@ mountainman bob,
Try "There is life above 20 kHz":
There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
The gamelan music that was used in several of this "hypersonic experiments" is rich on content above 20 kHz and obviously there was some of it captured in the recording.
As you've said, per se nobody knows what is captured above 20 kHz, but even not so capable microphones usually don't have a brickwall frequency response (means lowpass at 20 kHz and ~50 - 100 dB attenuation above).
But that was the reason why I posted my concern regarding the still open question if it is of relevance when not listening "that much" to gamelan music.
I've seen an experiment using some baroque music instead of the gamelan while using otherwise a similar approach (at least partly) as Oohashi et al.; published last year!?
@ scottjoplin,
Of course, could be, but as it isn't about me, that shouldn't matter, should it?
Btw, it wasn't meant offensive as we normal humans imo do waste a lot of time.....
@ syn08,
Apart from the "1000 pages of irrelevant literature" , it's a nice case of projection, mhm? 🙂
Try "There is life above 20 kHz":
There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
The gamelan music that was used in several of this "hypersonic experiments" is rich on content above 20 kHz and obviously there was some of it captured in the recording.
As you've said, per se nobody knows what is captured above 20 kHz, but even not so capable microphones usually don't have a brickwall frequency response (means lowpass at 20 kHz and ~50 - 100 dB attenuation above).
But that was the reason why I posted my concern regarding the still open question if it is of relevance when not listening "that much" to gamelan music.
I've seen an experiment using some baroque music instead of the gamelan while using otherwise a similar approach (at least partly) as Oohashi et al.; published last year!?
@ scottjoplin,
Of course, could be, but as it isn't about me, that shouldn't matter, should it?
Btw, it wasn't meant offensive as we normal humans imo do waste a lot of time.....
@ syn08,
Apart from the "1000 pages of irrelevant literature" , it's a nice case of projection, mhm? 🙂
Last edited:
Yes, that is how babies are seen by ultrasound in the womb. Bone and cartilage are denser than flesh or blood. The ultrasound bounces off and is picked by the sensor that pan and scopes the information onto the monitor screen. Clever stuff.
I think we unconsciously react to ultrasound in a way similar to our perception of infrared light in a dark room full of people. After a little while everyone stops bumping into each other. Just because we sometimes cannot always perceive a vital sensory stimulus, due to a high (or low) signal to noise ratio in our surroundings, it does not necessarily mean our central nervous system fails to pick it up.
So I do wonder about the efficacy of even trying to subjectively evaluate a sound system - at times.......but hey! if you like it, and feel like getting up and doing the boss a nova in an empty room, then all that hard work has been worth it, eh? 😕
More thoughts from the world of ToS
Why the vitriol guys? Certainly there are members that can be frustrating to interact with on occasion but there are folks that when engaged honestly force some amount of learning (if begrudgingly and quite possibly not along the path of intent, necessarily) and there are those who yield little fruit, so to speak. The former are valuable the latter far less so.
Nope, it is only a short and polite description of a well known modus operandi on all audio related Internet virtual places you ever contributed to. Do you need a list of links for everybody to read?
Actually, as far as I can tell, for various reasons (out of which, least but not the last, good tight moderation), you have been treated with much more consideration on this very forum compared to other virtual places on the Internet. Which is probably one of the reason you periodically insist spreading (for example) the Oohashi crap each time you detect an opportunity.
What is it about?
Thanks, looks like I presumed correctly, could be I already knew about the recordings at least 😉 Still, some info there I didn't know 🙂
I guess there will be no benefit and it may create issues instead. The purpose of the high sampling rate is to allow for better analog reconstruction, not to record inaudible musical contents.
Do you recall the demonstration performed by Craig Stark (Stereo Review)
where he played a 22 KHz tone through one loudspeaker and 24 KHz
through another? He reported that listeners could clearly discern the
2 KHz difference tone.
Fortunately this can be easily replicated by anyone here with two
oscillators. I am tempted to do this with my TAD ribbons at 44 and 46 KHz.
where he played a 22 KHz tone through one loudspeaker and 24 KHz
through another? He reported that listeners could clearly discern the
2 KHz difference tone.
Fortunately this can be easily replicated by anyone here with two
oscillators. I am tempted to do this with my TAD ribbons at 44 and 46 KHz.
Ear intermodulation - it works. Experimented as well. Not 44L 46R kHz, but just above 20kHz. You know 44kHz would have hard times to get into auditory system.
No. Given an upper frequency limit, reconstruction is not better, whatever (over Nyquist) sampling rate you would choose.
Haven't read anything about this experiment, but assuming it was not something casual (read: sighted or the kin) it would only prove that our crappy Fourier analyzer usually know as "hearing" is non linear.
No wombats were harmed so far. 🙂
@ syn08,
Nope? Really? No "grumble" or "moan" no insults of other members (washed or unwashed)? Not even a little bit of obfuscation?
Maybe no FUD, but instead "crap" it surely is:
Nope, that is plain wrong.
