[gregorio]

So can you show me a piece of "marketing" about the hypersonic effect?

You mean apart from the link to the Super-tweeters and the Oohashi paper?!!!

Okay let's all agree blu-ray is no better than CD's but I was talking about movies and comparing to DVD's actually.
 
Gregorio is obsessed that 20Hz~20kHz 16/44 is all we'll ever need for our human ears.

Not "ever", maybe in a few tens of thousands of years we'll evolve something else but in the meantime science has been running tests for many decades and apart from one unreliable test there has never been any evidence that any adult human can hear above 20kHz, let alone the 22kHz limit of 44.1k sampling rate. Furthermore, 16bit provides 1000 times more dynamic range than the most dynamic recording ever released. Please can you explain to me the advantage of a format with more than 1000 times the required dynamic range? As for 192kHz sample rates, even the manufacturers (Apogee, Lavry, Benchmark, Prism) have made public statements that 192kHz is inferior but apparently you don't believe me, the science or even the people who make the equipment themselves. Instead you put your trust in audiophile publications.

My position is entirely reasonable, based entirely on the evidence, on my professional experience and on the consensus of the scientific community. You on the other hand seem determined to prove and believe that you are able to hear sound which does not exist, is not recorded and cannot be heard. You wouldn't be able to hear 0.04% of a violin sound even if it was in the most sensitive area of human hearing and you're trying to say it's possible to hear this in an area of hearing where humans are completely insensitive. And this is evidence you have quoted as supporting your case!? You are the one who sounds obsessed and irrational to me.

Yes, cymbals produce more energy above 20kHz, as do gamelan and muted trumpets. Good luck on hearing any of that when virtually all the studio mics in common use don't record beyond 20kHz.

G

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

@kiteki:
 
Actually 0 to 20k : P
In any case, I know that's what he is arguing, and I'm rather inclined to agree with him as the argument, evidence, and experience I've gone over and through back up his claims.
 
Now my major is neuroscience so I'm not an expert on tech or physiology as it relates to audio reproduction/listening... however, I really think that the following experiment would put this issue to rest:
 
Set up an fMRI & EEG to scan for brain-area activation differences that might occur while test subject is listening to a 44k recording vs a 96k recording!
 
-Sample-
20 people, 10 randomly picked out of a Uni, 10 self proclaimed audiophiles with "golden ears" (will have to make sure of age, ethnic, and sex diversity).
 
-Independent Variables (Things to be changed)-
Song with good amount of content above 20k vs. same song limited to 20k
20hz to 40k sweep
20, 30, 40k test tones played with out notice
 
-Dependent Variables (Things to be measured)-
Primary auditory cortex
Inferior colliculus
Cochlear nerve
 
These areas are involved with transmission and processing of sound and sensory information, with the top being near the end of the chain while the bottom being closer to the output of the ear.
 
-Measurement tools-
fMRI
EEG
 
-Questions-
>Can people consciously perceive signals above 18-20k?
>Can people unconsciously perceive said signals?
>Is there any neuronal effect when these signals are applied
>If not, is it due to limitations of the ear or neuronal network processing?
>If so, what sort of effects and how to they correlate with reported experiences?
>What is the range of difference of reaction in sample? Is it within a margin of error? Is our sample generalizable to populous?
 
 
If you could run that experiment, would that offer sufficient proof one way or the other?
 

 

[gregorio]

Kiteki, others (as you wish), here's another viewpoint of the Super Tweeter (ultra sonics) thingy. http://www.blackdahlia.com/html/tip_48.html. Even a nuclear engineer was skeptical at first. 

What nuclear scientist? Dick Olsher believes in super tweeters but not in sub-woofers? And I bet he can't even hear above 12kHz. Incredible. Wonder if he believes in the tooth fairy?

Some extremely highly specified mastering studios do in fact use super-tweeters. Nothing to do with ultrasonic perception though, in some setups they are used to aid phase coherence (in the hearing range). Talk about hypersonic effect to any educated audio professional and they'll laugh at you. But of course all us professionals and scientists don't know anything about sound, audiophiles are where the real knowledge is at! lol

G

 

[kiteki]

 
Of course, if I could run that experiment or one with similiar parameters, if I had something like that at my disposal, then yes I'd be interested in doing it and it would also provide a good source of evidence for me, but as it stands now the only experiments I know of that have been run in the nature that you outlined above showed results supporting the hypersonic effect, right?
 
The next best thing is for me is to buy a super-tweeter and try to find a headphone jack and source material that goes above 20kHz and do the testing on myself, but it seems Gregorio thinks that's a waste of money and believing in fairytales, the point is I don't believe or disbelieve in the fairytale I just want more evidence / anti-evidence of the fairytale and/or want to experience it for myself.
 
