 2009 at 11:09:57
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005



As Wikipedia (and the signal processing textbook I have lying around - Signal Processing and Linear Systems by Lathi) confirm, a bandlimited signal cannot also be timelimited, and vice versa. Therefore, the Fourier spectrum of a finitely long CD track will, in fact, have nonzero energy at 30khz.

I hope Tony gets the joke. ;)

And now, as a parting shot, I give you a CD track of Ligeti piano music upsampled to 96khz and plotted in an amplitude spectrum, 1M samples, *no windowing*. BAM!

RE: Wow, tough crowd., posted on September 3, 2009 at 12:23:02
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Who says that track duration is finite? Ever hear of the "loop playback" button? Push that button and that energy at 30 kHz will go to zero, presto magic. Of course it will take a while ... :-)

With 1M samples you will be averaging over the piano attack, the sustain and the silence between the notes. This will give a poor perspective of audible high frequency energy. With the graph you provided it looks like there is no significant average energy above about 15 kHz, with the exception of "monitor whine" at 15750 Hz. It also looks like there was some noise shaping, either on the original CD or in your upsampling process.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

It must be persuasive - after all, it's got "BAM!" at the end., posted on September 3, 2009 at 11:38:54
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 The only "scientist on the cheap" that's more persuasive is (was, he's temporarily departed, a.k.a. kicked out for posting classless "jokes") Richard BassNut Greene - he used to put "BA-DA-BOOM!" at the end of his posts.

Sheesh...

Persuasive? Nah, just a poor attempt at facetiousness -nt, posted on September 3, 2009 at 16:01:26
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

RE: "energy to 30khz"! Even a CD has measurable energy at 30khz -nt, posted on September 3, 2009 at 07:11:02
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 Ah no, at least there is essentially no 'signal" present up that high due to the anti aliasing filters.
Also if you look at the nyquist theory, you see that one must have a sampling rate that is at least twice the highest frequency to be sampled.
In test equipment, that is more like a factor of 5X.
Err ????, posted on September 3, 2009 at 02:52:01
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 Care to explain?

bring back dynamic range
I guess I would dispute what was thought about cds, but it really doesn't matter., posted on September 2, 2009 at 06:49:17
Norm
Audiophile

Posts: 14914
Joined: September 6, 2000
 I find super tweeters that don't have any response below 15k Hz and extend to 100k Hz greatly add to the realism of reproduced music, as has everyone in demonstrations. I know I cannot hear 16k Hz or above. In demonstrations of the Muratas people heard no music when only they were on but greatly preferred the speakers with the Muratas also on, even when we had no idea whether they were on or not.

RE: I guess I would dispute what was thought about cds, but it really doesn't matter., posted on September 2, 2009 at 10:26:42
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Sure you could dispute it and I'ld be the first to admit my observation doesn't apply to all audiophiles.

As to your supertweeter comment I might even be in agreement if I heard the same system. However I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "add to the realism of reproduced music". Which to me implies they added to the accuracy or truthfullness of the reproduction to the original. If you say "sense of realism" it would be easier for me to agree, if I actually was in agreement with the observation.
RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 1, 2009 at 10:16:09
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 But try 3 or 4KHz sine wave at 88dB and you'll be clamping your fingers in you ears.
Keep in mind the perspective here, there is a big difference between near excruciating and "just detectable" against a silent background.

It is so because you can detect 3-4KHz at near zero dB SPL, so here for a few to detect 24KHz at +88dB required 700,000,000,000 times louder /more acoustic power than at 3-4KHz would..
Your hearing at 24KHz is WAY down in sensitivity relative to 3-4 KHz, at the opposite end, the threshold of hearing for signals around 15Hz is also around 88dB if i recall.
Best,
Tom
It's a long way from "way down in level" to "inaudible" in musical context., posted on September 1, 2009 at 10:59:41
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Please see exchange below.

Literature overview, posted on September 1, 2009 at 05:16:46
KlausR.
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Joined: November 17, 2004
 I've posted an overview re: ultrasonic hearing and hypersonic effect a couple of months ago (see link).

