|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Ok, I am in an interesting situation. I am looking to upgrade my CD player, and would like to get a SACD player. The thing is, my spearkers are only rated up to 20khz, the SACD's have a range up to 50khz. I am going to purchase new speakers in the long run, but in the short run I only have enough dough for one or the other. (New SACD, or new speakers, but not both) I realize, that if I get new speakers with a rating up to 50khz, I will not be using them to their full potential with redbook cd, and if I get a SACD player I will not be able to use it to its fullest potential with speakers with a rating of 20khz. Catch-22.As such, I am wondering whether one can upgrade the frequency rating of their speakers by upgrading my old speaker's internal crossover(s), or does one need to replace the actual tweater, midrange, and woofer? (In other words, buy a new set of speakers) To be honest, I am looking for a short term fix, eight months to a year, but be able to enjoy the benefits (although not to the fullest) of SACD.
I understand this is an interesting proposal, but just wondering if it is possible to do cheaply without having to drop a pile of bones on new speakers. Any thoughts, or site locations to order the crossovers I would be looking for? I would love to hear from you. Thanks in advance.
Follow Ups:
that your system, as well as mine and anyone else's here, will benefit more from other purchases than a supertweeter. Personally, I have been focusing on reproducing music between 30hz and 16khz, where my 30 year old (abused) ears can hear. Once I (If I ever) have achieved the last word within this range, I just might have a reference to expand from.If 19.5Hz - 22.5Khz is good enough for the Wilson Grand SLAMM, it's good enough for me.
So, my suggestion is to get the SACD player, but not for the stated reason.
Although SACDs are theoretically capable of reproducing frequencies up to 50khz, it is unlikely that many SACDs actually contain significant musical information much above 20khz. First, a large portion of the SACD releases are reissues of performances originally recorded on analog or PCM masters. Even if the original analog master tapes had much content above 20khz, it is probably long gone because the high frequencies are the first to degrade and disappear from magnetic tape. The PCM masters, unless recent 96khz or higher sample rates, were low pass filtered at 20khz. Second, recording frequencies up to 50khz requires that every component in the recording chain has a flat frequency response to beyond 50khz. That includes the microphones, amplifiers, mixers, and cables. How many studio microphones, in current use, meet that criteria?As Duke points out, while humans may not hear frequencies above 20khz, they are aware of their presence by the way they combine with each other and lower frequency components. Using Duke's hypothetical example of a 32khz overtone combined with a 34khz overtone to produce a 2khz beat frequency, why do you need to reproduce both the 32khz and 34khz tones? The microphone used in the recording session was acting as a surrogate for our ears and recorded the 2khz beat frequency, which is all we would have heard had we been there. IMHO, the 50khz business is just a marketing ploy to get you to buy more stuff; just like 20 years ago when they stuck "digital ready" stickers on all the new hifi gear to make it look new and different and a "must have" product for the "digital age."
Your reasoning is excellent, as any beat tones produced in the audible range could be recorded on a CD. However, where the beat tones come from is another matter.Some researchers discovered that the presence of the ultrasonic components was not audible if the ultrasonics and the audible signal were produced by different speakers. It seems that the intermodulation distortion produced by the interaction of of the audible signal and the ultrasonic signal was audible. However, when the intermodulation distortion was removed by using separate speakers, the test subjects could not disprove the null hypothesis in the DBTs.
Reference: Ashikara Kaoru and Kiryu Shogo, "Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz," Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5401, presented at the 110th Convention, 2001 May 12-15, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
That's all very interesting but the question is not the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies but whether or not SACD playback benefits from 50khz-capable speakers. I say no and it is easy enough to test. First, listen to an SACD on a 50khz-capable audio system, Then, listen the same SACD on the same system with the addition of a quality low-pass filter with a 20khz cut-off. If the presence or absence of the filter is undetectable when listen to CD or LP sources, I predict that it will be undetectable when listening to SACD sources.
I do not see how your scenario fails to be concerned with the audibility of ultrasonics. Technically, one could argue that the speakers capable of reproducing ultrasonics were more accurate; but if the question is what is heard, then it does not seem to be the ultrasonics but distortion products produced in the audible range.It would be possible to have an SACD or DVD-A which would contain ultrasonic frequencies. One could record the test frequencies used, for example, which resulted in the speakers producing sufficient intermodulation distortion to be audible. So, merely introducing a filter could result in an audible change due to the reduction in the distortion, not accuracy in reproducing the high frequencies. The ready explanation would be that the audible difference was due to distortion in the speaker--in other words, something caused by the speaker, not the original signal.
