[gregorio]

  1. PCM editor would go to show how compressed are commercial recordings ( classical, from premiunm brands, most of the time including audiophile labels ) compared to something that was allowed to be left intact. It would have been visible from across the room !
 
2. I will have to look up for the exact model #, but there is a Neumann mike with noise low enough to be on the same order of magnitude as air molecules impigning on its membrane. It can not get better than that.  It is covered in the Neumann book ( Jubilee X0 years ? ) from approx 5 years or so ago. No, I do not have it or have seen it in flesh so far - but it does exist. This means it has a good chance of exceeding the 96 dB dynamic range. There might be others as well - but I am not familiar with them.
 
2a. Not true in all cases. Certainly not in the one cited. I am aware if and when pushing the level is detrimental to SQ - and act accordingly. It usually has to do with less than optimal analogue stages; ADC and DAC work just fine, only to "highlight" the cost cutting measures of the analogue parts of the recording chain.
 
3. I know VERY well how DSD works. By recording as hot as it goes the CONSTANT ULTRASONIC NOISE FLOOR is kept as low as possible - that much you should understand. Ultimately, it will take DSD256 - or even DSD512 - to allow for > 100 dB S/N up to at least 100 kHz ; with DSD64 and less so, DSD128, the ultrasonic noise can quickly become a problem if the recording level is low(er) than it could be. IIRC, you get 6 dB lower ultrasonic noise floor for each doubling of the sampling frequency, which also starts twice higher in frequency compared to half the sampling rate frequency. It is a tradeoff . Korg recorders I use (with TI ADCs ) are noise -wise decent to approx 50 kHz, then the noise starts going up - regardless if it is DSD or PCM mode(s). With faster DSD ( better processors ) , the need to push levels should get reduced. I am eyeing Mytek Brooklyn ADC ( a recorder ) at the moment; DSD256. But will only go for it if I get a spectral analysis of its actual performance up to at least 100 khz. Last resort is Mytek*s 30 days return policy - but I would prefer to know this important spec/fact in advance.

At least you're actually addressing the points now. Unfortunately we're still only half way there though, because you're addressing them with nonsense.

 
Let's get this out of the way quickly:
 
1. Audio editors such as Audition cannot measure the amount of compression applied.
2. So that's a "no" then, you don't know any mics which are capable of a dynamic range greater than 16bit. Why then, for a "truthful" recording, do you need more than 16bit when no mic can capture a "truthful" recording with greater than 16bit?
2a. You act accordingly when you become aware that your levels are detrimental? By that time it's already too late! And, if it's due to say analogue stages and not ADC/DAC then it's obviously off-topic!
3. Huh? It's a constant digital noise floor, it doesn't matter how hot your recording is, it won't affect the digital noise floor in any way, it's "CONSTANT"! The rest of your point is nonsense as well because at 100kHz there is nothing but noise! No music mic goes anywhere near 100kHz so even if there were some music content up there (which there isn't) it can't be recorded anyway.
 
It really is quite impressive how you manage to pile nonsense on top of nonsense, apparently ad infinitum. It's quite a skill, even if I were trying deliberately, I don't think I could keep it up for so long and certainly not while maintaining the illusion that I was being serious. And of course it is an illusion right, it's all deliberate? I mean, it's inconceivable that you could be so absolutely wrong about virtually everything and actually believe it all. Even just by chance you'd have to at least occasionally come across some actual facts which you found believable. How is it even possible to ONLY believe nonsense?

 
G

 

[goodvibes]

Just doesn't seem to be an issue for me and the recordings I refer to are mostly coincidence so don't need mono type panning which we don't find as natural. I still seem to get good lateral positioning with good IEMs. I fell like crossfeed just mucks it up more for me than it helps. I get great localization from my jh13s but we are all bit different when it comes to in ears. I agree that I'd always rather hear it on speakers but I don't really think there's a great fix to your need so it comes down to preference and how your brain works the sound. We do have a natural sort of EQ/perspective engine at work where we acclimate. I suspect that certain aspects of that are more prominent in some than others. Psychoacoustics probably doesn't belong here either so I'l just say that for me, that issue falls into the no biggie range and what works for you is the way to go.

