I tried to snip out only the parts I'm responding to here in the quote.... we'll see if it works out.
-------------
I personally would rather avoid ultraviolet light on my TV... although some few folks might opt for "ruthless accuracy".
(I'm sure that, on the Mars rover, they included cameras that detect both.)
I'm not sure about whether I would consider the warmth of long wave infrared which conveys "warm sunlight" to be a benefit or a drawback.
(Perhaps they could include a switch marked "popular" and "lab" on my next TV.)
--------------
Nobody said anything about "far above 100%".
Here's a link to the AES reprint of the Meyer and Moran study.... (testing "the audibility of a CD standard A/D/A loop in the signal chain")
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf
If you look at the top right - on page 777
The
TOTAL number of correct responses was 246/467 - which is reasonably close to random.
This is well within results that could be explained by random chance - with a slight random variation.
So they quite correctly reported that "the total result did not indicate that a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference".
HOWEVER, they also reported that "the best listener score, achieved only once" was 8/10, and "two other results were 7/10.
The results
FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS - AND THOSE RUNS - TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY are well outside what you would expect from random chance.
Now, if you understand statistics, you understand that there is in fact a certain probability that, by pure random chace, you may get a few anomalous results.
(It's not impossible that, out of that many subjects and runs, those three were simply "lucky that day", and simply guessed with far better than random accuracy that one time.)
HOWEVER, it's also
POSSIBLE that those three subjects, under the exact conditions found in those three test runs, really were exceptionally accurate.
Since Meyer and Moran were looking for a statistical result about "whether humans in general would notice a difference" they stopped there.
That result is certainly "suggestive enough to justify follow-up on those three test subjects" - at least if you're really looking for a limit rather than an average.
-------------------
Nobody said anything about "studio microphones currently in use".
Bats obviously
DO use ultrasonics to navigate - and they seemingly are able to do so at ranges far exceeding "a few inches".
And the the company I linked clearly
DOES produce both microphones and speakers whose response extends above 100 kHz.
Therefore, whether you purchase any for your studio or not, they would be adequate for testing purposes.
-------------------
Perhaps the reason "nobody has made a recording that sounds exactly like the real thing" is that they were all made using microphones...
Limited to the range of frequencies that
IT WAS POPULARLY BELIEVED was the limit of human hearing...
Probably not... but maybe...
.............................
That's brings us back full circle to what I suggested many pages ago in response to similar nonsense: How about ultraviolet TV, so we could get a suntan while watching Baywatch? I'm sure there are loads of audiophiles who want the "real experience" of melanoma from watching their TV?
1. Really? ... How do you achieve "far above" 100%? You seem unaware of the fact that even a perfect 100% score can in fact be "pure chance" as entirely predicted by and consistent with statistics and does NOT indicate "people could hear a difference". So "in fact" yet another of your assertions is FALSE.
2. So you've got absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that "participants were in fact able to tell which is which" ... how surprising!
3. Despite you stating no one should use absolutes we've had an "in fact" absolute assertion form you and now a "point blank" absolute assertion. I can only assume you believe that "no one" doesn't include you? And, if it's not bad enough that you're doing the exact opposite of what you advised others, your absolute assertions are in fact FALSE anyway! Jeez, round and round we go.
1. Correct, it's "not difficult", in practise it's impossible, unless of course one wanted to get laughed at and fired.
2. And many instruments do not. AND, even those that do only produce it in tiny amounts and can only be recorded at extremely close range. Do you typically sit with your ears just an inch from a snare drum? If so, what make of hearing aids do you now have to use or do you just rely on lip-reading?
3. No there aren't, there's very few music mics whose response extend that high.
4. No there aren't, there's not a single music mic that gets anywhere near that high.
4a. You seem to have inadvertently missed the fact this is a mic designed for "Investigating Animal Acoustic Communication", NOT for recording music! You seem to consistently and continually "inadvertently miss" a great deal and what are the odds that all these "inadvertent" mistakes ALWAYS seem to support your agenda? Maybe that's why you like using astronomical analogies?
As you like astronomical analogies: We can propel a space craft to well over 17,000mph with solid fuel rockets, therefore all cars can travel at over 17,000mph. Are there ANY cars that can travel at over 17,000mph? Is this not a ridiculous and fallacious assertion? Even though it's entirely possible to achieve, there are no solid fuel rocket powered consumer cars because it's so highly undesirable in practice .... but why let that fact get in the way of a perfectly good bunch of nonsense?
Then why do you do it? Why, when you're clearly lacking basic knowledge, do you employ your dogmatic, adversarial, counterproductive and self-contradictory attitude and ignore your own advice to learn from experts? And why do you ignore every question which points this out? What is the only logical conclusion from this attitude?
Sure, the inverse square law isn't a law, it "TOTALLY" doesn't even exist. High freq air absorption also doesn't exist, it was just invented by people who hate vinyl. Thermal noise increasing with frequency is just another Nyquist lie and the proven math is all wrong AND, all the audience always sits "no more than a few feet away from" say a drumkit at a live gig or an orchestra.
Yep, that's not going to work here. I've already tried it, I've even given the facts and figures. They care only about their agenda, of re-stating ad infinitum what they believe might be possible and what has not been proven to be impossible, completely disregarding any of the actual realities or practicalities of how recordings are actually made or even that what they assert as possible would in practice cause hearing damage if they tried it, which they won't anyway. They'll go to extreme lengths and employ the most ridiculous of analogies and falsehoods. Arguing for example that it's entirely possible to send a man to a star 4 light YEARS away, when the best we've actually managed so far is about one and a half light SECONDS! Honestly, you're wasting your time providing recording realities/practicalities, they'll just ignore you and invent recording scenarios which NEVER exist to "prove"/support their agenda.
Who do YOU think "knows more about what's really audible" with say a piano recording?
- an audiologist
- a neuro-physiologist who specialises in human hearing
- a concert pianist
- a recording engineer
- an audiophile
- a salesman selling snake oil to audiophiles
The first four are all in general agreement, based on both the science and the factual, practical realities of performing and recording music. The last two however ....
G