One might prefer the result, of course. Some people prefer some kinds of distortion.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Back in the early 1950's (US Army) and in the past few years (CalTec), it was shown that humans can percieve signal material above the accepted limit of human hearing (generaly 20khz). The tests played material first with and then without ultrasonic content. The absence of the ultrasonic content was noticed though was not specificly identified. Theory is that while we do not consciously recognise ultrasonic material, the presense of same still excites our hearing mechanism and causes impulses to be sent to the auditory portion of our brains. On a subconscious level, we are "aware" even if we can not verbalise what we are aware of.I think we all agree that the brick wall filter of 16/44 Red Book cuts off ultrasonic harmonic information, to the detriment of sound (lets not even get into to distorions produced as harmonics are reflected back off of the brick wall filter).
Original master tapes, made before digital mastering was prevalent, contained sonic information above 20khz. Analogue equipment IS capable of reproducing the ultrasonic content (yes even tube amps and phono cartridges) of the master tapes. If speakers can be made to reproduce the ultrasonic spectrum cleanly, shouldn't that be a benefit ?
As for SACD- Stereophile was kind enough to publish spectra content of SACD and previosly of their own recordings (that they have released), both clearly showed harmonic content above 20khz.
As we go forward into higher resolution digital, ultrasonic content will become the norm rather than the exception.
Best,
But are you hearing the ultrasonics or simply intermodulation distortion in the speakers?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Hi,You can always add a Supertweeter, there are some pricy ones like the Tannoy and the Townshend or you could DIY it youself using supertweeters from Fostex. Have a look at the link below on the Townshend Supertweeter, it extends beyond 100Khz :-))
Best Regards,
Bill
I can understand your enthusiasm, but if it were me I would wait a little as the whole thing to me at least smacks of marketing... To be honest I don't know too much a bout SACD, but I do know that the software is rare on the ground and common CD discs (thanks to Phillips' short sightedness) are stone walled at 20kHz, so what's the point of trying to reproduce something that's not there in the first place?... Unless you are going to play analogue LP's as well, which is another thing entirely...
tomcat
Unless you're not sensitive to RFI, doing this would be a mistake.
I understand, as anyone who took a basic course in human biology, that dogs and bats, as some of you so clearly put it, are, unlike humans, able to hear sounds well above 20khz. (See Dog Whistle.) The general focus of my question, as grasped by Duke, was whether or not the sounds generally inaudible to us, have an impact on the sounds that we do hear. As such, frequency response of a speaker may make a both a subjective and objective difference in sound quality, especally when considering a system which support SACD.Therefore, Duke, thanks for the insight, for what it is worth, you were able to give me a decent answer to my problem:
----Getting back to your overall upgrade strategy, I'd say go with an SACD player before you start adding 50 kHz response to your speaker system. SACD is a clear audible improvement even on lowly 20 kHz speakers----
As such, I think I will look into upgrading to a SACD, enjoy the substantial improvement in sound quality, and save my pennies future speaker upgrades.
Thanks again,
twhaase
When you do get around to "upgrading" your speakers, you'll probably have quite a range of extended response models to choose from. The British loudspeaker companies seem to be taking the issue quite seriously and currently KEF, B&W and Tannoy all have extended response models. Tannoy (to my knowledge) are the first company to design and market a mid-price extended response range, the Eyris series.The Eyris series is an interesting one, because Tannoy have not simply bolted on a super tweeter, but actually replaced the original tweeter with their metal dome super tweeter (which is mega-expensive as an add on unit). The thing that really excites me about this approach is that in order to get the tweeter to produce these hypersonic frequencies (without compromising the bottom part of the tweeter's passband), the actual structure of the tweeter must be drastically improved. This new tweeter is a very high quality unit. The motor stucture has been improved to produce extended frequency response. The dome itself is much thinner than that in an ordinary tweeter, which in addition to providing extended frequency capability, also helps the dome resist the low (treble) frequency ringing that's common to ordinary metal domes. The structure of the new metal dome provides better self-damping. The hyper-tweeter should sound much, much cleaner than an ordinary unit as a result, because unlike frequencies above 20 kHz, we all have very sensitive hearing in the 3-8 kHz passband.
Tannoy are offering a very high quality tweeter on a budget model. SACD is leading to improvements in the physical design of speakers. This is exciting news even to those people who do not plan to upgrade to SACD anytime soon.
It is exciting Layman!
Dvd audio and SACD both are pushing the edge of the art!
The jury seems to still be out on wide range tweeter response, but at least bats will be able to enjoy clean ultrasonic response!
Will DVD-A players reproduce frequencies up to 50Khz? (Toshiba SD9200).Seems to me I have never heard a system which accurately reproduces the sound of a trumpet. Maybe its the ultrasonic harmonics? OK, I'll try it if I can without scrapping my system.