Some time after having posted I found some more papers:

According to

Lenhardt, “Ultrasonic hearing in humans: applications for tinnitus
treatment”, Int. Tinnitus J. Vol.9, no.2, pp.69-75 (2003)


ultrasonic hearing is possible in humans but only by bone conduction.
From magnetoencephalography studies it is known that the auditory
cortex is activated by ultrasound:

Hosoi et al., “Activation of the auditory cortex by ultrasound”, The
Lancet, vol. 351, Febr. 14, 1998

Lenhardt: “Three lines of evidence suggest that the resonance of the
brain is critical for an audible ultrasonic experience. Support for a
brain ultrasound demodulation theory stems from spherical models of
brain and psychoacoustic metrics of masking audio frequencies by
ultrasonic noise and by matching the pitch of audible ultrasound with
conventional air conduction sound.”


and


“Ultrasound sets the brain into forced vibration, and it is the brain
oscillation that is detected on the base of the cochlea in normally
hearing individuals. With hearing loss, greater ultrasonic energy is
needed to spread the displacement on the basilar membrane toward the
region of intact hair cells. In the case of complete deafness, the
increased ultrasonic energy likely displaces the otolith organs,
resulting in saccular stimulation”


From Lenhardt’s paper


“Eyes as fenestrations to the ears: a novel mechanism for high-
frequency and ultrasound hearing”, Int. Tinnitus J. Vol.13, no.1, pp.
3-10 (2007)


“Broadband noise (5-70 kHz) delivered to the skull at the mastoid,
occiput, or forehead excites vibration in the eye. The frequency
response of eye excitation ranged from 25-60 kHz. When that band of
noise was presented as airborne sound directed at the eye, we measured
vibration of the brain and skull at the mastoid, occiput, and forehead
in the same frequency range of 25-60 kHz.”


Lenhardt states that “direct vibration of the brain can be
communicated to the cochlea via intracranial fluid conduction” and
“thus, transmission of airborne ultrasonic frequencies through the eye
to the ear via intracranial fluid conduction helps to explain two
mysteries in the human extended range of hearing”.


And he further states: “A case is made here for a separate airborne
ultrasonic input, but the final pathway is the same because ultrasound
activates the auditory cortex in normal-hearing and deaf listeners.
Clearly, the eye, with its ultrasonic passband of 25-60 kHz, could
transmit energy from instruments with ultrasonic energy (e.g. cymbals)
to the ear and would activate both the auditory thalamus and the other
nuclei in the auditory pathway.”


And Lenhardt concludes: "Consistent with the current findings is that
the eye is the input window into the ear for high-frequency airborne
sound and music. There is no need to postulate an additional unknown
somatosensory route to the ears; nonetheless, the concept of
multisensory coding in music is intriguing."

Klaus

Thank you - excellent find! N/T, posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:12:04
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 1, 2009 at 03:37:01
Werner
Audiophile

Posts: 1829
Joined: September 30, 1999
 It is not a secret that children exhibit response out to 25kHz or so. The 20kHz limit is an average for young adults. And generally females
perform better than males.

Now check the paper's listers: 4 males, 11 females, aged 18-33. No surprises here.

"88 dB on average is actually quieter than I usually listen personally."

That 88dB is the limit for detection. Contrast that to ~0dB for a 3kHz tone or so. Expect the >20kHz sound to be masked entirely by any musical signal
with a loudness North of, say, the final bars of Holst's Neptune.

I wouldn't want to be in a room with 20kHz at 88dB SPL ... but then, maybe I am a bug or a rat.


bring back dynamic range
RE: It's old news (2005) - but I live in the woods... Tests confirm hearing above 22 kHz., posted on September 1, 2009 at 09:43:01
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "I wouldn't want to be in a room with 20kHz at 88dB SPL ... but then, maybe I am a bug or a rat."

Was there last month, at least would have been there if my tweeters were flat. Didn't hear a thing, but did feel uneasy after a few seconds.

