Dec 2, 2018 at 2:24 AM Post #11,116 of 19,075
There's a big, and rather subjective, difference between "useful" and "perceptible".

(It's an interesting philosophical question whether, if the artist deliberately included a burst of ultrasonic noise because he WANTED you to vomit at the end of his song, you would be "compromising the artistic integrity of the piece" by eliminating it, or simply failing to reproduce it. In that situation, I would probably prefer a less accurate rebdition, but some others may disagree.)

I know studies have been done that suggest exposure limits of 70 dB @ 20khz and 100 dB @ 25kHz, but there isn't a lot of useful info on short peaks, as @amirm would most likely point out.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ultrasound-and-infrasound-health-effects
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 2:32 AM Post #11,117 of 19,075
There's a big, and rather subjective, difference between "useful" and "perceptible".

if the artist deliberately included a burst of ultrasonic noise because he WANTED you to vomit at the end of his song,

NOT
GONNA
HAPPEN!

COME ON!
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 2:37 AM Post #11,118 of 19,075
Here's something to consider....
It's a simple piece of logic....

The ranging and detection system used by bats works at ultrasonic frequencies.
Bats seem perfectly able to navigate quite successfully inside typical buildings.
Therefore, the ultrasonic frequencies bats use ARE NOT TOTALLY ABSORBED BY THE AIR OR THE WALLS.
If those ultrasonic frequencies were completely absorbed by the air, or by the walls...
Then the bats would run into the walls.

The fact that recordings don't contain those frequencies DOES NOT constitute proof that the are inaudible.
That is simply circular logic.
Commercial recordings don't include those frequencies because someone BELIEVED that they were inaudible.
Because of this they CHOSE not to include those frequencies or use equipment that can reproduce them.
That does not constitute proof of anything.
(Although, if the frequencies are in fact audible, then those recordings are NOT accurate after all.)

NOTE that I'm not specifically making that claim...
(I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the logic.)

It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away. Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 2:46 AM Post #11,119 of 19,075
Here's something to consider....
It's a simple piece of logic....

The ranging and detection system used by bats works at ultrasonic frequencies.
Bats seem perfectly able to navigate quite successfully inside typical buildings.
Therefore, the ultrasonic frequencies bats use ARE NOT TOTALLY ABSORBED BY THE AIR OR THE WALLS.
If those ultrasonic frequencies were completely absorbed by the air, or by the walls...
Then the bats would run into the walls.

The fact that recordings don't contain those frequencies DOES NOT constitute proof that the are inaudible.
That is simply circular logic.
Commercial recordings don't include those frequencies because someone BELIEVED that they were inaudible.
Because of this they CHOSE not to include those frequencies or use equipment that can reproduce them.
That does not constitute proof of anything.
(Although, if the frequencies are in fact audible, then those recordings are NOT accurate after all.)

NOTE that I'm not specifically making that claim...
(I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the logic.)

First of all I'm not angry.
I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.

BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!

You can do better.:wink:

Peace out. :)
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2018 at 2:53 AM Post #11,120 of 19,075
Just to put something in context....

Bigshot seems determined to demonstrate, by analogy, that "10 mSec is insignificant".

If you have a home theater system, then part of your setup was to set speaker distances.
Based on the typical speed of sound in air, the compensation for one foot of distance is 1 mSec.
(If one speaker is one foot closer than the other, the system adds 1 mSec of delay to compensate the difference.)
Try changing the distance on ONLY ONE of your front speakers by ten feet.
(By doing so you will have created a 10 mSec ERROR in the delay of that one channel.)
Now play some music and listen carefully - from your normal center listening position.
You will find that you have created an EXTREMELY AUDIBLE AND ANNOYING shift in the sound stage.

If you don't believe that then it's easy enough to try for yourself.
I leave the conslusions to you....

I should also note that, on a typical (non-LED) camera flash...
The flash remains lit for somewhere between 1 mSec and 1/50 mSec...
(1 mSec is the longest time ever used on my most powerful Nikon flash.)
And most of us find that to be quite visible...

