In Reply to: Re: Does anything more than 20Hz-20KhZ matter? posted by tomservo on November 24, 2005 at 08:22:29:
Now, 5 microsecond ITD's (interaural time differences) do not require in any fashion 200kHz response of a system. It is relatively easy (10kHz center 1 millisecond gaussian pulse, for instance) to show that a signal with no content outside of 20-20K (to speak of) can and will still show this kind of ITD.So the fact that there are reports of 5 microsecond ITD's does not in any fashion support the contention that anyone can hear above 20kHz.
What's more, of course you can reproduce those ITD's inside a 44.1kHz digital system. Try it, it's easy. Don's test signal will show this to you, and it's been around for a long time, that signal, which, by the way, is not and never was a "pure tone". A "pure tone" by definition is infinitely long, so there is no such thing as a "pure tone". Not now, not ever. Any signal that happens in the real world has a finite bandwidth.
That doesn't, of course, affect the issue of hearing at all, since hearing also exists in the real world.
It is very likely that for anyone over the age of 10 or so, a few individuals perhaps excepted, audio signal above 20kHz is irrelevant.
There is, however, a very large BUT.
That's that filtering can cause audible in-band (i.e. below 20kHz) effects. A system that cuts off filters, in one way or another, by definition. Sometimes that filter can matter quite a bit.
Hence, having an extended range, especially in electronics, is often a good, sensible way to ensure that you don't get any in-band problems due to bandwidth limiting, even though the signal at higher frequency (if it's even present) may not be at all audible.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Whoa there... - real_jj 12:11:55 03/16/06 (0)