When I was in college 45 years ago, I had no difficulty hearing 21 kHz out of a KLH-6. (Probably one that subsequently burned out. The others were clawed out by cats.) I have no idea what the level was, but it wasn't unpleasantly loud.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Speaking of intense HF, posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:13:15
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 While I was 18, I worked part time at an audio shop that used a piezo-electric transducer for the burglar alarm. At close, we'd all cluster near the door (had to be closed!) while Julian set the alarm. The resulting sound was a most irritating ultrasonic shriek that got me out the door rather quickly! It didn't seem to bother the older guys. :)

rw

88 dB is limit for detection in that particular, very small and arbitrarily assembled group., posted on September 1, 2009 at 08:04:13
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 And so is 24 kHz at those 88 dB - increase the sample size, and you'll probably find somebody with 25 kHz at 85 dB. But that's not the point.

As I pointed in the post below, such high frequencies in the musical content, at a level significantly lower that the rest of the spectrum, will manifest themselves most likely as "air", "space", "depth" and something else along those lines. If you know what to listen for, you'll most likely detect the difference - in other words, I don't buy "to be masked entirely" argument.

As for whether it adds sonic value - that's up to every individual to decide for himself, but we're audiophiles here, right?

But you don't seem to "buy" any argument contrary to your set beliefs., posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:14:55
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 More to the point, you supply no evidence.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
What evidence? Evidence of what?, posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:27:50
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Why would anybody bother to supply any evidence to you? If you need an evidence - go get it. I have all the evidence I personally need.

Just tell me what I should do - invite you to my home? Or, alternatively, loan you money for resolving equipment? Or for visit to otolaryngologist? Or for some group therapy that would allow you to unlearn everything you mistakenly think is audio-related "knowledge"?

No ties to the the "scientists"..., posted on August 31, 2009 at 16:52:36
gymwear5@hotmail.com
Manufacturer

Posts: 1218
Joined: April 10, 2002
 But, Hearing ability of pure sine waves are relatively irrelevant to music listening, either that or us subjectivists that argue traditional distortion measurements of equipment as irrelevant are being a little hypocritical.

Just an aside... Of the four, it would be interesting to determine their hearing thresholds at 20+KHz, in the presence of a 90dB tone at 5KHz.



It's better than nothing - and surely better than pathetic Meyer-Moran exercise., posted on August 31, 2009 at 17:58:25
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 In presense of such tests, it's somewhat more difficult to argue adequacy of 44.1 kHz RBCD sample rate, wouldn't you say? Combined with the fact that there actually ARE musical instruments that produce frequencies in >22 kHz range (and we're not even talking software, which is legitimate "instrument", too).

The fact that only 15 people were in the group, prompts another question - what are chances that if that was 1500, or 15000, somebody would detect signals at let's say 26 kHz, which nobody in that group was able to detect?

Your point about 90dB tone at 5KHz - surely it would be interesting, especially if people knew WHAT to listen for. In other words had those "listening skills", that objectivists get hard-on when merely mentioned. In such conditions, differences would most likely manifest themselves as proverbial "air", or "depth", or something else as intangible.
RE: It's better than nothing - and surely better than pathetic Meyer-Moran exercise., posted on September 1, 2009 at 09:07:56
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "there actually ARE musical instruments that produce frequencies in >22 kHz range (and we're not even talking software, which is legitimate "instrument", too)."

Well, it is a FACT that musical instruments -- especially those whose fundamentals are quite high in frequency, like a piccolo -- produce harmonic overtones well into the ultrasonic range. And it is a reasonable conjecture that IF a listener can sense these frequencies (by whatever physiological mechanism), they may influence said listener's perception of the timbre of the instrument.

"In such conditions, differences would most likely manifest themselves as proverbial "air", or "depth", or something else as intangible."

Or simply as a more accurate rendition of the timbre of the instruments?

Much depends on how accurately the entire recording and playback chain is able to capture and reproduce these overtones. Can the microphone capture them? Can the microphone preamp pass them to the recording device (analog or digital) on without undue attenuation, distortion, noise, or phase shift? Can the recording device capture the signal from the preamp, again without undue attenuation, distortion, noise, or phase shift? How much gets lost or distorted in the transfer from the master recording to the consumer medium? From the consumer medium, through the listener's source component, amplification chain, and transducers? It's a long chain, and opportunities to screw things up exist at every link.