I also have a high-speed strobe that delivers flashes of 1.2 microseconds (just over 1/1000 mSec)....
And even they are visible to humans....

That test is measuring hearing damage due to frequency and level related to exposure times. That isn't quite the same as audibility. I think it's safe to say that if ultrasonics are inaudible at normal volumes and long periods of time, they'll be even more inaudible at 10 to 100 milliseconds. (figure corrected) And if a commercial recording has an ultrasonic spike that reaches +108dB at normal listening volumes, that particular SACD has severe engineering flaws. 108dB is extremely loud. It's about as loud as you can hear something without crossing the threshold of pain.

Just to provide context 10 milliseconds is the rotation period for a pulsar. It's less than the time of a single field in video. 50 milliseconds is the cycle time of the lowest audible tone 20Hz. Just under 100 milliseconds is the maximum desirable latency of an internet connection. (video gamers will be familiar with this!) It takes a little more than 100 milliseconds for light to travel all the way around the equator of the earth. 200 milliseconds for a person to recognize emotion in an expression. (Wikipedia is your friend!)

In any case, we're talking about a quick sliver of time in which it would be probably difficult to detect a flicker in light, much less hear an inaudible frequency.

To provide context for the volume levels we're talking about... 108dB is about the volume of a chain saw at close range. It's around the loudest industrial noise level you would ever find. It's in the range where hearing protection is not just recommended, but required.

While an exposure of 10 to 100 milliseconds likely wouldn't be long enough to incur hearing damage, it would certainly be a lot louder than you would ever find in recorded music (even assuming that the recorded music actually has ultrasonic content, which most music doesn't).

These are irrelevant, extreme situations that don't at all apply to our discussion of audibility of ultrasonics in recorded music.
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:05 AM Post #11,121 of 19,075
Just to put something in context....

Bigshot seems determined to demonstrate, by analogy, that "10 mSec is insignificant".

If you have a home theater system, then part of your setup was to set speaker distances.
Based on the typical speed of sound in air, the compensation for one foot of distance is 1 mSec.
(If one speaker is one foot closer than the other, the system adds 1 mSec of delay to compensate the difference.)
Try changing the distance on ONLY ONE of your front speakers by ten feet.
(By doing so you will have created a 10 mSec ERROR in the delay of that one channel.)
Now play some music and listen carefully - from your normal center listening position.
You will find that you have created an EXTREMELY AUDIBLE AND ANNOYING shift in the sound stage.

If you don't believe that then it's easy enough to try for yourself.
I leave the conslusions to you....

I should also note that, on a typical (non-LED) camera flash...
The flash remains lit for somewhere between 1 mSec and 1/50 mSec...
(1 mSec is the longest time ever used on my most powerful Nikon flash.)
And most of us find that to be quite visible...

I also have a high-speed strobe that delivers flashes of 1.2 microseconds (just over 1/1000 mSec)....
And even they are visible to humans....

If I move my speaker 10 feet in one direction I am going to move my seating position 5 feet or less in the same direction, depending on proportions,etc.

As far as what @bigshot was pulling out of the air:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisecond

Not rocket science.

Overall the discussion goes nowhere that I can discern and it makes my brain hurt. :bow:

 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:24 AM Post #11,122 of 19,075
...where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing? In fact, how about just a bit of reliable evidence, it doesn't even have to be "significant"! ALL the reliable evidence indicates that with commercial music recordings it CANNOT be audible.

Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af2e/79a6ac98f61b19c78ff01e51a786ead7d4d6.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:26 AM Post #11,123 of 19,075
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:30 AM Post #11,124 of 19,075
I'm not quite convinced that the "more is better" idea is always so silly.

If we accept that human hearing extends only to 20 kHz.
And that they Nyquist frequency of a CD is 22 kHz (actually 22,500 Hz).
Then we're talking about a 10% safety margin (assuming the filters were all perfectly ideal).
By most standards that is a VERY NARROW safety margin.