 
I don't know if it's timing but I do suspect that's a reasonable possibility. I do prefer the general tempo when I think things are right but I also know that's not the really same thing. May just be noise, tracking, clock or jitter. I really don't know but I do tend to prefer it when the clock is close to the dac and the supply is quiet and stiff.  Stupidly? Only if it's proven to not matter.

 If you're ever in Chicago. PM me and we'll spend an afternoon having some good spirited fun listening. 
 
I'm really out this time. It genuinely seems I should stay away from this forum, LOL. The invite was sincere. I've got things like quad panels etc that I could pull apart for you and some great kit to hear.

 

[analogsurviver]

  At least you're actually addressing the points now. Unfortunately we're still only half way there though, because you're addressing them with nonsense.

 
Let's get this out of the way quickly:
 
1. Audio editors such as Audition cannot measure the amount of compression applied.
2. So that's a "no" then, you don't know any mics which are capable of a dynamic range greater than 16bit. Why then, for a "truthful" recording, do you need more than 16bit when no mic can capture a "truthful" recording with greater than 16bit?
2a. You act accordingly when you become aware that your levels are detrimental? By that time it's already too late! And, if it's due to say analogue stages and not ADC/DAC then it's obviously off-topic!
3. Huh? It's a constant digital noise floor, it doesn't matter how hot your recording is, it won't affect the digital noise floor in any way, it's "CONSTANT"! The rest of your point is nonsense as well because at 100kHz there is nothing but noise! No music mic goes anywhere near 100kHz so even if there were some music content up there (which there isn't) it can't be recorded anyway.
 
It really is quite impressive how you manage to pile nonsense on top of nonsense, apparently ad infinitum. It's quite a skill, even if I were trying deliberately, I don't think I could keep it up for so long and certainly not while maintaining the illusion that I was being serious. And of course it is an illusion right, it's all deliberate? I mean, it's inconceivable that you could be so absolutely wrong about virtually everything and actually believe it all. Even just by chance you'd have to at least occasionally come across some actual facts which you found believable. How is it even possible to ONLY believe nonsense?

 
G

Your constant dismisal is equally impressive.
 
How nowhere near 100 kHz goes a music mike you can check here :  
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
 
Not quite so high go some of modified Bruel & Kjaer mikes, otherwise meant for measurements but found to be of low enough noise to be used for music.
 
Up to "only" 50 kHz ( mightily flat .... ) go Eartworks* mikes
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/
 
I will dig up the EXACT Model/number of that low noise Neumann mike in a day or two - no idea where exactly is the book at the moment, other than it is at my place. Just because I did not instantly provide the model # of the Neumann mike, it does NOT mean it does not exist. Actually, I believe people will ask Neumann more for a "as low noise mike you have in programme" than for "XYZ-561NR ( or whatever might the true mike be called ). And, yes, at self noise around or below 15dB(A), maximum SPL at least 120 dB, that means it has at very least more than 96 dB dynamic range.
 
OK, found something online - interpret it as you wish, a 7dB(A) microphone has dynamic range of 96 dB or more if the source has 103 dB  SPL or more. Therefore, at least one microphone that under entirely realistic conditions exceeds RBCD dynamic range :
http://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/what-is-self-noise-or-equivalent-noise-level
 
Has it ever occured to you that somebody else might actually be right in his/hers claims - regardless how ludicrous they might appear to you at first ? 

 

[spruce music]

   You can disagree but your assumptions of my experience are completely erroneous. 
 