The highest resolution digital systems, and the very best analog (master tapes, not records) may be able to capture significant ultrasonic content from the acoustic source. Amplifiers with flat response to >100kHz, and speakers with super tweeters flat to >60kHz, may be able to reproduce such a signal. But with what compromises? All electronics will impose their own ultrasonic harmonics on the signal at these frequencies, and all speakers rotate phase. So what comes out will still be an imperfect approximation of the original acoustic signal, and will never measure (or sound) "exactly" like the original.
It's the answer to a different question, posted on August 31, 2009 at 22:12:45
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 I'm honestly not that well informed about this listening test, but I think it is important to distinguish between testing psychoacoustic limits, and testing the actual (sonic) added value of a music format. Ashihara may help answer the former, but it certainly does not answer the latter. (If it did, I would imagine the study or a follow-up would certainly involve real-world musical content, which would be a far more important test signal than synthetic samples.)

Meyer/Moran, in contrast, answers the second question far more directly and more comprehensively - even if one admits that it is not that sensitive of a test for detecting ultrasonic thresholds. That Red Book has audible limitations under specific situations is not really in debate here - after all, Meyer/Moran did in fact reproduce a positive ABX result for 16-bit quantization noise. What is in debate is whether or not such differences are actually important, or turn out to be merely theoretical, even under critical listening.

Even if the Ashihara study was verified multiple times, I'm still quite confident that absolutely no sonic value can be gained from high res digital audio for all popular and all classical music. Do I feel a little insecure that I'm extolling a clearly technically inferior format (RBCD) that was never really meant to be sonically transparent, has testable and reproducible sonic flaws, and to some degree represents the bare minimum of sonic transparency for digital audio? Sure. But insecurity is not knowledge, and theoretical objections are not evidence. So I communicate what is actual fact.

RE: It's the answer to a different question, posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:10:23
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Yes it is a different question but carcass93 is unlikely to admit that. I wouldn't call ultrasonic threshold tests merely theoretical, but they don't seem to have much relevance for listening to music. I expect very little music at safe levels would have ultrasonics at 88 dB or anything close to it.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
"don't seem", "I expect" - in other words, you don't know., posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:18:48
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 And that's fine.

I doubt that people with resolving equipment and good hearing, who compare RBCD and hi-rez, would care too much about what seems or doesn't seem to you, or what you do or do not expect.

I know I don't.
Well, in any spectral analysis of music I've ever seen . . ., posted on September 1, 2009 at 12:48:56
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 but you wouldn't believe it.

Moran-Myer didn't show the difference was audible--even with the eyes.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Are you Meyer or Moran? Or at least one of the participants, may be?, posted on September 1, 2009 at 13:09:22
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 No? Neither am I.

Then what's the significance of that for YOU? Somebody unknown to you is unable to hear something, using equipment of questionable resolution (in fact, take that back - unquestionably not resolving enough) - how does that lead to the conclusion that YOU are unable, too?

And BTW, I highly doubt Japanese authors of the tests I linked to had an agenda - which is much more than I can say about E. Brad Meyer, for instance (evidence aplenty in this forum alone).

So, what is the matter with their equipment?, posted on September 1, 2009 at 16:48:58
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 How did you determine the resolutions of the systems involved?

I haven't drawn any conclusions about what anyone not involved might hear, I just want some evidence some can hear the difference between Hi-rez and RBCD DACs in playing music at normal levels. You haven't supplied any. Has anyone else?

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
RE: It's the answer to a different question, posted on September 1, 2009 at 09:32:22
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 If the differences are actually audible we each get to decide whether they are "important" or not. End of debate.

It will definitely depend on the music. When listening to 4'33" any differences between hi-res and 44/16 will not be important to me. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: It's the answer to a different question, posted on September 1, 2009 at 12:43:45
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >When listening to 4'33" any differences between hi-res and 44/16 will not be important to me. :-)<

Unless one can pick up recital hall ambience better than the other. That's what the "piece" is about. It's different every time it's played! :)

Cagey response! -nt, posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:09:09
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

"no sonic value ... from high res ... for all popular and all classical music" - you're forgetting..., posted on September 1, 2009 at 07:56:17
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... the simple fact that the audience here is quite different from the one you usually communicate so called "facts" to.

