Testing audiophile claims and myths

[old tech]

It is - perhaps - THE showcase regarding the sound quality, where initial recording is rather recent ( 1995 ) analogue master tape > LP release ( long out of print, ultra turbo super rare ) > CD release > SACD release. The mastering on the the CD https://www.ebay.com/p/Music-by-Frank-Zappa-by-Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-CD-Mar-2002-Opus-111/80245343 does differ from the one on SACD release ( see Discogs link ), though.

SACD release also has CD layer - both are using the same mastering. Selecting the SACD version on your player DOES yield better sound quality.

Some of the technical info on Opus 3 : http://www.opus3records.com/am_list.html

How do you know both layers have the same mastering? If it sounds different it is either a different mastering or your expectation biases are colouring how you hear the sound. Quite often with hybrids they do not have the same mastering - the CD layer is either from a 'crippled' version of the DSD layer or another another CD master (perhaps the 1995 CD mastering?).

Look at it on the practical side, it makes more sense to have a less dynamic, more compressed mastering for the CD layer for background playback in for noisier environments. Otherwise it is somewhat pointless, having the same mastering on both layers given that people who purchase SACDs presumably want to play in on a SACD player.

 

[analogsurviver]

How do you know both layers have the same mastering? If it sounds different it is either a different mastering or your expectation biases are colouring how you hear the sound. Quite often with hybrids they do not have the same mastering - the CD layer is either from a 'crippled' version of the DSD layer or another another CD master (perhaps the 1995 CD mastering?).

Look at it on the practical side, it makes more sense to have a less dynamic, more compressed mastering for the CD layer for background playback in for noisier environments. Otherwise it is somewhat pointless, having the same mastering on both layers given that people who purchase SACDs presumably want to play in on a SACD player.

OK - at first, you did not even care to look at the links - at least, not properly. Your reply has been of a standard "normalized" pre-concieved type. ( Which. admittedly, for the Zappa CDs, does hold water in more than one case ).

Have YOU heard all of the releases of Omnibus Wind Ensemble playing music of Zappa - LP included ? Did YOU listen to the SACD release ( which DOES have the same mastering - do check the back page photo of the SACD cover with the credentials ). Does not matter sighted, blind, double blind, ABXed - or whatever ( as long as levels are equalized within 0.2 dB or less apart ). It is THAT audible/obvious. You CAN NOT equalize the levels of this one... too dynamic on SACD, it will be either too soft or too loud, depending with reference to which part of the song/take you are tying to get the level within 0.2dB - on the next part, maybe just seconds removed from the reference spot. The original analogue tape is simply too fast ( too much high frequencies, or, if you wish, its rise time too low ) to be correctly represented by RBCD.

As on ANY other release by ANY label, there is no reference tone at reference level that could be equalized by measurement.

Opus 3 is a very well known in audiophile circuits as one of THE good recording labels - and no way they will EVER go for anything less that they can possibly accomplish. You can completely forget them doing compression, loudness wars, etc - as most of the rest. Their intent has been NEVER to cater for background playback in noisier environments.

I have yet to see a Ferrari ( or put here your dream sports car of choice ) with wheels of a Monster Truck - while hauling a cart with your racing horse worth millions - up or down the cliffs of Dover ... - one just can't expect a reference recording being turned into a muzak - can YOU ?

 

[Steve999]

You’re right. I was irked by his implication that he’s the arbiter of what the “established science” is, and wanted to see if he had any formal scientific (or engineering) education, training, and published research experience. His evasion of my question makes me suspect that he doesn’t, but he can correct that if that’s wrong. In any case, I’m going to take a break from posting in Sound Science, and I thank all who’ve shared their knowledge and opinions in a civil way, and again castle for his excellent moderation.

Your call. You’ve offered the mea culpa (many of us have, you’re not so unique in that way), you do greatly improve he s/n ratio here (which we desperately need), and I for one will keep the lamplight on for you! The problems with tone were here before you got here and unless we figure out how to deal with it they will stay, and we could use your help. There are really good alternatives but they are not as close knit but they’re not going down the rabbit hole all the time either. No harm in keeping a foot in both doors, I’ve found. I’ll miss you here, personally.

 

[dprimary]

Very interesting... besides a most likely completely different listening environment at home are/were you using the same monitor/headphone setup?

Everything was the same except the convertor I forgot. I had to the complete the testing in the morning back at work.

 

[dprimary]

NOW, AFTER READING THE REPORT, AND CONSIDERING THEIR OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION...