When it comes to test and measurement equipment...
The general guideline most people I know follow is:
"Aim for a safety margin of ten-to-one or more unless there are compelling reasons to accept less."

Also, I should point out that your allusion to "using ten different water filtration systems" is completely specious.
The tap water in virtually every town in the USA is perfectly safe to drink.
Therefore, anyone who uses a single water filter, or a filter pitcher, has paid extra for a safety margin.


The main theory that audiophiles operate on is the "more is better" theory. If 20Hz to 20kHz is good, then 15Hz to 25kHz must be better. They don't understand that the frequency range is logarithmic and the difference between octaves roughly doubles every time. So a number like 25kHz sounds nice and big, but it barely represents a single note on the musical scale. It doesn't matter that they can't even hear it with human ears. If more is better, then perhaps making things they can't hear better will improve things they can. Naturally, this makes no logical sense.

The same more is better theory is applied to other things, like distortion levels, noise floors, dynamic range and timing error wth similar absurdity. The core of the problem is that audiophiles focus entirely on the specs and numbers of their electronic devices and they really don't have any clue about the specs and numbers as they relate to human hearing. More is better all the way down the rabbit hole of chasing down better inaudible sound. As you say, there are plenty of things that are right smack dab in the middle of our ability to hear that can be dealt with. But I guess that isn't as sexy as using the more is better theory to justify irrelevant race car analogies and cherry picked perceptual studies that have absolutely nothing to do with listening to recorded music in the home.

Hopefully they don't apply this same twisted logic to the rest of their life, or they'll be filtering their water though a dozen different expensive filtration systems, lining their walls and floors with lead to filter out trace radiation, and buying fancy light bulbs that can produce everything from ultraviolet to infra red. If unchecked, this kind of OCD can consume your entire attention and budget, and prevent you from accomplishing anything at all.
First of all I'm not angry.
I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.

BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!

You can do better.:wink:

Peace out. :)
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:33 AM Post #11,125 of 19,075
Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af2e/79a6ac98f61b19c78ff01e51a786ead7d4d6.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569

I could swear he used the word "hearing." I could swear I read that! I really, really think he used the word "hearing."

Or, you can stick with the word hearing!
Henry, K. R., & Fast, G. A. (1984). Ultrahigh-frequency auditory thresholds in young adults: Reliable responses up to 24 kHz with a quasi-free-field technique. Audiology, 23(5), 477-489.

Ashihara, K. (2007). Hearing thresholds for pure tones above 16 kHz. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(3), EL52-EL57
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:40 AM Post #11,126 of 19,075
If you read the thread I was replying to - it wasn't talking about audibility or hearing.
(That part of the original message apparently didn't make it to the quote.)

It asserted that the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies was irrelevant because they are totally absorbed by even a few feet of air.
(The claim was made that "since the ultrasonic frequencies will have been totally absorbed by the air then it doesn't matter if they're audible to humans or not".)
I simply pointed out that, if the frequencies are there for the bats to hear, then they obviously HAVE NOT been absorbed by the air.

First of all I'm not angry.
I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.

BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!

You can do better.:wink:

Peace out. :)
 
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:45 AM Post #11,128 of 19,075
Dec 2, 2018 at 3:51 AM Post #11,130 of 19,075
You bring up an interesting question....

If it were to turn out that a significant number of people can percieve ultrasonic frequencies at concerts due to bone conduction...
Then it could be asserted that both almost all current recordings, and all air-conduction speakers and headphones, are inaccurate...
And ONLY high resolution recordings played on bone conduction headphones are actually accurate.

Then we can start an interesting semantic argument as to whether they count as "audio reproduction" or "multimedia reproduction".

Don't you think that's more of a semantic question? So what's your take on bone conduction headphones and "hearing" aids?

https://www.everydayhearing.com/hearing-technology/articles/bone-conduction-headphones/
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top