To people who own quality equipment, have listening skills, and who actually compared RBCD recordings to hi-rez, your "facts", together with "confidence" in them, are probably good for chuckle - nothing more.
I'm fine with that., posted on September 1, 2009 at 10:11:46
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 Such people who "own quality equipment" (hah) and "have listening skills" (suuuure) are also universally older than me, and therefore, will probably die first. Their beliefs on high-end audio are going to die with them. Because, you know, they've done a *fantastic* job convincing my 128kbps generation of the benefits of the high end....

And that's a good thing.
What's good thing - that their "beliefs" will die, or they themselves?, posted on September 1, 2009 at 10:51:29
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Both statements are questionable at best, and the latter one (that THEY will die first) is highly unscientific. There's always brain tumor or lung sarcoma for you that's unaccounted for... Also, I'm not sure Arnie, for instance, would be too amused by your statements - I have distinct feeling that his beliefs will die before "theirs".

As far as hatred for good equipment, listening skills, and audiophiles in general - you're certainly free to remain at the stage of evolution you're currently on. Say "Hi" (or should it be "Heil!" ?) to the rest of audio nazis.

Yeah, I can't discount a freak act of stupidity finishing me off..., posted on September 1, 2009 at 13:08:24
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 after having performed many grave sins with a motorized sewer snake line a few weeks ago while dealing with a clogged lateral (fortunately without injury) I'm willing to admit the bare minimum of humility on the matter. Still, I think I couched that statement accurately enough.

Insofar as I am making wild allusions to philosophies of science, you're right that I'm making unscientific claims. But I tend to think we're arguing from different paradigms to begin with, so scientific claims will always fall on deaf ears.

I'll be sure to say hi on HA for you! But not without pointing out that, from my vantage point, my HA homeys tend to have equally good listening skills (and rigs) as anybody else here. Certainly fewer people here could actually ABX 320kbps MP3s than on HA, and the interest in music there is far more diverse.

And do such disparaging comments about perception and experience really help your case? It would be entirely logical to conclude that, even admitting what you are saying, for those 99.999% of people who are not audiophiles lack such "good equipment" and "listening skills", high res is simply a waste for them. You're still left with the conclusion that high res does not actually add any value for the vast majority of listeners, up to and including most audiophiles.

Which is what I've pretty much been arguing all along - with the additional caveat that such listening skills and good equipment doesn't even exist to begin with.

"and the interest in music there is far more diverse.", posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:04:19
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 It must be a real pain for you HA guys to perform all those ABX tests on music so you can post about your subjective experiences. :)

You laugh, but...., posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:11:47
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 Sometimes I really think that there's more accurate (and honest) subjective evaluation at HA than on more purportedly audiophile sites. Particularly revolving around the practice of posting waveforms and spectrograms to justify quality claims, which is highly frowned upon at HA.

If I had a dollar for every time somebody posted a waveform of a vinyl recording to "prove" it was higher quality than the CD..

Also note that there is a "to the best of one's abilities" clause of TOS8 which mostly precludes the kind of humorous sniping you allude to.

Well... yeah, I do!, posted on September 2, 2009 at 05:07:38
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 But it's just because of the high levels of paranoia I've seen by lurking on HA. I test some of my subjective impressions and I've witnessed others do the same. But it's not a requirement to my own enjoyment to test everything, and others are free to believe me or not. My advice to others is always the same - try it for yourself.

Regarding the higher quality of one recording medium over another... my own experience shows that either can be of higher quality. The best sound I've ever heard was on a 45 RPM vinyl record. But I've heard several RBCD's that sounded better than their counterpart LP, and vice versa. The higher quality recording is the one that sounds better.

I'll admit the paranoia occasionally sucks, posted on September 3, 2009 at 01:01:39
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 and I've occasionally tried to balance out the more rabid and illogical manifestations of the skepticism. (Hell, a couple of us have even been fed up with Arny at one time or another.)

My impression is that the *general* meaning of your experience - listen to what sounds best - isn't really all that much different than what us skeptics/turks/etc believe in. It's just that the path to getting there is so much different.