I'm offering to sell you both CD and SACD versions of the same album.
(Let's assume that you have a player that can play either one - so there is no issue there.)
The SACD costs $5 more.
You may NOT listen to either one first; and there are no reliable reviews available.
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU PURCHASE?

I would only buy a SACD, for that matter vinyl, or tape if was the only way to get a recording I really wanted. Even a properly encoded lowly 256 mp3 would be preferred. Since for the first three would I never bother to go through to effort of listening to the format. These days I only have time to hear music in the car, or listen to music laying in bed.

 

[KeithEmo]

I noticed something you said in this post - and I wanted to mention my impression of it from both sides.

On one side, I absolutely agree with you that there are plenty of issues with most modern recordings that fall smack in the middle of what is audible, and where we would be benefit from significant improvement. I would suggest that a lot of audiophiles ignore those details simply out of frustration with not being able to do anything about them. When my favorite band comes out with a new album, recorded with no dynamics whatsoever, there's not much I can do about it. (But you can also see how I might hope, reasonably or not, that, if my equipment was only good enough, it might make at least some improvement.)

I would also point out that most speakers are nowhere near "audibly flat" by anybody's definition... and the acoustics in most rooms are also pretty bad. As far as I'm concerned, many people make far too many excuses for ignoring those issues. (I wouldn't own a speaker that I thought sounded bad, regardless of how attractive its cabinet was, or how well it matched my drapes.)

However, as I mentioned in another post, I do seem to sense an actual antipathy towards high-resolution files and a few other things that you and some others here consider to be "useless or unnecessary". I take a lot of measurements, and I own a digital multimeter. As it turns out, most of the time an accuracy of 0.5% would be quite sufficient, and one might even argue that better accuracy would serve no purpose (back in the days of analog meters 2% was considered to be exceptionally good). However, I own and use several meters whose accuracy is more like 0.05%. Oddly, though, nobody says anything about "going down the rabbit hole" because I bought a meter that is ten times more accurate than I'll ever need, just because I prefer a huge safety margin in terms of accuracy (and it didn't cost much more). And, in fact, nobody would act especially surprised if I were to suggest that I was considering a more expensive meter that was even more accurate. I would also note that, even though most test equipment manufacturers go out of the way to tout the superior, and often unnecessary, accuracy of their latest model, they are very rarely accused of "taking advantage of people by selling them accuracy they can't possibly use".

Is it REALLY so much more unreasonable to buy a file whose frequency response extends to 45 kHz, "just because you prefer to have something a lot better than the minimum you actually need", than it is to buy a sports car that can go 120 mpH and accelerate like the wind, or a precision stainless steel ruler that's accurate to 1/64", even though we all know that 1/8" is plenty accurate for that magazine rack you're building? Have you considered the possibility that some audiophiles simply enjoy knowing that their equipment, and their music, is significantly better than they'll ever need, instead of "just good enough"? Some of us simply think of it like any other luxury item.... we just enjoy knowing it's there.

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.

 

[bfreedma]

I noticed something you said in this post - and I wanted to mention my impression of it from both sides.

On one side, I absolutely agree with you that there are plenty of issues with most modern recordings that fall smack in the middle of what is audible, and where we would be benefit from significant improvement. I would suggest that a lot of audiophiles ignore those details simply out of frustration with not being able to do anything about them. When my favorite band comes out with a new album, recorded with no dynamics whatsoever, there's not much I can do about it. (But you can also see how I might hope, reasonably or not, that, if my equipment was only good enough, it might make at least some improvement.)

I would also point out that most speakers are nowhere near "audibly flat" by anybody's definition... and the acoustics in most rooms are also pretty bad. As far as I'm concerned, many people make far too many excuses for ignoring those issues. (I wouldn't own a speaker that I thought sounded bad, regardless of how attractive its cabinet was, or how well it matched my drapes.)

However, as I mentioned in another post, I do seem to sense an actual antipathy towards high-resolution files and a few other things that you and some others here consider to be "useless or unnecessary". I take a lot of measurements, and I own a digital multimeter. As it turns out, most of the time an accuracy of 0.5% would be quite sufficient, and one might even argue that better accuracy would serve no purpose (back in the days of analog meters 2% was considered to be exceptionally good). However, I own and use several meters whose accuracy is more like 0.05%. Oddly, though, nobody says anything about "going down the rabbit hole" because I bought a meter that is ten times more accurate than I'll ever need, just because I prefer a huge safety margin in terms of accuracy (and it didn't cost much more). And, in fact, nobody would act especially surprised if I were to suggest that I was considering a more expensive meter that was even more accurate. I would also note that, even though most test equipment manufacturers go out of the way to tout the superior, and often unnecessary, accuracy of their latest model, they are very rarely accused of "taking advantage of people by selling them accuracy they can't possibly use".

