Your opinions on 20khz+

[ak_47_boy]

Does reproduction of frequency's beyond human hearing (20khz) matter? I personally doubt it makes any difference.

Whats your opinion?

[Salas]

This thread has some opinions.

[I_Forgot]

Of course it matters for me, but probably not for anyone else. I can see so-clled ultraviolet light, too, down to about 50nm.

I_F

[neutron7]

Play a sine wave as high as you can possibly hear. change it to a square wave. there is a difference, Im not saying you are hearing the higher harmonics, but you are hearing your system responding differently to content with higher harmonics.

It could be that a better system is one where you CANT hear the difference between a sine wave and a square wave

[jcx]

Originally posted by neutron7
Play a sine wave as high as you can possibly hear. change it to a square wave. there is a difference, Im not saying you are hearing the higher harmonics, but you are hearing your system responding differently to content with higher harmonics.

It could be that a better system is one where you CANT hear the difference between a sine wave and a square wave

You may be missing the fact that the fundamental of a sq wave is 4/pi times the identical peak amplitude sine

the 2 dB amplitude difference of the fundamentals of equal peak amplitude sine/sq is well within audibility limits

the only valid approach is to level match the fundamentals

[AndrewT]

Originally posted by jcx
You may be missing the fact that the fundamental of a sq wave is 4/pi times the identical peak amplitude sine

the 2 dB amplitude difference of the fundamentals of equal peak amplitude sine/sq is well within audibility limits

the only valid approach is to level match the fundamentals

Try level matching as you've suggested and tell us if you can hear/not hear the difference between squarewave/sinewave.

I have my input RF filter on my power amps set to about 0.7uS simply because at this I find little if any of the high treble content is filtered off. This is equivalent to F-3db~=234kHz, F-1db~=120kHz. Some builders go to even higher frequencies claiming they can hear additional clarity in the wanted signal.

[Notagenius]

The Russians supposedly did research into cranial transducers. The subjects could detect 100 khz, but that's a different situation than a loudspeaker.

[niubbo]

When one hear (not listen) music, all the body (and all its receptor) is exposed to the source! So, even if ears don't cover range above 20kHz and below 20Hz, one should not forget the others receptors that, maybe, can have some responce!

Bye

P.S. Sorry for my english!

[Salas]

Not a paradoxical approach. At some point, the neurological researchers must delve deeper and find out more. If there is a benefit, the recording and replay technology has the capacity to extend.

[walkura]

Well i know from personal experience that you can sense sounds above 20 Khz & below 20 Hz .
If you ever had one of the old remote controls with ultrasonic transducer you could try if you hear it .
For audio purposes however its of not much use the audio industry filters everything ,except a few albums that was released *as is* on request of the artist in question .
Very few albums (only on vinyl in case of high tones,cause cd isnt technicly capable of certain things) have sounds below 20 hz (dark side of the moon ,certain (church) organs etc.) or (more interesting) an album like "christ the album" where on the vinyl where audible soft bells on the cd they seem to have dissapeared due to filtering (read samplefrequency)
So in my opinion yes there are reasons for adding a little extra bandwidth when you use vinyl ,but there is no reason when you only use cd .