The super-tweeter is pretty cheap but I'm not sure sure about the DAC, Amp and where to find the source music required, I wish Sony made a portable SACD player back in the day it would really have simplified things!
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 
You mean apart from the link to the Super-tweeters and the Oohashi paper?!!!
 

 
Ok fine I guess the super-tweeter being advertised all over head-fi is marketing, and it has reignited this debate a bit, I'll give you that. The problem is the Oohashi paper doesn't use Chinese water torrent frogs as test subjects so this isn't so easy for you to refute!
 
OH and there is that newspaper article I accidentaly found saying headphones are going to incorporate super-tweeters soon so you better keep your anti super-tweeter engine in 5th gear for a while!
 
 
Quote:

 

Not "ever", maybe in a few tens of thousands of years we'll evolve something else but in the meantime science has been running tests for many decades and apart from one unreliable test there has never been any evidence that any adult human can hear above 20kHz, let alone the 22kHz limit of 44.1k sampling rate. Furthermore, 16bit provides 1000 times more dynamic range than the most dynamic recording ever released. Please can you explain to me the advantage of a format with more than 1000 times the required dynamic range? As for 192kHz sample rates, even the manufacturers (Apogee, Lavry, Benchmark, Prism) have made public statements that 192kHz is inferior but apparently you don't believe me, the science or even the people who make the equipment themselves. Instead you put your trust in audiophile publications.

My position is entirely reasonable, based entirely on the evidence, on my professional experience and on the consensus of the scientific community. You on the other hand seem determined to prove and believe that you are able to hear sound which does not exist, is not recorded and cannot be heard. You wouldn't be able to hear 0.04% of a violin sound even if it was in the most sensitive area of human hearing and you're trying to say it's possible to hear this in an area of hearing where humans are completely insensitive. And this is evidence you have quoted as supporting your case!? You are the one who sounds obsessed and irrational to me.

Yes, cymbals produce more energy above 20kHz, as do gamelan and muted trumpets. Good luck on hearing any of that when virtually all the studio mics in common use don't record beyond 20kHz.

G

 
So now what I need is music with a good focus on cymbals and xylophone (I think?) type instruments, making sure they used the proper studio mics and so on.
 
But the TAKET thing says you should just listen to birds in nature and cover your face!!!
 
 
 
 

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

I've seen you use this approach in several of your postings -- purposefully misquoting to make your own point, or to use mockery and ridicule. Then to throw in sub-woofers to make meaningless the very belief that super-tweeters make sense. Not very persuasive.
 
Now, you've come around to the fact that some studios actually use super-tweeters. I guess that's a backhanded way of saying that they perform some useful purpose, but only the ones that you want to acknowledge. So, are you suggesting that what can't be heard outside the limits of our hearing (through the use of super tweeters), make a difference within the range that we can hear (effecting phase coherence)? Hmm...
 
Most of my professional musicians and audio professional friends are not so blatantly put off by the suggestion, or make it out to be as fantastical as you suggest.
 
We certainly run in different circles!   
 

 
Quote:

What nuclear scientist? Dick Olsher believes in super tweeters but not in sub-woofers? And I bet he can't even hear above 12kHz. Incredible. Wonder if he believes in the tooth fairy?

Some extremely highly specified mastering studios do in fact use super-tweeters. Nothing to do with ultrasonic perception though, in some setups they are used to aid phase coherence (in the hearing range). Talk about hypersonic effect to any educated audio professional and they'll laugh at you. But of course all us professionals and scientists don't know anything about sound, audiophiles are where the real knowledge is at! lol

G
 

 

 

[khaos974]

Kiteki, others (as you wish), here's another viewpoint of the Super Tweeter (ultra sonics) thingy. http://www.blackdahlia.com/html/tip_48.html. Even a nuclear engineer was skeptical at first. 
 
This is part of the reason that I don't like black and white discussions like these is that it puts discovery and curiosity on the shelf. It's one thing to use science to prove something, but science is usually built on discovery and investigation. That's why quotes like, "If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." (Daniel von Recklinghausen) make a lot of sense, at least to me.

Indeed, you are measuring the wrong thing, the whole "sounds good/sounds bad" is half about the sound wave and half about the brain, which can be influenced by many things, including mood, time of the day, alcohol, the idea of "natural" sound... With the very same sound wave you could end up with very different appreciations.

You can only measure the sound wave, not how it sounds to a person, measuring the wrong thing indeed.