Edit: I must admit, I've misread. Oohashis et al. used indeed only one additional ribbon tweeter to reproduce the high-frequency content, but the levels were much lower than in the A & K experiment.
Nope, it was not repeated, Ashihara and Kiryu simply did another experiment.
Not that much correct in your critic (which btw is a bit like sitting on the fence, isn't it? 🙂 ), so far.
Edit: Ok, ok, a bit more correct than I initially thought.
What is left is an assumption:
Could be true, but you don't have any facts to back it up.
The results of the control runs in the experiment don't give any corrobation for your claim either.
@ Nelson Pass,
Do you recall the demonstration performed by Craig Stark (Stereo Review)
where he played a 22 KHz tone through one loudspeaker and 24 KHz
through another? He reported that listeners could clearly discern the
2 KHz difference tone.
Fortunately this can be easily replicated by anyone here with two
oscillators. I am tempted to do this with my TAD ribbons at 44 and 46 KHz.
I expressed my concerns that the inevitable interference (supertweeter and speaker covering the band below 20 kHz) wasn't explicitely further examined.
But in the listening congtrol runs the high-frequency content was presented alone and none of the listeners could detect it, which imo makes a beating effect (evoked by the high-frequency content) unlikely and an intermodulation distortion effect (due to the high-frequency content) in the band below 20 kHz too.
An interference effect - as mentioned above - is still possible, but the reported time delays in the response are imo not in agreement with this hypothesis.
Some corrections inserted in the "syn08 section"....my apologize.
Last edited:
I have always thought that recordings made with high sampling rates actually sound better after being mashed in the editing process and then reduced to CD 16bit playback. More nuanced information makes for a smoother better sound. Am I right? 😕
ToS
Last edited:
Ear intermodulation test
Anyone can try
http://pmacura.cz/13+14k.zip
(13kHz L, 14kHz R)
http://pmacura.cz/20+22k.zip
(20kHz L, 22kHz R)
Beware of level!!
Left channel is one frequency, right channel second.
I can hear 13/14kHz test, but no intermodulation. I hear nothing from 20/22kHz.
Again, take care about volume - your tweeters are in danger.
Anyone can try
http://pmacura.cz/13+14k.zip
(13kHz L, 14kHz R)
http://pmacura.cz/20+22k.zip
(20kHz L, 22kHz R)
Beware of level!!
Left channel is one frequency, right channel second.
I can hear 13/14kHz test, but no intermodulation. I hear nothing from 20/22kHz.
Again, take care about volume - your tweeters are in danger.
Back to stuff we can actually hear 🙂 After reading all your descriptions and people trying to understand, I think this is probably the reality as you say, it's the standard you've recently found that most here are probably used to 🙂
My understanding is in a digital recording up to half the sample rate is useable/recordable and the mic (quality mic) is not usually a factor, now whether or not things are filtered out or lost in mastering?
There’s not much that even reaches 20khz but isn’t it the harmonics we’re concerned with?
I myself seem to prefer the upper frequency’s attenuated, sloping down starting at 1khz to -5db @10k down to -10 @16k
I feel like nothing is lost and it’s soooo much smoother at med/high volume (95db @ lp)
I also find there’s a lot of recordings that sound better 16/44.1 than the same in 24/48. I don’t know if that’s because many were resampled at higher rates resulting in a worse sound? I think some of the newer 24/96 stuff that was probably recorded that way sounds pretty nice but still has a little more edge to it for my taste.
I think it's debatable. Fact is many people hate digital. I guess it is due to 'poor' technology adopted by the industry leaders, i.e. delta sigma with its 'risky' filters.
Regarding use of delta sigma, I don't remember what frequency their LP filters use. But may be there is still debatable possibility that frequency around 20kHz is audibly affected (44k1 means 22k05Hz which is too close to audibility threshold).
I think there may be something more to it I just don’t have the time or gear to measure.
But if that is the case and I have just stumbled onto perfection, and I gotta say it doesn’t leave a whole lotta room in either direction!
And I much better understand the saying that a high dollar system in the hands of an amateur will never sound as good as a lesser one in the hands of experience.
There was a feller here the other day that took a listen and he said mine sounded way better than his $20k system......what he was listening to, I had $1600 +/- invested.
Well you’ll get no argument from me, I’m ‘all about that bass, bout the bass....no treble’😀
Many as a percentage of capacitor rolling fringe audiophiles, or the 7bn on this planet? If those many also think vinyl sounds better then they are clearly not looking for accuracy and neutrality.
Somebody has to put it in plain english for you: the Oohashi intermodulation issue is nothing but a make or break issue, there are no gray tones here (like the critics nitpicking in the Meyer/Moran experiment).
If intermodulation was present, Oohashi work goes straight to the sewer. And as usual, it is the claimant duty to prove any extraordinary claim, so as long as intermodulation can explain their results, I or anybody else don't have to prove anything further to discard the results. Call it Occam Razor if you prefer. Nobody has to trust an extraordinary justification if an ordinary explanation exists.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.