Tried dozens of USB DACs including DAVE and DCS via asio or wasapi and Wavelab, Foobar, J River and some Hi-End memory buffer type players. Found Wavelab setup correctly sounds the best to me though not really friendly as a library player. None sounded as good via USB as they did with a Firewire interface of a Weiss INT 202 or Konnekt interface (either linear supplied)(Dave wouldn't interface with the Weiss for some reason but we didn't troubleshoot very long. Those don't sound as good as what I can get streaming from a selected dedicated server and steamer. I'm plenty experienced so chill. I work with an award winning recording engineer and constantly hear transfers of both analog and digital sources and have been at the venues during the process. Not our main thing of which includes some tech repair. Mostly simple mic'd 2 track acoustic recordings in real space. We are always trying to improve the PC interface to have a better presentation when editing. Quality or price of equipment isn't an issue. Difficult to prove audibility on the interwebs. Measurements are always lacking IMO. Never told me much about the sound of anything. That we can disagree on and perhaps it's the bridge you can never cross but in a science forum, I think it would be better to find out why something exists that to simple dismiss its existence because it cannot be explained to your satisfaction. That existence is based on experience as you stated and ours are obviously different. I can't change you mind without a demonstrations so perhaps we could agree to disagree but I suspect you can't accept that. I truly believe you are as misguided as you think I am.
 
I know how this goes, you don't accept anything by anyone that doesn't want to play by your specific rules and continue to attack to get someone defending himself when it shouldn't be part of a discussion. I'm out. Have at it and remember that when you stick your head in the sand, those ears need a good cleaning.

This highlights why you are getting a poor reception here.  You tell me of all the high dollar gear you have tried.  All the hands on experience.  As if that amounts to credentials to your views. Well in this forum that is not much of a benefit in convincing people.  In this forum we prefer for some careful testing with unsighted listening, or some measurements of the pertinent signals or some explanation that fits with how things work electrically, perceptibly and psychologically.  You offer that if we drop by you could play your system for us and that is going to illustrate your views and perhaps convince us of your opinions about things.  Sorry, that is the conventional audiophile approach, and not one that holds much sway in the Sound Science forum.
 
I listen to electrostat panel speakers and might describe the sound as fast, quick, catches transients.  Yet I would understand transient ability and actual physical speed is not the reason for what I am hearing. You listen to CD and say the timing sounds insufficient (without fleshing out why you say that) and want to proceed as if you have solid data that CD has insufficient timing. Sorry, we know that isn't the case.  Though you may be hearing something real the timing isn't the problem.  Jumping to other formats at higher sample rates from the influence of marketing and saying timing is better is not convincing in this forum either.  Yes we have different rules to play by which is the whole reason for this forum separate from the others.
 
You say measurements are always lacking in your opinion and expect to get a great reception based upon such a premise in this sub-forum?  Really, your feelings are hurt and it is our fault?
 
You say USB is lacking, yet asyncrhonous USB lets the clock sitting right at the DAC to do the clocking.  This is the lowest jitter, best timing possible for playback and you dislike it.  Maybe what you think is timing isn't timing at all.  Yes, measurements are for real and do show this to be the case.  If your ears say one thing and the timing of the DAC says another your ears aren't going to be believed as an accurate measurement of timing. 
 
Sorry, but the problem isn't a lack of open mindedness on this forum, it is you insisting on an ears first primacy which according to science has been shown to be false.

 

[goodvibes]

One more because it was my error.
I wasn't trying to convince anyone and just relaying my thoughts. The list of kit and credentials was a mistaken response to this.
 
"You really need to get better sources for technical subjects."
 
I now understand that you meant written sources as opposed to listening sources so my response was not to the point you intended. Apologies. Just trying to show I'm not a novice in reply to inexperience which was not your intent but really, I think anyone can hear these things when presented properly so feel free to ignore it and to all the agnostics here:
 
Have a great holiday!

 

[gregorio]

  [A] Your constant dismisal is equally impressive.
 