"paranoia occasionally sucks"? So, there are times when paranoia is just fine?, posted on September 4, 2009 at 11:09:44
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 That's just another confirmation that you spend too much time in that festering manure heap...

Sure! When people actually ARE out to get me! :) (nt), posted on September 4, 2009 at 15:01:11
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 nt

RE: Sure! When people actually ARE out to get me! :) (nt), posted on September 4, 2009 at 17:29:44
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 As in the case of James Forrestal? :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I'm still rapturously awating how you think I've been lying -nt, posted on September 4, 2009 at 14:54:10
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

Your persistence can be fully satisfied, if you just...., posted on September 4, 2009 at 19:14:00
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... re-read your own posts, where you mention members of your beloved Audio-Hitlerjugend having audio systems and listening skills as good as audiophiles. Come to think of it, not all of them can be described as "Jugend", but senility is just as good...

BTW, to impart at least an appearance of legitimacy to your claims on this subject, I - again - strongly recommend you delete your system's description from the profile. Otherwise there could an impression that you consider THAT good system, too.

Godwin's Law satisfied 2x, and you talk the big talk for a guy who doesn't post his system. You're cute., posted on September 5, 2009 at 09:14:23
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 But anyways, quite a few people own Transporters and DAC1s, at least one person offhand (and probably a few more) own LP12s, and speaker-wise, while I couldn't find a comprehensive survey on the matter, a cursory search indicades that electrostatics are adequately represented. I think that's more than enough evidence to support my original contention regarding equipment - that they "tend to have equally good ... rigs as anybody else here". If you want to talk average estimates of equipment, you're on your own - I have no evidence one way or another, on either forum.

You also understand, of course, that I'm evaluating audio quality on my own terms, not yours. So if you want to show I'm lying, please do so in the context of evaluating audio quality in terms of double-blind testing.

As far as listening skills are concerned... how would you choose to evaluate this in an objective manner, in order to factually prove my dishonesty? With all the crap accorded to DBTs on AA, how many of y'all have successfully replicated the positive DBT results obtained on HA? Which group of people discuss specific, technical, provably audible flaws with lossy encoders, and which group tends not to perceive much beyond generic qualifiers? Whose opinions are more trusted outside their own communities of like-minded thinkers?

I don't recall ever making claims about *my own* equipment or listening skills - in fact I pretty clearly recall predicting on HA that I would likely never be able to ABX 320kbps, and my GO46 is giving me a lot of headaches atm. So bringing my system into all of this just seems like an ad hominem distraction, and a pretty terrible one at that.

I guess you want me to feel more insulted, but you're just not that good of a troll. I regret talking such talk as "my homies are just as good as your homies!", tribal and subjective that such statements are, but I also regret spending all this much time responding to you, too. Don't worry though - I'll turn back soon to pursuits that other people actually care about, and you can still be King Sh*t of F*ck Mountain.
LOL, posted on September 3, 2009 at 05:07:41
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 "Illogical manifestations" aren't the sole province of the skeptic, as I'm sure you well know! I'm all for a happy medium. :)

>My impression is that the *general* meaning of your experience - listen to what sounds best<

I was referring mainly to recordings/mediums. I would certainly hope that our two camps are united on listening to whatever medium sounds best on any given recording. On the other hand, I'm well aware that there are those who are "convinced" that either analog or digital is consistently superior.

RE: "The higher quality recording is the one that sounds better. ", posted on September 2, 2009 at 08:16:37
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Amen!

That about says it all. I like music and sound is important to me, it's wonderful when they happen in conjunction. I've heard good music and sounds on every medium from 78's onward but the percentage has always been low.

Rick

RE: "The higher quality recording is the one that sounds better. ", posted on September 3, 2009 at 05:12:01
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 I'm amazed at times how incredible 78's can sound. I don't consider them high fidelity (whatever that means) but within their limited scope they can raise the hair on my neck at times. Alongside that, I have an old Gerry Mulligan LP that has much more surface noise than I like but the sound absolutely explodes from the speakers. I've never heard CD's with that kind of jump factor.

Overall, however, I'd say I prefer digital to analog about 2/3 of the time.