Is it REALLY so much more unreasonable to buy a file whose frequency response extends to 45 kHz, "just because you prefer to have something a lot better than the minimum you actually need", than it is to buy a sports car that can go 120 mpH and accelerate like the wind, or a precision stainless steel ruler that's accurate to 1/64", even though we all know that 1/8" is plenty accurate for that magazine rack you're building? Have you considered the possibility that some audiophiles simply enjoy knowing that their equipment, and their music, is significantly better than they'll ever need, instead of "just good enough"? Some of us simply think of it like any other luxury item.... we just enjoy knowing it's there.

The desire to own luxury items is a fine topic and makes for an interesting discussion of marketing strategy and human psychology. I don’t see how it’s relevant in Sound Science.

 

[KeithEmo]

A lot of the recent discussions have included the claim that "ultrasonic frequencies are so heavily attenuated by air that they never reach the listener in significant amounts".
However, with all the anecdotal claims, I haven't seen much actual DATA, so I thought I'd provide some.

Here's a link to a calculator provided by the UK National Physical Laboratory to calculate the attenuation of sound by air.
(It lets you enter the frequency, air pressure, temperature, and relative humidity).

http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/absorption/

As an example:
Frequency = 30 kHz
Pressure = 101 kPA (International Standard Atmosphere at mean sea level - according to them)
Relative Humidity = 20%
Temperature = 20 degrees Celsius ("room temperature")

The attenuation, at 30 kHz, under those conditions, is 0.647 dB / meter
Under the same conditions, the attenuation at 25 kHz is 0.580 dB / meter

For comparison, I've listed the attenuation of several frequencies under the same conditions:
(note that the attenuation will vary significantly with changes in temperature and relative humidity)

440 Hz = 0.0023 dB / meter
2500 Hz = 0.032 dB / meter
10 kHz = 0.284 dB / meter
15 kHz = 0.414 dB / meter
20 kHz = 0.506 dB / meter
25 kHz = 0.580 dB / meter
30 kHz = 0.647 dB / meter
40 kHz = 0.785 dB / meter

This suggests several things.......
1) There in fact is significant attenuation of even audible high frequencies at the distances you might typically encounter in a living room or concert hall
2) Attenuation of even relatively high ultrasonic frequencies is significant - BUT FAR FROM ABSOLUTE - at typical listening distances
3) Attenuation of even high ultrasonic frequencies at one or two meters (at the distance of a "close mic", for example, on a drum set) is relatively minor

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree - it is not at all relevant in the area of "pure science".

However, to be fair, the more than occasional assertions that "the idea that high-resolution files sound better is a sinister plot by marketers to sell you something" isn't science either.
(Is the claim that "high-res files sound better" any less reasonable or honest than the idea that "luxury watches are better" or that "diamonds are better than cubic zirconia"?)

Many folks here seem to feel that this forum should be devoted to "practical issues" and "informing consumers so they can avoid being cheated"...
And, by that standard, there would seem to me to be a distinct practical difference between "snake oil" and "a legitimate but totally unnecessary luxury item"...
(The term "snake oil" carries with it the connotation of being misled or cheated; whereas "luxury items" simply carry the connotation of being unnecessary matters of personal preference.)

I'm simply pointing out that, topologically, there is no difference whatsoever between:
- a car that can go faster than you will ever drive it
- a meter that delivers measurement accuracy far greater than you will even need
- a DAC or other piece of audio equipment that can faithfully reproduce frequencies you may never hear

And, while some people may buy any of those three out of an ignorant believe that they actually need it, others may simply enjoy them as "luxury items".
I've never seen a post on an automotive science forum exhorting people to avoid being tricked into buying a really fast car that they'll never even possibly have a need for.
And, for that matter, I've never seen anyone claim that Jaguar and Tesla are "misleading people" by suggesting that they buy fast cars.

The desire to own luxury items is a fine topic and makes for an interesting discussion of marketing strategy and human psychology. I don’t see how it’s relevant in Sound Science.

 

[KeithEmo]

I quite agree.....

But I think I can answer your question about why.

Meyer and Moran weren't really trying to "perform science" or "add to basic knowledge" in the general sense.
They quite specifically set out to determine if most people would find the entire CD reproduction chain to be "audibly transparent" or not.
They were looking for the answer to a particular question - but the question itself was somewhat broad.
They were basically testing the assertion that "most people won't hear the difference" as a "yes or no proposition".
They were hoping to cover a variety of different variables "in one go" and be able to deliver a general conclusion that "none of the variables made any difference".
(The alternative result would have simply been: "some of the variables apparently made a difference after all".)

