[randyb]

I am always interested in what (volume) level is when an adult says that there hearing extends to 20khz. Is it the same level that would be considered a normal level for say the human voice. Most hearing tests done by audiologist test only to that level and range. If you use the same level for test tones that is not extremely loud at say 1khz and can hear a test tone at 20khz, that is impressive and dare I say it, quite unusual.

 

[bigshot]

I thought we're talking about 12.5kHz, not 15kHz. 

same same

 

[YtseJamer]

The stuff happening in the middle is MUCH more important, and getting that right is a lot harder than you might imagine if you focus on the bleeding edge of human hearing.

 
X2

 

[bigshot]

You do understand that the every harmonic of any note above 7.5khz exists past 15khz,.

No, the first harmonic for 7.5kHz would be right around 10kHz. Of course, even the highest note of the highest instrument (piccolo) still doesn't reach 7kHz.

It really helps to understand when you can associate the numbers with a real world sound. It helps you figure out how high is high.

 

[bigshot]

This is one reason I have the PM-1 on my radar.  As usual, Oppo is not pandering, but is instead offering extremely high quality equipment that is designed on the best scientific and empirical theories. The range that Bigshot is describing is pretty much unnecessary, and can't even be recognized as a harmonic let alone a fundamental note.  Like it or not, that's as close to a fact as one will ever find in audio.

I can't tell you why Oppo chose me to be in the beta testing group, but my guess is that people like me are part of their target customer base. The sound of any tranducer is composed of a specific set of compromises, and I have to say that Oppo was very clever to sacrifice in the spots that may show up on paper, but don't make a lick of difference. There are too many headphones where the frequency extension is huge, but the balance within the audible range is all over the place. That may look great on paper to people who don't really understand what those numbers sound like, but I'd rather have it actually sound perfect. The Oppos are as close to perfect as I've ever encountered... great sound, great comfort, great functionality.

 

[Ultramus]

No, the first harmonic for 7.5kHz would be right around 10kHz. Of course, even the highest note of the highest instrument (piccolo) still doesn't reach 7kHz.

It really helps to understand when you can associate the numbers with a real world sound. It helps you figure out how high is high.

What? A harmonic is an integer of the principle frequency, if the principle is 7.5, the first harmonic is at 15, and the second at 22.5, and so on and so forth, but after the first I is indeed outside the realm of human hearing. A cymbal crash actually has about 40% of it's energy after 20khz, which only stresses how much of it's sound is between it's principle and 20khz.

Were you confusing harmoics and timbre maybe?

 

[bigshot]

Harmonics don't fall neatly on divisions, but the first harmonic is at about 50% and the subsequent harmonics are at roughly double. I believe I'm correct on that. (ie: fundamental=1kHz, 1st harmonic=1.5kHz, 2nd harmonic=3kHz, 4th harmonic=6kHz, etc.) Feel free to fact check me.

And jerg, the difference between 12.5kHz and 15kHz might sound like a lot to you just by looking at numbers on a piece of paper. After all, that's a difference of 2,500 which is a whole lot, right?! But in actuality, it's only one note different on the musical scale... do, re, me, so, etc. Just from one note to the next- do to re. Human's hear about seven octaves (do to do). The difference between 12.5 and 15 represents less than 2% of the range of human hearing. That really isn't very much at all.

In addition to all that, 12.5kHz is higher in frequency than any musical instrument goes. It's higher than most of the harmonics that musical instruments produce. It's beyond the point where you can perceive a frequency as a musical note. Humans perceive that last octave of sound basically as noise.

Too many audiophiles worry about numbers on a spec sheet without a clue as to what kind of sound those numbers represent as sound. If you take the difference between a rolloff at 12.5kHz and a rolloff at 15kHz and relate it to actual human hearing, it flat out doesn't really matter. The truth is, you could roll off at 9kHz and it probably would only barely affect sound quality. There are other things that mean MUCH MUCH more and are much harder to achieve. And the Oppo PM-1s nail just about every one of those.

 

[jerg]

Harmonics don't fall neatly on divisions, but the first harmonic is at about 50% and the subsequent harmonics are at roughly double. I believe I'm correct on that. Feel free to fact check me.

And jerg, the difference between 12.5kHz and 15kHz might sound like a lot to you just by looking at numbers on a piece of paper. After all, that's a difference of 2,500 which is a whole lot, right?! But in actuality, it's only one note different on the musical scale... do, re, me, so, etc. Just from one note to the next- do to re. Human's hear about seven octaves (do to do). The difference between 12.5 and 15 represents less than 2% of the range of human hearing. That really isn't very much at all.

In addition to all that, 12.5kHz is higher in frequency than any musical instrument goes. It's higher than most of the harmonics that musical instruments produce. It's beyond the point where you can perceive a frequency as a musical note. Humans perceive that last octave of sound basically as noise.

Too many audiophiles worry about numbers on a spec sheet without a clue as to what kind of sound those numbers represent as sound. If you take the difference between a rolloff at 12.5kHz and a rolloff at 15kHz and relate it to actual human hearing, it flat out doesn't really matter. The truth is, you could roll off at 9kHz and it probably would only barely affect sound quality. There are other things that mean MUCH MUCH more and are much harder to achieve. And the Oppo PM-1s nail just about every one of those.