RE: 78's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 09:15:47
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 I guess 'jump factor' is a good way to put it. They are often livelier than the slower moving media seems to be. However, I have several CD's made from 78's and they still have IT. So it, whatever it may be, probably has more to do with the recording techniques than the medium. I know that everyone will jump down my neck but just speaking from my own experience 33's only sound good for about 10 plays, if at all. They are a compromised medium favoring playing time over quality.

At the risk of seeming mystical, it seems to me that there is something beyond frequency response that gets lost by recording at slower speeds or messing with the signal very much. I think the old 78's were recorded directly to acetate or something so there wasn't much opportunity to mess them up. Look at the good sound Sheffield got with direct to disk. High quality recordings are recorded, not produced.

Rick

RE: 78's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 11:29:05
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >So it, whatever it may be, probably has more to do with the recording techniques than the medium.<

Yes, of course. I only meant that the 78 medium was capturing *it* which meant that within its limited bandwidth, it did as well as CD in the one parameter of *it*. :) Too bad there's other parameters!

>I know that everyone will jump down my neck but just speaking from my own experience 33's only sound good for about 10 plays, if at all<

No neck-jumping from this quarter. Your experiences are perfectly valid. However, I agree with Tony. With an anal amount of care, I can still play LP's from the 1950's on, and many of them have minimal signs of deterioration after several dozen if not a few hundred plays.

>High quality recordings are recorded, not produced. <

Absolutely!

RE: 78's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 10:52:56
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "but just speaking from my own experience 33's only sound good for about 10 plays, if at all"

Not my experience. With a good m.c. cartridge and elliptical stylus, coupled with frequent use a vacuum record cleaning machine, I have not experienced deterioration at 200 plays on some tracks that I used for test purposes. Definitely a PITA, though.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: 78's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 12:28:43
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 I don't understand it either, I just thought it was normal and have been shocked to read how much longer life others have obtained.

I actually have the same stuff and was planning to use it to digitize my records if I can get the melted belt off the platter mat. It hasn't been used in 20 years. It's a Philips 212 table with an ADC XLM cartridge and an elliptical needle. So it's, I think, a moving magnet scheme but produces wonder sound. With a new record...

A lot of my newer records will probably be fine if the crap I coated them with, something from Ball Bros. hasn't turned rancid and eaten the groves or something. Many of them were only played twice, once to see if I liked them and once to tape them so if they aren't warped, all should be well.

I didn't seem to get as fast a wear with that lubricant on it. I half wonder if I've been tracking too light, I think it's set to about 0.8g. I have just the opposite feelings for records than many of the other inmates, I despise fussing with them, cleaning (I don't have a vacuum cleaner), removing static, replacing needles worrying about settings, and worst of all: turning them over. But I do like the sound that good ones are capable of. However for me the key to enjoying them is to get it to digital which I have found a far better format for my temperament. Since I haven't heard them in two decades I look forward to, gasp, choke, the music also. I was thinking of Roger Miller just the other day...

Granted, the vast majority of them are classical and I have long ago bought the same works on CD, but there are others.

Rick

Time for a new cartridge, posted on September 13, 2009 at 16:23:19
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 me thinks. The ADC, in my neck of the woods had a propensity for the suspension to fail. The Philips was good in its day but there are many superior tables out since. IIRC the Philips had a very soft suspension very prone to movement from the base on which it sat. Definitely set the tracking force a bit higher: 1 gram is the minimum I set mine. The bouncing stylus assembly does more harm than a heavy one.

Alcohol cleans those grooves out quite nicely. IIRC the instruction for your LP treatment (Groove Guard, wasn't it?) recommended a very light coating from the spray can and a buffing with the polishing cloth to remove the majority of the lubricant. If you can access ethanol, it is probably the best, but I use isopropyl with a extremely small amount of surfactant with good results.

You're probably digging up the accumulated lubricant working its way down to the bottom of the record grooves by now, and that will gum up your stylus tip and often require cleaning of the stylus more than once per side.