How nowhere near 100 kHz goes a music mike you can check here :  
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
 
Not quite so high go some of modified Bruel & Kjaer mikes, otherwise meant for measurements but found to be of low enough noise to be used for music.
 
Up to "only" 50 kHz ( mightily flat .... ) go Eartworks* mikes
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/
 
I will dig up the EXACT Model/number of that low noise Neumann mike in a day or two - no idea where exactly is the book at the moment, other than it is at my place. Just because I did not instantly provide the model # of the Neumann mike, it does NOT mean it does not exist. Actually, I believe people will ask Neumann more for a "as low noise mike you have in programme" than for "XYZ-561NR ( or whatever might the true mike be called ). And, yes, at self noise around or below 15dB(A), maximum SPL at least 120 dB, that means it has at very least more than 96 dB dynamic range.
 
OK, found something online - interpret it as you wish, a 7dB(A) microphone has dynamic range of 96 dB or more if the source has 103 dB  SPL or more. Therefore, at least one microphone that under entirely realistic conditions exceeds RBCD dynamic range :
http://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/what-is-self-noise-or-equivalent-noise-level
 
Has it ever occured to you that somebody else might actually be right in his/hers claims - regardless how ludicrous they might appear to you at first ? 

 
A. Not really, anyone with a moderate knowledge/experience of digital audio and recording could do the same.
 
Oh dear, we seem to be going backwards!
 
1. You didn't address this at at.
2. Addressed this point but unfortunately with nonsense! The TLM 103 has an SNR, quoted by Sennheiser themselves, as 76.5dB. That's roughly ten times less than the dynamic range of 16bit.
2a. Not addressed.
3. Not addressed.
3a. You've not addressed my point that there's nothing at 100kHz except noise! You have found a single example of a music mic which extends to 100kHz, which means my statement that there are none was inaccurate. I should have said that almost no music recording mics go anywhere near 100kHz. However, until you have (successfully) addressed my salient points here (massive digital noise levels and virtually no music related level at 100kHz), then you're still spouting nonsense. Even then you'd still be spouting nonsense unless you can demonstrate some evidence that 100kHz is audible.
 
B. If it sounds ludicrous, conflicts with accepted scientific knowledge and is backed up with nothing but anecdotes then "no",  it occurs to me that there is very little or no chance that somebody else "might actually be right". And, if someone does that repeatedly, across numerous "ludicrous" unsupported claims, then the chances of them being right reduces to around infinity!!
 
G

 

[spruce music]

Well DNR specs on mics are self noise referenced to one Pascal ( 94 db). So given that mics can typically work to 130 to 155 db sound levels most are capable under some conditions of exceeding 96 db DNR.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
A. Not really, anyone with a moderate knowledge/experience of digital audio and recording could do the same.
 
Oh dear, we seem to be going backwards!
 
1. You didn't address this at at.
2. Addressed this point but unfortunately with nonsense! The TLM 103 has an SNR, quoted by Sennheiser themselves, as 76.5dB. That's roughly ten times less than the dynamic range of 16bit.
2a. Not addressed.
3. Not addressed.
3a. You've not addressed my point that there's nothing at 100kHz except noise! You have found a single example of a music mic which extends to 100kHz, which means my statement that there are none was inaccurate. I should have said that almost no music recording mics go anywhere near 100kHz. However, until you have (successfully) addressed my salient points here (massive digital noise levels and virtually no music related level at 100kHz), then you're still spouting nonsense. Even then you'd still be spouting nonsense unless you can demonstrate some evidence that 100kHz is audible.
 
B. If it sounds ludicrous, conflicts with accepted scientific knowledge and is backed up with nothing but anecdotes then "no",  it occurs to me that there is very little or no chance that somebody else "might actually be right". And, if someone does that repeatedly, across numerous "ludicrous" unsupported claims, then the chances of them being right reduces to around infinity!!
 
G

 I am sure to have posted this before - but since you obviously have to have it delivered on the silver platter : http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
 
Seriously, if you do not know what to listen for the (in)audibility of the response beyond 20 kHz, it can only mean:
 
1. The time between exposure to live music is measured in weeks if not months
2. The equipment you use is purposedly limited to approx 20 kHz - one single "filter" called RBCD is more than enough to ruin the realism, let alone the microphone, preamp, power amp, any ADCs and DACs in the chain,  headphones, speakers, etc, each and every one limited to approx 20 kHz,  in series. FYI - around 1980 Technics had ENTIRE audio chain ( except the microphone ) where each and every piece of equipment, including the phono cartridge, has been capable beyond 100 kHz.  Around that time, microphones with MHz ( yes, you read it right, megahertz  ) bandwidth have been under research and development - and still are. Sooner or later, someone will suceed at making it a viable device for music recording.
3. Because of the above , you can not capture nor reproduce the sound beyond 20 kHz on your recordings - a perfect "excuse" a la "if it is not audible on MY masters, it does not matter in the slightest". 
 
It takes one single instrument to demonstrate the requirement to reproduce way  beyond 20 kHz, and certainly WAY beyond RBCD.
 
It is called the double bass; pizzicato, plucked and/or slap playing produce VERY healthy output at least to 50 kHz ( which overall recording chain I am using can clearly reproduce ) ; how much above 50 kHz the double bass is capable of playing, will have to wait till I get DSD256 rekorder and mics that go, at the very least, to 100 kHz. Both are now reality, it is only a question of time I will have the financial means available to get them. It also means doubling the storage, computer performance, etc - in short, it is anything but inexpensive. But required if ultimately realistic recording is the goal.
 
Earthworks, once upon a time, has been sending demo CDs featuring their microphones; the most effective demo ever has been recording of double bass, simoultaneously recorded by their mics flat to 25, 30, 40 and 50 kHz respectively. It was a CLEARLY audible difference - even on RBCD.
 
Now think how much more this difference is audible if  the entire chain - from microphone to the final transducer ( headphone or speaker ) - supports the overall bandwidth at least 40 kHz. Then 100 kHz. The 40 kHz overall capable systems are quite realistic - since they have been around for decades.
 
And, no, after hearing a good double bass playing live , then recording(s) of it in various "grades" ( from acceptable down to the RBCD ), played on good equipment that does support at least 40 kHz "flat overall", one can not say there is no difference. You would have to be deaf or dead - or both.
 
For those insisting on A/Bing on computer no matter what: no, I have not been capable of stuffing a live double bass player into  the internet. 

 

[castleofargh]

should we ask video recording and video playback systems to provide UV content because there were some in the scene that was filmed?

 

[spruce music]

   I am sure to have posted this before - but since you obviously have to have it delivered on the silver platter : http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
 
Seriously, if you do not know what to listen for the (in)audibility of the response beyond 20 kHz, it can only mean:
 
1. The time between exposure to live music is measured in weeks if not months
2. The equipment you use is purposedly limited to approx 20 kHz - one single "filter" called RBCD is more than enough to ruin the realism, let alone the microphone, preamp, power amp, any ADCs and DACs in the chain,  headphones, speakers, etc, each and every one limited to approx 20 kHz,  in series. FYI - around 1980 Technics had ENTIRE audio chain ( except the microphone ) where each and every piece of equipment, including the phono cartridge, has been capable beyond 100 kHz.  Around that time, microphones with MHz ( yes, you read it right, megahertz  ) bandwidth have been under research and development - and still are. Sooner or later, someone will suceed at making it a viable device for music recording.
3. Because of the above , you can not capture nor reproduce the sound beyond 20 kHz on your recordings - a perfect "excuse" a la "if it is not audible on MY masters, it does not matter in the slightest". 
 
It takes one single instrument to demonstrate the requirement to reproduce way  beyond 20 kHz, and certainly WAY beyond RBCD.
 
It is called the double bass; pizzicato, plucked and/or slap playing produce VERY healthy output at least to 50 kHz ( which overall recording chain I am using can clearly reproduce ) ; how much above 50 kHz the double bass is capable of playing, will have to wait till I get DSD256 rekorder and mics that go, at the very least, to 100 kHz. Both are now reality, it is only a question of time I will have the financial means available to get them. It also means doubling the storage, computer performance, etc - in short, it is anything but inexpensive. But required if ultimately realistic recording is the goal.
 
Earthworks, once upon a time, has been sending demo CDs featuring their microphones; the most effective demo ever has been recording of double bass, simoultaneously recorded by their mics flat to 25, 30, 40 and 50 kHz respectively. It was a CLEARLY audible difference - even on RBCD.
 
Now think how much more this difference is audible if  the entire chain - from microphone to the final transducer ( headphone or speaker ) - supports the overall bandwidth at least 40 kHz. Then 100 kHz. The 40 kHz overall capable systems are quite realistic - since they have been around for decades.
 
And, no, after hearing a good double bass playing live , then recording(s) of it in various "grades" ( from acceptable down to the RBCD ), played on good equipment that does support at least 40 kHz "flat overall", one can not say there is no difference. You would have to be deaf or dead - or both.
 
For those insisting on A/Bing on computer no matter what: no, I have not been capable of stuffing a live double bass player into  the internet. 

Must be the holidays or something.
 
You have heard it and it is so.  Audiophile bilge again.  Yes instruments put out some content above 20 khz.  You still can't hear it. 
 
1 mhz microphones. 

Some audiophiles will no doubt hear the difference.  Never mind that 1 mhz in air is absorbed at 160 db/meter.  I suppose if we develop 2 mhz PCM and 1 mhz capable speakers we can do away with the output filtering and just let the air do it for speakers.  Might not work for headphones.  So probably need 4 mhz response for that.
 
http://www.ktu.lt/ultra/journal/pdf_50_1/50-2004-Vol.1_09-A.Vladisauskas.pdf  Here is info on air absorption of ultrasonics.
 
To repeat, just because the sound is there at some frequency does not mean you can hear it. 

 

[gregorio]

  [A] but since you obviously have to have it delivered on the silver platter : http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
 
Seriously, if you do not know what to listen for the (in)audibility of the response beyond 20 kHz, it can only mean: ...
 
[C] It takes one single instrument to demonstrate the requirement to reproduce way  beyond 20 kHz, and certainly WAY beyond RBCD. It is called the double bass ...
 
[D] Earthworks, once upon a time, has been sending demo CDs featuring their microphones; the most effective demo ever has been recording of double bass, simoultaneously recorded by their mics flat to 25, 30, 40 and 50 kHz respectively. It was a CLEARLY audible difference - even on RBCD.
 
[E] Now think how much more this difference is audible if  the entire chain - from microphone to the final transducer ( headphone or speaker ) - supports the overall bandwidth at least 40 kHz. Then 100 kHz.
 
[F] And, no, after hearing a good double bass playing live , then recording(s) of it in various "grades" ( from acceptable down to the RBCD ), played on good equipment that does support at least 40 kHz "flat overall", one can not say there is no difference. You would have to be deaf or dead - or both.

 
A. It's not called "delivered on a silver platter", it's called supporting your statements and is required in science. Unfortunately though, you still haven't quite got the hang of it. The idea is to present evidence which supports your argument, not evidence which contradicts your argument and supports mine!! Oh dear.
 
The paper you linked to shows that even those instruments which do produce content above 20kHz, produce exceedingly little. A trumpet for example, in the worst case scenario of being muted, produces 0.5 - 2% of it's power above 20kHz. How much do you think it's producing at 100kHz? According to the published frequency plot, far less again. The other tuned instruments tested produce significantly less power above 20kHz than a Harmon muted trumpet. The piano (which you seem fond of quoting) was just 0.02% above 20kHz! An entire symphony orchestra is therefore producing exceedingly little above 20kHz, let alone at 100kHz! The one exception with any potential significance was the crash cymbal, although it's percentage of power above 20kHz is still only 40% and a crash cymbal produces noise rather than defined tones/harmonics, noise which is close to while in nature, which brings us back to the inability to differential noise from noise. And that's the problem we have with SACD/DSD, massive amounts of unavoidable noise at around 100kHz, noise which is hundreds of times greater than what any of the instruments are producing (with the exception of the cymbal), a problem which you continually avoid addressing! To punch a couple more significant holes in the evidence you're attempting to use to support your argument: In an attempt to avoid room acoustics affecting the result, the measurements were effectively only of the transients (or just slightly longer than transients in the case of tuned instruments) and also the measurements were taken very close to the instrument, which obviously does not allow for the absorption of ultrasonic content by air, which would significantly lower the power output at 100kHz even further, at a typical listening position! Your "delivered on a silver platter" evidence is therefore more supportive of my argument than of yours and that's even if humans could hear 100kHz!
 
B. It can only mean that I'm a Homo Sapien rather than a dog, bat, dolphin or alien!
 
C. That's nonsense. All it demonstrates is that some playing techniques on string instruments produce transient noise above 20kHz. It does not demonstrate a "requirement", it does not even demonstrate that >20kHz transient noise is desirable!
 
D. As a CD contains no frequencies above 22kHz, any audible difference MUST therefore be due to frequency content below 22kHz and have absolutely nothing to do with the mics' response above 25kHz!
 
E. As the human ear does not contain and structures designed to respond to frequencies that high and this has been repeatedly confirmed by the fact that no one has ever demonstrated the ability to hear 40kHz, let alone 100kHz. The only logical answer is that there is no audible difference, let alone more of a difference!
 
F. So what you're saying is that: 1. All the countless thousands of people who have been formally and informally tested over the last 90 years or so were all deaf, dead or both? B. As far as the evidence is concerned, you are very possibly the only human being on the planet who is not deaf, dead or both? or that C. You are actually a bat, dolphin or alien? I discount the possibility that you are a dog because even dogs can't hear that high! Even if you have a series of very significant genetic mutations which enable you to hear up to 100kHz, then still your response is nonsense because the maximum dynamic range on DSD/SACD is only around 6dB, due to the massive amounts of shaped dither noise. In other words, on a symphony orchestra SACD recording, pretty much the entire performance, with the exception of mainly just transients, would be below the digital noise floor! That must drive you nuts, how can you even bare to listen to SACDs?
 
Again, you have failed to respond to ANY of the points, except for just one sub-point of point #3. Lastly, what you have responded to is off-topic any way! Frequency bandwidth is a function of the sampling rate, NOT the bit depth. Surely we must be approaching even the theoretical limits of nonsense by now?

 
G

 

[StanD]

Oh Lord, now we're venturing back into one of Analog's favorite topics, the OOB (Out Of Band) audio experience. He will always find another thread to invoke this theory so don't get too worked up over this.

 

[goodvibes]

Just to be clear, the idea in that link is that there is a difference between time and hearing out of band as stated. I couldn't less if an amp or DAC was filter rolled at 20k. In fact there can be advantages in being able to so with good phase character. Again, not claiming anything or that this is the mechanism why it's preferred, just looking for a reason. Not arguing here, just clarifying.

 

[zareliman]

Does anyone know a music recording that actually has more than 96dB of effective dynamic range ?

 

[watchnerd]

   I am sure to have posted this before - but since you obviously have to have it delivered on the silver platter : http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
 

 
Yes, there are ultrasonic sounds in the world.
 
But we don't design our audio systems to replay the dog whistle spectrum, because we can't hear them.
 
Isn't it just easier to accept the truth than to find tortured rationales for an existing position?
 
I honestly don't get it, unless you're just trolling.