Why are you assuming that I'm looking at numbers on a piece of paper? You're the one throwing around numbers.
 
http://www.tucows.com/preview/502787
 
Neat little sinewave generator program, lets you toggle tones  from 15 Hz to 30000 Hz. Anyone with healthy functional ears and capable headphones should be able to immediately discern the difference between 12.5kHz and 15kHz (assuming the drivers can extend up to 15 well enough). If you can't, how unfortunate, but don't project.

 

[bigshot]

Could I be mistaking tones and overtones for harmonics?

 

[bigshot]

You can discern a different in tones, but I seriously doubt that you would hear the difference between a 12.5kHz rolloff and a 15kHz rolloff in music. There just isn't anything up there in that range and the difference is so small.

 

[arnaud]

Edit: if that really is your perception, then we are arguing out of two different worlds. Like a Horde playing trying to talk to an Alliance player.

I think that's the reason it's pointless to try to argue. In the end, you're probably not paying attention to the same things in a recording, air / imaging / room cues (these little details that separate good from great imho) do not seem to be very high on the list of priorities for bigshot, but tonal balance much more so. It's fine like that, it would indeed be nice though that the opinions on what matters don't get elevated as truths.

Common sense is good but sensitivity as well I suppose. Otherwise, we shall all be happy with mp3 / laptop soundcard / and an eq. Curve of one's taste...

 

[Nimzerz]

You can discern a different in tones, but I seriously doubt that you would hear the difference between a 12.5kHz rolloff and a 15kHz rolloff in music. There just isn't anything up there in that range and the difference is so small.

+1... just use EQ like bigshot said. Literally not a difference.

 

[bigshot]

Honestly, the stuff I'm talking about really isn't crazy. It's just plain old horse sense. Audio fidelity is best judged against the specs of human hearing, not just abstract numbers on a page. Less informed audiophiles love to imagine that the differences between good and great systems lie in tiny details, but that just isn't true. Human ears are unable to discern the tiny details they're talking about.

The difference between good and great systems is determined by *balance* and *accuracy*, tempered by the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of our all too human ears. If you don't relate the numbers to hearing, you'll never know what matters and what doesn't. And if you relate everything to abstract things like test tones, you'll never know how things affect listening to music... which I assume is the ultimate goal.

I get into trouble all the time at Sound Science because I keep pointing out that measurements need to be put into context of human hearing. All the science heads love to split fractions and cross every T down as far as they can possibly go. Likewise, I get in trouble in subjectivist threads, because I'm pointing to measurements and their relationship to sound quality. Yes you can get a good idea of how something sounds by looking at accurately determined measurements... It seems there is no middle ground for old school hifi nuts like me who just want the best audio fidelity human ears will allow.

 

[arnaud]

Honestly, the stuff I'm talking about really isn't crazy. It's just plain old horse sense. Audio fidelity is best judged against the specs of human hearing, not just abstract numbers on a page. Less informed audiophiles love to imagine that the differences between good and great systems lie in tiny details, but that just isn't true. Human ears are unable to discern the tiny details they're talking about.

The difference between good and great systems is determined by *balance* and *accuracy*, tempered by the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of our all too human ears. If you don't relate the numbers to hearing, you'll never know what matters and what doesn't. And if you relate everything to abstract things like test tones, you'll never know how things affect listening to music... which I assume is the ultimate goal.

I get into trouble all the time at Sound Science because I keep pointing out that measurements need to be put into context of human hearing. All the science heads love to split fractions and cross every T down as far as they can possibly go. Likewise, I get in trouble in subjectivist threads, because I'm pointing to measurements and their relationship to sound quality. Yes you can get a good idea of how something sounds by looking at accurately determined measurements... It seems there is no middle ground for old school hifi nuts like me who just want the best audio fidelity human ears will allow.

 
Bigshot, it's no surprise you get into arguments whomever you talk to . I mean, you are so convinced by your conception of fidelity and what objective parameters it relates to that you simply reject plain and simple any kind of discussion. It's all how you see it, and the truth's just that. 
 
Don't misjudge what I am trying to say, I'm an acoustic engineer, I deal with objective sound qualifiers all day. Doesn't mean I am silly enough to think we are able to measure half of what matters for audio transduction / reproduction. You seem convinced a flat FR is all one will ever need, and I think that's the reason why you're also happy with a laptop sound card. All fine with me, but there is, imo, a difference between a good system (the basics being tonal accuracy) and something that really gives the shills, and it doesn't sum up to a measurable FR. That line is subtle for some, inaudible for others, probably placebo / mind conditioning to some extent, but certainly there's something.
 
To me, you're like focusing solely on 95% of the experience (and rightly so since that's where it start), but what makes the magic for me, the last 5% or maybe even 1% that distinguish good from moving wasn't traced back to quantitative / objective qualifiers. Our best measurement capabilities are just so miserable compared to the hearing acuity.
 
Arnaud

 

[bigshot]

  Don't misjudge what I am trying to say, I'm an acoustic engineer, I deal with objective sound qualifiers all day. Doesn't mean I am silly enough to think we are able to measure half of what matters for audio transduction / reproduction.

 
Here is an honest question... If there are things we can't measure, how is it that we would even be able to electronically reproduce them?
 
One more question... What is the point of worrying about the last 5% when most audiophiles haven't even dealt with the other 95% yet?
 
By the way, I don't own a laptop. My music server is Mac Mini based.