I have some LP's which I used for store demo, playing them as much as 20 times in a day. Some of those still sound pretty good. This particularly true with the latest stylus tips ( microgroove, which emulates the cutting stylus for the mastering). And then my truly vintage LPs, things like original Buddy Holly's and Orbison's in mono have a sound so unbelievable that their voices become almost palpable in my system. There is something to a tube system playing tube recorded music that modern recordings seem to simply lack. My original Zombies, and the bubble gum stars like Shelley Fabares have a certain quality which is simply not there in any modern remastering or format.


Stu

RE: Time for a new cartridge, posted on September 23, 2009 at 06:44:12
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Hi Stu,

A bit tardy responding... By suspension do you mean of the stylus, the little rubber donut thing? That's the only suspension I'm aware of. I know I'll need a new needle because they tend to petrify. I thought I'd get it all set up using a don't care record and then just buy a needle if that's all it needs. The bloody things have gotten expensive, they were $15 when I bought the cartridge.

I suspect you're right about the tracking force, but I just couldn't bring myself to increase it very much even when I was suspecting that as a problem. It's a psycho thing, at some influenceable age I was told that light tracking was everything and it's just ingrained in my brain stem alongside flight/fight.

I'm not at all thinking of buying a new table, I have no intention whatever to go back to playing records. Yes, the Philips does have a light suspension and that's a good thing in my book. The Philips/ADC combination is far and away the best set up I've ever had and sounds fabulous in my book. That's the sound I want to capture and I've even got my old preamp in the closet so it should be about the same as I remember.

Back to the suspension. I first heard the 212 at an Infinity demo in San Diego at one of the stores. They had the whole lineup including the servo-statics with the 18" Cerwin Vega servo controlled woofer. And one of the things they were playing was 'dark side of the moon' with the turntable about a meter in front of the speakers, and NO problems whatever. As soon as the lights came back on I zipped over to see what the turntable was and hoping that I could afford it 'cause I wanted one... They were also using a prototype of their class D amplifier, must have been around 1973. Ah nostalgia.

Thanks for the cleaning tips, I haven't looked at a record in twenty years so I don't have a clue what mine are like. Good I hope because I really hate messing with them. I'm just amazed at the people that love the ritual of caressing their disks in a dimly lit room. I suppose they have some mnemonic link to youthful sex. They sure do for me, my B&O table didn't stop when the record was done and the side always ended at the worst possible time...

Regards, Rick
My experience mirrors Tony's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 15:37:12
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I've used a VPI RCM for over twenty years and have played records tons of times. And used some of the same Sound Guard product when it was available in the 80s. :)

rw

That's a relief., posted on September 3, 2009 at 16:40:13
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Yes, that's the stuff, and I was braced for one of those 'while this seemed a good idea at the time, long term tests have discovered that it turns vinyl into plaster of Paris' moments. It seems to me I've read that sort of report about some other coatings or processes.

Thanks for the info!

Rick
RE: 78's, posted on September 3, 2009 at 12:36:25
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 I had some of my LPs get wet due to a plumbing disaster. Many of these were recovered completely with a VPI vacuum cleaning machine. (But not the cardboard jackets.)

I had a TT with vacuum hold down, so this took care of most warped records, if not off center ones. Unfortunately, the bearing started to fail, with every so gradual degradation of sound quality until it eventually became quite obvious.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Looks like we have different concepts of honesty, too. N/T, posted on September 1, 2009 at 14:56:51
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

Now I'm genuinely curious as to what you think I'm lying about... -nt, posted on September 1, 2009 at 15:38:46
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

"HA homeys tend to have equally good listening skills (and rigs)" - there's a difference..., posted on September 1, 2009 at 13:37:30
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... between unscientific claims and wild guesses you supplied before, and blatant lies you supplied now. I honestly can't say I'm impressed with, or interested in discussing, either of them.

Regarding disparaging comments about perception and experience - I made no such comments, merely stating the facts. If you're interested in disparaging comments, I'd suggest you read threads at HA involving some naive newcomer and usual rabid hyena pack of "scientists".

PS: To make your claims on the subject of quality systems more believable, you'd probably want to delete your system's description from your profile.

I know! It's like, wow, we have different conceptions of reality or something -nt, posted on September 1, 2009 at 13:50:59
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

Page processed in 0.356 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]