 

[kiteki]

 
Yes, the amount of narcotics or alcohol will improve the sound quality of a headphone/speaker/IEM, but generally speaking if you get 1000 people to listen to 3 different speakers they'll all be in general agreement on which one has the best sound quality.

 

[gregorio]

I've seen you use this approach in several of your postings -- purposefully misquoting to make your own point, or to use mockery and ridicule. Then to throw in sub-woofers to make meaningless the very belief that super-tweeters make sense. Not very persuasive.
 
Now, you've come around to the fact that some studios actually use super-tweeters. I guess that's a backhanded way of saying that they perform some useful purpose, but only the ones that you want to acknowledge. So, are you suggesting that what can't be heard outside the limits of our hearing (through the use of super tweeters), make a difference within the range that we can hear (effecting phase coherence)? Hmm...
 
Most of my professional musicians and audio professional friends are not so blatantly put off by the suggestion, or make it out to be as fantastical as you suggest.
 
We certainly run in different circles!

This is a direct quote: "To this day, I still hold a dim view of subwoofers. Tragically, many audio dollars get sucked up in a subwoofer purchase, typically in an attempt to fix a small two-way speaker’s bass balance." So while the author thinks sub-woofers are a waste of money he advocates spending over $2,000 on super-tweeters. Tell me where I have deliberated misquoted or even misrepresented the author. What the author is obviously trying to do is play down the importance of a sub, implying that a super-tweeter will make more difference. This is deliberately misleading consumers in an attempt to sell product: Don't waste your money on a sub, buy my super-tweeter instead. Just because you apparently have so little understanding of audio that you have been sucked in by the author's hype and are unable to understand the context of either my quotes or my points is no excuse to start throwing around insults!

Also, I have not "come round to the fact some studios use super-tweeters", I have known it for many years, seeing as I've worked in studios for nearly 30 years. And as I said in my post (if you had read or understood it) the reason why some mastering studios use super-tweeters is due to phase coherency. To give you a little more detail, as you obviously do not have a good understanding of how sound works: Any band limited signal can cause phase discrepancies in the transition band and even possibly in the pass band (a potential hazard of many filter types). Speakers are band limited, usually with the upper limit at around 20kHz. In theory, super-tweeters extend the transition band higher and therefore push any phase discrepancies caused by the speaker into the ultrasonic region. Several points to note:

1. This has nothing to do with being able to hear or perceive ultrasonic frequencies.
2. Mastering is the final QC of a musical product, so some mastering engineers just want to play it safe and be sure that their monitoring system is eliminated as a possible cause from any phase issues which may need correcting on the recording.
3. You need a truly world class critical monitoring system and environment as well extremely highly trained ears before the use of super-tweeters is even worth considering.
4. Most recording and production studios do not use super-tweeters, this is only of any real concern during the mastering QC process.

However, the marketing of super-tweeters to the audiophile community is aimed at the ridiculous notion that audiophiles are not human beings but are bats. The manufacturers obviously think it is easier to market super-tweeters by trying to turn some mythological human perceptive ability into a reality. And to be honest, their approach seems to be working, if it wasn't this thread would not exist and no one would be considering buying their products.

G

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif

@kiteki:
If you could run that experiment, would that offer sufficient proof one way or the other?
 

Relevant experiment and paper.
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full
 
"We speculate that changes of activity in the deep-lying structure may introduce some modulatory effects on the perception of audible sounds and thus control some aspects of human behavior. We have incorporated these features in the two-dimensional sound perception model: sound frequencies in the audible range function as a message carrier and frequencies above the audible range, together with those in the audible range, function as a modulator of sound perception through the brain systems, including the reward-generating system....
 
Redundant information, previously posted in same thread apparently discredited.

 

[gregorio]

JadeEast:- Just out of curiosity, why are you posting that paper again? It's getting really boring, whenever there's a discussion about someone who believes they have the hearing of a bat, someone always posts a link to that paper. Unfortunately, the "proof" they discovered turned out to be no proof at all but faulty methodology and spurious results. That Oohashi paper has been totally discredited many times by numerous different scientists, from different countries, over a number of years. A explanation is given earlier in this thread. Doesn't seem to stop people keep linking to that paper though. I supposed without any real evidence, discredited and incorrect evidence is better than nothing!

It is no exaggeration to say that the Oohashi paper has probably done more damage to the science of psychoacoustics than any other.

G

 

[JadeEast]

 
gregorio.
 
