The latest Tannoy supertweeters can go this high. Most good quality ribbon tweeters and electrostatics can also go this high. Whether or not we can hear these frequencies is still up for debate. Some people claim they can hear them, some people say that it has been scientifically "proven" that the human ear can't hear them. Either way, it's pretty cool.
In my experience, the higher frequncies seem to add spaciousness and a more "real" feeling to live recordings. I may not be able to hear sine waves up that high, but having those upper harmonics does seen to involve me more emotionally in what I'm hearing.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Zach
In my experience, the higher frequncies seem to add spaciousness and a more "real" feeling to live recordings. I may not be able to hear sine waves up that high, but having those upper harmonics does seen to involve me more emotionally in what I'm hearing.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Zach
A nice but extremely expensive supertweeter is this one:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/p...B,00.html?compName=PNA_ProductDetailComponent
Regards
Charles
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/p...B,00.html?compName=PNA_ProductDetailComponent
Regards
Charles
I remember reading something published many years ago that stated humans can perceive some ultrasonic frequencies when immersed in a complex acoustic environment.
In other words, single tone tests aren't entirely accurate. When listening music, humans can hear something above what is considered normal.
I assume the people who conducted this study had data which supported it. Either way, it is interesting to consider.
Though it gave no explanation, I theorized that perhaps it has to do with the mechanical nature of the eardrum. Perhaps once the eardrum is already moving from something complex like music, it is easier for higher frequencies to excite the eardrum.
If you're listening to a CD, the high frequency rolloff is rediculously sharp above 20kHz, so extra bandwidth from a speaker may not make a difference anyway.
In other words, single tone tests aren't entirely accurate. When listening music, humans can hear something above what is considered normal.
I assume the people who conducted this study had data which supported it. Either way, it is interesting to consider.
Though it gave no explanation, I theorized that perhaps it has to do with the mechanical nature of the eardrum. Perhaps once the eardrum is already moving from something complex like music, it is easier for higher frequencies to excite the eardrum.
If you're listening to a CD, the high frequency rolloff is rediculously sharp above 20kHz, so extra bandwidth from a speaker may not make a difference anyway.
There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!
This might be interesting reading in this context:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
This might be interesting reading in this context:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Re: There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!
Most of these ultrasonics will be lost to the recording process. This is also, in part why the vinyl contingency hold on to them old LP's, and look down on the 22kHz digital wall.
Where we can't hear the ultrasonics directly, we can hear the artifacts the ultrasonics summing and intermodulating. Basically the sub-harmonic distortion products. Here are a couple of links that discuss making this sub-harmonic distortion usable.
http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html
http://www.bostonaes.org/archives/2003/Jan/
Yes.cocolino said:
Most of these ultrasonics will be lost to the recording process. This is also, in part why the vinyl contingency hold on to them old LP's, and look down on the 22kHz digital wall.
Where we can't hear the ultrasonics directly, we can hear the artifacts the ultrasonics summing and intermodulating. Basically the sub-harmonic distortion products. Here are a couple of links that discuss making this sub-harmonic distortion usable.
http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html
http://www.bostonaes.org/archives/2003/Jan/
Not only we can hear ultrasonic summing and intermodulation products, it might be that we humans have an organ which is sensitive to this high frequencies.
Here a quote from the article linked above:
In a paper published in Science, Lenhardt et al. report that "bone-conducted ultrasonic hearing has been found capable of supporting frequency discrimination and speech detection in normal, older hearing-impaired, and profoundly deaf human subjects." [5] They speculate that the saccule may be involved, this being "an otolithic organ that responds to acceleration and gravity and may be responsible for transduction of sound after destruction of the cochlea," and they further point out that the saccule has neural cross-connections with the cochlea.
This must not necessarily be so - there are microphones that can capture this frequencies. For the (analog) electronic part of the recording chain this frequencies are not the problem.
Maybe after 96KHz and higher resolution in digital audio is more established this things will get more attention in recording as well.
Vifa Ringradiators go almost upto 50k and some seas domes go up to 30-35k. Besides that they are relatively fairly priced and offer good quality, especially for such a moderate investment.
I could not establish wheter I can hear or experience the frequencies that high, my hearing diminishes at 18.5k.
They sound very good though and I tried them with SACD and DVD-A as well.
I could not establish wheter I can hear or experience the frequencies that high, my hearing diminishes at 18.5k.
They sound very good though and I tried them with SACD and DVD-A as well.
Those who doubt the utility of extended high frequency response have clearly never 'built' a square wave using a sum of sine waves. It's basic Fourier analysis--if you want good reproduction of waveforms, it's going to take high frequencies to do it. Whether you can hear the discrete tone is irrelevant. Can you hear the difference between a triangle wave and a square wave? Yes. Why? Because the overtones are different.
So who cares about overtones?
Only those people who don't want their saxophones sounding like flutes.
It matters.
Grey
So who cares about overtones?
Only those people who don't want their saxophones sounding like flutes.
It matters.
Grey
I must agree that I'm confident in the theories of hearing frequencies higher than the standard audio spectrum.
It is true that usually music reproduced on wideband equipment sounds better. I see no reason why one may not hear overtones and beat frequencies that occur as a result of 20Kplus sound.
Having experience with the piano and listening to music a lot, it is obvious that summation of frequencied is very important. Also, harmonic distortion is important. The bass strings in a good piano will never produce just the fundamental note, but many harmonics above which give it its tone and feel.
I think it would be good research to try and prove that extra high frequency audio use useful to the human ear. It certainly is logical.
It is true that usually music reproduced on wideband equipment sounds better. I see no reason why one may not hear overtones and beat frequencies that occur as a result of 20Kplus sound.
Having experience with the piano and listening to music a lot, it is obvious that summation of frequencied is very important. Also, harmonic distortion is important. The bass strings in a good piano will never produce just the fundamental note, but many harmonics above which give it its tone and feel.
I think it would be good research to try and prove that extra high frequency audio use useful to the human ear. It certainly is logical.
Even if we couldn't perceive frequencies above 20 kHz and below 20 Hz (which I am also convinced we are capable of) it would still be advisible to have a system with broader bandwidth in order to have accurate phase-response within this range, which is important for sound localisation.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.