There is a study done with balinese music and CAT scans.
it appears that the brain scans for those listening to audio with content above 20kHz are different to those same people listening withg the audio cut off at 20kHz.
the listeners could not consciously tell what version of the music they were listening to but their brains were clearly behaving very differently.
I think it was on a link from Lynn Olson's web page but I may be mistaken.
It does make a difference, but you probably won't notice.
Look at any speaker system with super-tweeters. The fostex FT17H supertweeter goes to about 50kHz and only costs about $40 each.
it appears that the brain scans for those listening to audio with content above 20kHz are different to those same people listening withg the audio cut off at 20kHz.
the listeners could not consciously tell what version of the music they were listening to but their brains were clearly behaving very differently.
I think it was on a link from Lynn Olson's web page but I may be mistaken.
It does make a difference, but you probably won't notice.
Look at any speaker system with super-tweeters. The fostex FT17H supertweeter goes to about 50kHz and only costs about $40 each.
The Jordan JXR6 measures to 30kHz and runs from 100Hz, so would function from lower-midrange upwards, with no crossover or phase disturbances in the treble.
I've also read about the effect of ultrasound on listener perceptions. I'm sceptical but would be interested to try it sometime. I presume it's a bone conductance effect.
I've also read about the effect of ultrasound on listener perceptions. I'm sceptical but would be interested to try it sometime. I presume it's a bone conductance effect.
Expolinear have a supertweeter that does 18-100kHz. Nonsense for humans, but your bats will love it.
http://www.expolinear.de
http://www.expolinear.de
adason said:
Your hearing must suck. I can hear above 22kHz, though not as well as I can at, well, lower than 22kHz. In one of my electronics classes a few years back, we hooked a signal generator up to a small speaker and just went from like 10kHz up. Most people could hear to 18-20kHz; I went up to about 23kHz without having to turn up the amplitude (again, at a reduced volume though).
However, either way, I don't think it's an important range.
Geoff H said:
Most anti-aliasing filters remove any content above 20KHz with standard CD 44.1KHz. Even with 192KHz sampling, I wouldn't be surprised if filter specs stayed the same... With all the crappy CDs out there (recording quality, not musical talent) I can't see many of the people in record industry caring about anything over 20KHz.
I would imagine though, at a concert or private playing that some instruments' harmonics extend above 20KHz and it may make the sound different...but there are usually a lot of other noises going on too to mask it...
I might add that while SACD is beautifiully linear up to about 25KHz, above this the DSD process chucks out huge amounts of noise, swamping whatever information might be there anyway. Most LPs are about done in practical terms by ~18KHz IIRC. Again, above that, assuming there is anything, will be noise, and very few pickups can get up that high. I seem to remember a test LP with a 20KHz test, and that's the highest I can ever recall being used.
DonoMan said:
His hearing does not suck, I can hear to about 19.8k. Unfortunately where I work a 20k test tone on the public address system has a harmonic at 18.6kHz, I am the only one out of 350 people who can hear it. At first the PA system vendor didn't believe I could hear it. That should give you some idea how lucky (?) you are to have such extended response. Your hearing is abnormally good, I suggest you take up shooting as a second hobby - it will make your audio hobby much cheaper.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.