I was lazy, reading the thread from back to front and was interested in the nurological aspects that Dr.Strangeglove was posting about. I jumped to google to look around, in my excitement at finding what looked like an interesting scientific paper I posted a link directly to it. My mistake. 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

JadeEast:- Just out of curiosity, why are you posting that paper again? It's getting really boring, whenever there's a discussion about someone who believes they have the hearing of a bat, someone always posts a link to that paper. Unfortunately, the "proof" they discovered turned out to be no proof at all but faulty methodology and spurious results. That Oohashi paper has been totally discredited many times by numerous different scientists, from different countries, over a number of years. A explanation is given earlier in this thread. Doesn't seem to stop people keep linking to that paper though. I supposed without any real evidence, discredited and incorrect evidence is better than nothing!

It is no exaggeration to say that the Oohashi paper has probably done more damage to the science of psychoacoustics than any other.

G

The above post is just your attitude and what you want to believe, the fact you're over-defensive about that paper makes you look like a porcupine that can't accept the facts, you're not being objective or impartial at all and you just keep repeating that the paper has been refuted numerous times when it hasn't.
 
And by the way I've never stated anywhere - not once - that I can hear the hypersonic effect, or have hearing of a bat.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[gregorio]

 The above post is just your attitude and what you want to believe, the fact you're over-defensive about that paper makes you look like a porcupine that can't accept the facts, you're not being objective or impartial at all and you just keep repeating that the paper has been refuted numerous times when it hasn't.

You've got it the wrong way around. Accepting the facts is precisely what I am doing and you are not. Marketing hype is not facts, neither is a discredited paper.

Despite a number of attempts, the results observed in the Oohashi paper have never be repeated, a basic requirement of scientific evidence. Even other Japanese science teams could not repeat the results. Do you actually know anything about what constitutes scientific fact or evidence? The Oohashi paper was rejected for publication after peer review into JAES. The only journal which did publish the Oohashi paper (The Journal of Neurophysiology), it was specifically listed as "advertisement". There is a wealth of reliable evidence from the 1920s onwards from psychoacoustics and many peer reviewed papers where no one heard >20kHz. So there is a huge amount evidence against hearing ultrasonic frequencies and none (except a discredited paper) for it. Why do you think CD was limited to 22kHz, just to annoy you?

"The human ear can nominally hear sounds in the range 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). This upper limit tends to decrease with age, most adults being unable to hear above 16 kHz." (Wikipedia)
"The range of human hearing in the young is approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz—the higher number tends to decrease with age" (Indiana State University)
""Experiments have shown that a healthy young person hears all sound frequencies from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz." (Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1998: 466.)
"The general range of hearing for young people is 20 Hz to 20 kHz." (National Physical Laboratory (NPL), 2003.)
"The human ear can hear vibrations ranging from 15 or 16 cycles a second to 20,000 cycles a second." ("Body, Human." The New Book of Knowledge. New York: Grolier, 1967: 285.)
"The full range of human hearing extends from 20 to 20,000 hertz." (Caldarelli, David D. and Ruth S. Campanella. Ear. World Book Online Americas Edition. 26 May 2003.)

You want me to go on or what? Who is it that can't accept the facts?

You provide some credible facts and scientific evidence that humans can hear above 20kHz and I'll listen, as will governments, the entire scientific community and the pro-audio world. In the meantime, don't make yourself look like an idiot!

G

 

[kiteki]

- A basic requirement of scientific evidence is for a test to be repeated to be discredited and to date the test has not been repeated in the same manner as it was carried out which has been pointed out quite succinctly and as you can see from Dr. Strangelove's post above about a hypothetical test to disprove the hypersonic effect no one said "that's already been done" at his test, because it hasn't, and that is the problem you're ignoring and being partial to.
 
- You keep on repeating that we can't hear above 20kHz, I agree this is a widely accepted fact that we can't physically hear above 20kHz and our ears aren't physically capable of doing so, the theories about the hypersonic effect aren't related to "hearing" per se, in the regular air conducting sense, they're pertaining to reacting to the hypersonic frequencies in different ways, I'm not saying I do so myself, or that I believe in it, I'm just being impartial and open-minded.
 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

- You keep on repeating that we can't hear above 20kHz, I agree this is a widely accepted fact that we can't physically hear above 20kHz and our ears aren't physically capable of doing so, the theories about the hypersonic effect aren't related to "hearing" per se, in the regular air conducting sense, they're pertaining to reacting to the hypersonic frequencies in different ways, I'm not saying I do so myself, or that I believe in it, I'm just being impartial and open-minded.

Can you point everyone to a study which proves that we can sense above 20kHz in some other way? A study which does not have the problems the Oohashi study had? In particular, one which addresses these issues that nick_charles pointed out in page 2:

1. "Ashihara and colleagues could not replicate the Oohashi results and posited the effect was due to IMD due to the arrangement of transducers used"
2. "in OoHashi the above 20K stimulae (alone) went undetected"