[Yuri Korzunov]

 
I sure that given enough SPL a person will perceive ultrasonics, but not in a musical sense, more like due physical damage and discomfort. I think our application is for musical enjoyment not harmful effects. I have never seen a credible reproducible scientific study proving any musical application. I bundle ultrasonic perception in the category of magical cables and other audio mythology.

 
I don't sure about harm for health. I suppose, for record of musical instruments it is not matter.
 
But you describe playback ultrasound on ideal apparatus. But real apparatus have non-linear distortions.
So ultrasound stuff generate aduible products by ultrasound (intermodulations).
Level of the products depend on level ultrasound and non-linearity of the apparatus.
These products may be inaudible (below "threshold of audibility").
 
Here experiment with cutting ultrasound above 20 kHz (probably original record contains legacy ultrasound noise by sigma-delta modulation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_3Qmbq8Y4
 
I wondered, why ultrasound playback are demanded, but ultraviolet don't
In the article I compared ultrasound and ultraviolet http://samplerateconverter.com/content/ultrasound-ultraviolet-audio-optics

 

[StanD]

I wouldn't expect a large enough ultrasonic content in recorded music. Playback from a CD is Nyquist limited, DACs have filters and musical instruments have limited upper harmonic levels, etc......  Most of the noise is from audiophiles seeking something to opine about. Perhaps one day there will be an "Audiophile Symphonic Orchestra" with a section of dog whistles, next to the violins and ultrasonic motion sensors.

 

[StanD]

  Here experiment with cutting ultrasound above 20 kHz (probably original record contains legacy ultrasound noise by sigma-delta modulation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_3Qmbq8Y4

I don't bother with hirez audio since there is no tangible benefit from such media.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  Playback from a CD is Nyquist limited, DACs have filters and musical instruments have limited upper harmonic levels, etc......

 
There are aliases in ultrasound range. It is especially problematic for 44/48 kHz, because need 2 kHz transient band.
 
Analog filters begin "work" only after oversampling and digital pre-filtering into DAC.

 

[StanD]

   
There are aliases in ultrasound range. It is especially problematic for 44/48 kHz, because need 2 kHz transient band.
 
Analog filters begin "work" only after oversampling and digital pre-filtering into DAC.

I don't remember having any problematic ultrasonic content, meaningful or otherwise, in any music that I have, so I'll not be losing any sleep over this.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  I don't remember having any problematic ultrasonic content, meaningful or otherwise, in any music that I have, so I'll not be losing any sleep over this.

Results depend on implementation of apparatus. Need learn each case separatelly.

 

[StanD]

 
Results depend on implementation of apparatus. Need learn each case separatelly.

I haven't seen or heard from anyone lining up here with such issues.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  I haven't seen or heard from anyone lining up here with such issues.

I had several feedback about noise by ultrasound. Also you can seen it in video in post.
 
Last such feedback I got from my customer after checking different band filters (3 filter mode) during conversion DSF or ISO (I don't remember exactly).
For 100 kHz band his apparatus have some noise at output. If he used 20 or 27 kHz band during audio file conversion, all sound ok.
 
Other customer more like sound in 100 kHz mode then 20 or 27 kHz. His apparatus work ok with such band.
 
Except non-linearity some apparatus may have different filtering, that may reduce or don't the noise.

 

[Dillan]

I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.

 

[StanD]

I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.

They've just adopted an official name, the K9s.

 

[LazyListener]

I think the guy is onto something BIG with the dog whistle orchestra section for audiophiles.

Don't laugh.  This is a potential market - musical enjoyment for dogs.  Research if ultrasonics stimulate any pleasure regions of dogs' brains.  Then manufacture audio equipment just for dogs.  Filthy rich will buy it.

 

[StanD]

 
Don't laugh.  This is a potential market - musical enjoyment for dogs.  Research if ultrasonics stimulate any pleasure regions of dogs' brains.  Then manufacture audio equipment just for dogs.  Filthy rich will buy it.

Wideband DACs for dogs.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

For exact understanding, I say, that I consider ultrasound perceprion from point of view of experimental proofs. Because I use it in work.
 
And practical experience show that we hear up to 20 kHz. Other opinions I collect for future. Maybe the future give us new information.
 
There are some researches about brain response to ultrasound ARTICLES | Journal of Neurophysiology
 
But, I think, here need wait for more researches.

 

[castleofargh]

 music content tends to go downhill as frequencies go up, looking at the stuff I have in high-res, most of it is like -25 to -40db at 20khz compared to the bass. and it keeps going down above 20khz. IMO that alone should put a silencer on how important high-res is. 1% distortions create crap as high as -40db, and people are fine saying that it's usually goes unnoticed on headphones at most frequencies.
now let's look at our equal loudness contour and here we go again, 20khz alone is maybe 10 to 20db less audible than even 1khz and small chance that the sensitivity comes back up at 30khz ^_^.
then of course there are the headphones/IEMs used. in this case we see everything, from almost no attenuation, to -60db at 20khz.
the result on average is probably music that would mostly go unnoticed if it was in the midrange. instead we're talking frequencies we fail to hear at normal loudness...
 
to me discussing about pushing the goalpost from 22khz to 24khz because some devices just suck or roll off too much of the audible range with such sample rate, that's something fine. I'd argue that some devices do a good job so just stop buying crap. but the attraction of even cheap and/or exotic gears performing better is not without interest. everything beyond that is silly for playback purpose and based on no relevant information whatsoever. it's not like we're just wondering and keeping an open mind because it's a new science. as consumers we've seen a rebranding of the same subject again and again for the better of the last 20 years. and I'm sure professionals were at it long before.
and so far, here are the conclusive reasons to use high sample rates for playback:
-
-
-
-

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

I don't know history of high resolution.
But I suspect step to high resolution was done for avoiding DAC's analog filter issue.
 
Maybe later this real target of high resolution was transformed to "transfer ultrasound for better fidelity".
Though currently no reliable evidence that ultrasound make a sound better.