...psychologically, and financially. Don't worry about anything over about 20kHz. 50kHz? Are you kidding me? As one of the other posters said, after about 30, the high frequency hearing of most normal people declines rapidly above about 16kHz. Even if one were subject to the joy of an additional one octave of overtones, that still puts you 18kHz short of the 50 you are worried about.
The ear is indeed sensitive to the effects of sounds well above its normal hearing range, even if it can't hear those signals directly.For example, trumpets produce very rich and loud harmonic overtone structures up to and above 50 kHz. Let's look at two hypothetical overtones, at 32 kHz and 34 kHz. These two overtones actually produce four distinct sounds - a 32 kHz signal, a 34 kHz signal, a 66 kHz "sum" signal, and a 2 kHz "difference" signal. The latter two are considerably down in volume as compared to the original signals, but they are indeed present. The difference signal is called a "beat".
Beat signals are present in all harmonic structures, and add richness to the timbre. So in our exmaple above, even though we cannot possibly hear the 32 kHz or 34 kHz harmonics, the 2 kHz beat they produce (albeit at lower volume) does contribute to the harmonic structure that is within our range of hearing.
One subjective effect of very extended high frequency response is greater harmonic richness and airiness because of the beat signals generated within the audible range.
Okay, all that being said, very few tweeters will take you up to 50 kHz. It's not just a matter of changing tweeters - it's more a matter of adding a supertweeter. Changing tweeters is not a simple matter, because the crossover would have to be re-designed, and a tweeter that goes up to 50 K is probably not going to go down as low as a tweeter that only has to go up to 20 K. Adding a dedicated supertweet would be much simpler.
I believe Tannoy makes a high quality add-on supertweeter, and Radio Shack used to market some inexpensive piezo units, but I never liked them much.
Getting back to your overall upgrade strategy, I'd say go with an SACD player before you start adding 50 kHz response to your speaker system. SACD is a clear audible improvement even on lowly 20 kHz speakers.
As a horn player a trumpet hitting 34Khz, I don't know about that. There must be some harmonic ossicllations within the brass of the instument or a recording artifact causing that. If not that dude has a magic set of chops.
Charles
A number of other instruments have harmonic spectrums that extend well into ultrasonics.Quoting from "There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz" by James Boyk of the California Institute of Technology:
"Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet, to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz."
Below is a link to Mr. Boyk's paper, which you might find interesting.
I don't think it's any news that the sound of some instruments have ultrasonic components although the detailed measurements are interesting. But, since no one can hear that high, what difference does it make?Kaoru and Shogo measured what appears to be intermodulation distortion in the loudspeaker between ultrasonic frequencies and frequencies in the audible range. They eliminated this by having the ultrasonic frequencies reproduced by separate speakers, at which point the audible effects disappeared. So, we have a ready explanation for the audible effects of ultra high frequency content: deficiencies in the reproducing equipment, not the recording.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
How about trying a comparison between a 20k-stone-walled recording with a 'no-holds-barred' one? (same performance of course).I haven't tried it before but it would be interesting to note on the magnitude of the sonic difference with and without the ultrasonic (convienently defined as > 20k) content, and how much it matters to the music that we are listening to. of course, terms like 'sonic difference' and 'how much it matters to the music' need to be very carefully/comprehensively defined.
Again my earlier comment: Some claim to be able to hear thru their teeth.. perhaps they can but the levels are REALLY low, perhaps even indistinguishable. Nice try.
I'm confused, Bare."BFD"?
"Nice try"??
And while we're on the subject, I never said anything about hearing through one's teeth.
Perhaps you don't buy my explanation of the phenomenon of "beats", so below I've posted a link to a site endorsed by the National Science Teachers Associaton.
By the way, a few years back Bob Carver was working on a device that involved a rather unique application of beats to "beam" a tightly-focused column of sound, using a 200,000 Hz carrier signal. He was able to re-create sound well within the audible spectrum entirely from ultrasonics. I searched the web but failed to come up with any specific reference to Carver's involvement. All I could find was a rather simplistic news article describing this technology, here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/cuttingedge010831.html
Basically, what I'm saying is: a) the "beat" phenomeon is real; b) ultrasonic overtones are real; and c) that ultrasonic overtones can generate beat signals within the audible range.
On the subjective front, a comparison of analog or SACD to redbook CD's demonstrates that the ear is indeed sensitive to things happening (or not happening) at frequencies theoretically above the range of human hearing.
Cheers,
Duke
Just focus on what you can hear. 50khz-protect the fine china
If it will work as you think, all our furniture will be wrecked by now....
Only your dog and bats will be able to hear these frequencies. You will surely not be able to hear them.
Good plan... Now what about 'upgrading' yer hearing!?? Bionics Mebe?
Average Male Human over 30 or so years of age has diminished hearing over 16hz.. and it further reduces with age.. But there are those that claim they can hear 'psycoacoustically' thru their teeth ;-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: