[bigshot]

What's missing is the level of the ultrasonic content. If it's low, then the IMD products should also be low unless you have some kind of unbounded distortion. The IMD products would also have to not be audibly masked by OTHER content, distortion or otherwise. So yes, if your benchmark is "can I play high intensity ultrasonic content without lower frequency content and end up with something audible", then, SURE! That isn't exactly what people who hear hi-res as 'better' are talking about, though…

If you can't hear inaudible frequencies loud, odds are you can't hear them at natural soft volumes either. It might sound better to a fruit bat that way, but not to human ears.

 

[bigshot]

All my music in is 24 bit

You're missing out on an awful lot of great music.

 

[gregorio]

My fiend has Logic Pro and I have heard the horror stories enough. Complex software means tons of bugs and when you uppgade your OS, anything can happen…

One of the reasons that Pro Tools so dominated the pro DAW market was because it was so stable and in a pro studio stability is vitally important. If John Williams says, "I love the London Symphony Orchestra, that last take was perfect", the last thing you can afford to say is, "sorry we'll have to do it again, the DAW crashed"! There are of course some horror stories, as there are with any set of complex equipment but compared to much software, pro DAW (and Pro Tools in particular) is extremely stable.

Would it not rather be the case that, were the Nyquist-Shannon theorem incorrect, digital audio would still work, just imperfectly? ... The application of the theorem to digital audio ...

No, if the theorem were incorrect there would be no digital audio and no digital anything else! The theorem was not applied to digital audio, it was the other way around, digital audio was applied to the theorem. It was because the theorem was correct that digital audio was developed. There are a couple of points often missed by those in the audiophile community who have a vested interest in demonstrating that the theorem is incorrect/incomplete:

1. Nyquist suggested the basics of the theory in 1924 but in 1948 Caude Shannon mathematically proved it. Later still, when technology had advanced sufficiently, organisations started trying to find a way to engineer technology to fulfil that proven theorem. So we're NOT dealing with just a theory applied to or attempting to explain how digital audio works, we're dealing with a proven theorem upon which digital audio is designed and without which digital audio would not have been developed in the first place.

2. The audiophile community tends to look at the Nyquist-Shannon theorem purely in terms of their own particular interest, music reproduction but actually that is an almost incidental by-product of the theorem. In his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" Shannon's proof of what is today called the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem does not just cover the perfect quantification, storage and communication of audio information but of ALL information!! Think about that for a moment! ... That proof of what Shannon called "Communication Theory" (but is today called Information Theory), is the basis of all digital technology and for this reason Shannon is sometimes called "the father of the digital age". Indeed, the basic unit of information and entropy, as defined by the IEC, is named the Shannon, although it's now known more popularly as a "bit". I should therefore have more correctly titled this thread "16Sh vs 24Sh, the Myth Exploded"! Today this theorem crops up all over the place, in numerous fields, from neurobiology to our understanding of back holes. It is, arguably, one of the most important and influential theorems in human history! So no, if the theorem were incorrect there would not be any digital audio, in fact there would not be any digital anything, including the "digital age"!

Regarding waveforms: As essentially stated by others, the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem is correct, it is correct for ALL actual waveforms, irrespective of how simple or complex they are! It is therefore also correct for any actual square, triangle or sawtooth wave! Audiophiles (or those marketing to them) will often hold up some output plot as say; "there you are, that's not an accurate square wave." - which is absolutely true! It's not an accurate square wave because an accurate square wave does not and cannot exist, digital audio accurately captures all the information of what actually does exist, not what audiophiles only believe exists. A common problem in audiophilia I'm afraid and hence the use of the word "Myth" in the title of this thread!

G

 

[old tech]

You seem like a knowledgeable person.

A 30 kHz sound

A 25 kHz sound

A 40 kHz sound

A 50 kHz sound

Any of those can produce, depending on their loudness, any harmonics that would be audible to humans? I just want a straight answer.

You seem to be buying into another one of those audiophile myths (typically the anti CD brigade) which usually go something like this:

"we cannot hear frequencies above 20khz but they do affect frequencies we can hear, therefore the higher the frequency response the more accurate the music playback".

I won't comment whether these ultrasonic frequencies do or do not affect those we can hear and we'll put aside the far more powerful <20hz subsonic frequencies as a contrast and also assume instruments are creating ultrasonic harmonics which are not masked. If then these ultrasonic frequencies do make a discernible difference then by definition the effect is within range of human hearing. Therefore the effect and consequences are only relevant to a live acoustic event, not a recording. The reason is that the recording will have had captured the effects of the ultrasonics, so why would the ultrasonics need to be reproduced as well? It is a bit like looking at a colourless diamond. It is clear but (depending on its luminosity) it will glow purple under ultraviolet light. A picture of the diamond under the ultraviolet light with the purple glow can be taken and then played back on a PC screen. Note that the playback of the glow (the effect of ultraviolet waveforms) did not require the camera to capture ultraviolet frequencies, nor the PC screen to playback ultraviolet frequencies, and if they did what difference would it make?

Actually that is an interesting question. If (and it is a big if) ultrasonic frequencies do affect sound we hear and it is recorded with the music, would it double the effect (given the effect from the live event has already been captured)? If the ultrasonic content is mainly noise, would it then distort the sound if it is not filtered above 20khz?

 

[71 dB]

You need to experience a real pro DAW to understand how limiting Audacity is.

How I live my life is not your damn business! I am tired of you trying to make other people feel inferior. Jean-Michel Jarre created Equinoxe without a DAW. Tangerine Dream created Force Majeure without a DAW. It's about creativity and talent and that's something I don't have not matter how expensive "pro" DAW I use.

 

[71 dB]

One of the reasons that Pro Tools so dominated the pro DAW market was because it was so stable and in a pro studio stability is vitally important. If John Williams says, "I love the London Symphony Orchestra, that last take was perfect", the last thing you can afford to say is, "sorry we'll have to do it again, the DAW crashed"! There are of course some horror stories, as there are with any set of complex equipment but compared to much software, pro DAW (and Pro Tools in particular) is extremely stable.

DAWs pay back themselves in 17 seconds if you make the soundtrack of the newest Star Wars or the new Katy Perry album with it.

 

[Dobrescu George]

What's missing is the level of the ultrasonic content. If it's low, then the IMD products should also be low unless you have some kind of unbounded distortion. The IMD products would also have to not be audibly masked by OTHER content, distortion or otherwise. So yes, if your benchmark is "can I play high intensity ultrasonic content without lower frequency content and end up with something audible", then, SURE! That isn't exactly what people who hear hi-res as 'better' are talking about, though…

Okay, I think I got it

It exists, but it is not what people are hearing with their Hi-Res files.

You're missing out on an awful lot of great music.

Ahahahaha - true. This is why I cannot go to hi-res, not a lot of my favorite music is in that format.

You seem to be buying into another one of those audiophile myths (typically the anti CD brigade) which usually go something like this:

"we cannot hear frequencies above 20khz but they do affect frequencies we can hear, therefore the higher the frequency response the more accurate the music playback".

I won't comment whether these ultrasonic frequencies do or do not affect those we can hear and we'll put aside the far more powerful <20hz subsonic frequencies as a contrast and also assume instruments are creating ultrasonic harmonics which are not masked. If then these ultrasonic frequencies do make a discernible difference then by definition the effect is within range of human hearing. Therefore the effect and consequences are only relevant to a live acoustic event, not a recording. The reason is that the recording will have had captured the effects of the ultrasonics, so why would the ultrasonics need to be reproduced as well? It is a bit like looking at a colourless diamond. It is clear but (depending on its luminosity) it will glow purple under ultraviolet light. A picture of the diamond under the ultraviolet light with the purple glow can be taken and then played back on a PC screen. Note that the playback of the glow (the effect of ultraviolet waveforms) did not require the camera to capture ultraviolet frequencies, nor the PC screen to playback ultraviolet frequencies, and if they did what difference would it make?

Actually that is an interesting question. If (and it is a big if) ultrasonic frequencies do affect sound we hear and it is recorded with the music, would it double the effect (given the effect from the live event has already been captured)? If the ultrasonic content is mainly noise, would it then distort the sound if it is not filtered above 20khz?

Very interesting take!

I actually have only CDs, I mean ONLY CDs right now, I was curious if it is worth to try to move to Hi-Res. Seems not so much

 

[RRod]

If you can't hear inaudible frequencies loud, odds are you can't hear them at natural soft volumes either. It might sound better to a fruit bat that way, but not to human ears.

Well the question is whether you can hear non-linearities due to the ear when presented with >20kHz content. My point was that even if you can, the details matter a lot to audibility with anything other than contrived tests with high-volume isolated high frequency content.

 

[bigshot]

If (and it is a big if) ultrasonic frequencies do affect sound we hear and it is recorded with the music, would it double the effect (given the effect from the live event has already been captured)? If the ultrasonic content is mainly noise, would it then distort the sound if it is not filtered above 20khz?

If the inaudible was audible, how would recording the inaudible affect the audible?

Jean-Michel Jarre created Equinoxe without a DAW. Tangerine Dream created Force Majeure without a DAW.

Those albums were recorded when I was in high school. They didn't have ProTools then. I'm sure if those guys weren't in nursing homes and were still recording, they would be using ProTools just like everyone else. It's a standard tool, and much better than the 24 track tape decks used back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

Well the question is whether you can hear non-linearities due to the ear when presented with >20kHz content. My point was that even if you can, the details matter a lot to audibility with anything other than contrived tests with high-volume isolated high frequency content.

There's no reason to believe that presence of super audible frequencies has any impact at all on recorded music. And the range of frequencies we're talking about recording would only be an octave or two above 20kHz. That's a small fraction of the range that truly is audible.

I actually have only CDs, I mean ONLY CDs right now, I was curious if it is worth to try to move to Hi-Res. Seems not so much

I thought you said all of your music was 24 bit?

 

[Dobrescu George]

If the inaudible was audible, how would recording the inaudible affect the audible?

Those albums were recorded when I was in high school. They didn't have ProTools then. I'm sure if those guys weren't in nursing homes and were still recording, they would be using ProTools just like everyone else. It's a standard tool, and much better than the 24 track tape decks used back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

I actually agree, I'm pretty sure they would be using the latest tech if they could.

[Not related to the topic] One thing I am disappointed as far as recording goes is Rings of Saturn's latest album. One of the poorest masterings out there...

 

[pinnahertz]

How I live my life is not your damn business! I am tired of you trying to make other people feel inferior. Jean-Michel Jarre created Equinoxe without a DAW. Tangerine Dream created Force Majeure without a DAW. It's about creativity and talent and that's something I don't have not matter how expensive "pro" DAW I use.

Whoa! Chill, man! I made no comment on your life, I just said you wouldn't understand the difference between free software and a full-on pro DAW without using one. Just like I wouldn't understand why people spend 100K on a car without test driving one.

Sure, Jarre created Equinoxe without a DAW, but I'm fairly sure he used one on Aero (it's a 5.1 mix) and the included reboots of Oxegene.

 

[Dobrescu George]

Whoa! Chill, man! I made no comment on your life, I just said you wouldn't understand the difference between free software and a full-on pro DAW without using one. Just like I wouldn't understand why people spend 100K on a car without test driving one.

Sure, Jarre created Equinoxe without a DAW, but I'm fairly sure he used one on Aero (it's a 5.1 mix) and the included reboots of Oxegene.

I agree on test driving a car befgore buyiung.

I'd do that for any car, even a 10.000$ car, I would drive it for at least a week before purchasing, along with getting a lending contract on the other options, at least to have some idea what I'm getting into.

 

[pinnahertz]

I agree on test driving a car befgore buyiung.

I'd do that for any car, even a 10.000$ car, I would drive it for at least a week before purchasing, along with getting a lending contract on the other options, at least to have some idea what I'm getting into.

It's just a little harder to test drive a DAW. Not impossible, but just a bit more effort is required than a free download.

 

[castleofargh]

I actually agree, I'm pretty sure they would be using the latest tech if they could.

[Not related to the topic] One thing I am disappointed as far as recording goes is Rings of Saturn's latest album. One of the poorest masterings out there...

we sent 2 golden vinyls to aliens, they never replied because they're scared that if they do reply, they'll immediately receive 2 more every month and have to pay for them+delivery.

 

[pinnahertz]

we sent 2 golden vinyls to aliens, they never replied because they're scared that if they do reply, they'll immediately receive 2 more every month and have to pay for them+delivery.

Intergalactic Columbia House! Yikes, just think of the shipping charges...