I've had similar experiences to yours with converters.
One time I downloaded two files, both converted from the same DSD x 2 original to 24/96k PCM, but using two different top rated converter programs (both at their default settings).
The author posted them to ask opinions about which one was preferred (the test was blind in that we weren't told which file had been made using which converter).
I would not say that one file sounded better than the other - and I would have been perfectly satisfied with either one - but there were tiny differences.
And, once discussion started, it was plain that most listeners noticed similar differences.
And, yes, these were differences in the audible frequency range, that could be seen on an editor..... but they were tiny.

For example, at one point in the recording, a small bell was struck several times.....
- in one copy the first strike seemed to be louder than the subsequent strikes
- but, in the other copy, the second strike seemed to be slightly louder than the first (or the first strike was slightly subdued)
(and, yes, when you looked at both in an editor, the waveforms looked a little different)

Were they important or significant differences?
No.
Could I have identified, in a test using other files, which converter was used?
I very much doubt it.
But, were the files "audibly identical"?
No.

The problem with the Meyer and Moran study is that is testing too many variables at once so it more surprising how many participants ending in the random chance range. They are reducing bandwidth, reducing resolution and then just for fun they are add a second piece of equipment in one of the playback chains introducing countless variables. Only three people or three trials (I can't tell from the paper) could tell something better than random chance.

This was done years after Bob Katz and JJ did the 44k vs 96k tests which JJ right insisted they be a single variable test, why is Meyer and Moran not a single variable test? Bob was very excited about 96k when it came out, JJ told him it made no deference, unlike here they spend many month hashing out the test protocol, Bob creating the test recordings , JJ writing the 96k and 44k filters. While Bob was preping the recordings he admitted he could not tell the difference between the original , the 96k filtered and 44k filtered. All in one of the top master studios in the world with the best equipment you can find.

Pat Brown runs Syn-Aud-Con and teaches audio professionals around the world. When the Pono was released there was much discussion about wider bandwidth among the members. Pretty much the same we have here, once again Pat and others came up with a test, assembled the equipment and the recordings, filtered to 96k filtered to 44k and added one that only had 20k and up. Pat has let hundreds of people who make their living in audio run those tests no missing links so far.

I did not want to admit this in this never ending circular discussion, I do have convertors that I can hear the difference between, and before all the audiophiles scream see!!!. It is not night and day, in fact it takes a low noise room an extreme amount of focus and the right point in a certain track. I discovered it while testing something else, (like data compression artifacts) I was testing at work it was something barely audible like a soft brush note in fairly busy part of the song but I could catch it most times. It was getting late, I decided to finish testing later at home. I forgot to pack the convertor. No big deal I have others, well on the other one I could not hear it. So was the first one broken, or is reveling some the second one couldn't?

 

[bfreedma]

I agree - it is not at all relevant in the area of "pure science".

However, to be fair, the more than occasional assertions that "the idea that high-resolution files sound better is a sinister plot by marketers to sell you something" isn't science either.
(Is the claim that "high-res files sound better" any less reasonable or honest than the idea that "luxury watches are better" or that "diamonds are better than cubic zirconia"?)

Many folks here seem to feel that this forum should be devoted to "practical issues" and "informing consumers so they can avoid being cheated"...
And, by that standard, there would seem to me to be a distinct practical difference between "snake oil" and "a legitimate but totally unnecessary luxury item"...
(The term "snake oil" carries with it the connotation of being misled or cheated; whereas "luxury items" simply carry the connotation of being unnecessary matters of personal preference.)

I'm simply pointing out that, topologically, there is no difference whatsoever between:
- a car that can go faster than you will ever drive it
- a meter that delivers measurement accuracy far greater than you will even need
- a DAC or other piece of audio equipment that can faithfully reproduce frequencies you may never hear

And, while some people may buy any of those three out of an ignorant believe that they actually need it, others may simply enjoy them as "luxury items".
I've never seen a post on an automotive science forum exhorting people to avoid being tricked into buying a really fast car that they'll never even possibly have a need for.
And, for that matter, I've never seen anyone claim that Jaguar and Tesla are "misleading people" by suggesting that they buy fast cars.

Aside from the deflection and obfuscation, your analogies are false equivalences.

To date, we have not reliably established that DACs or Hi-Rez music can be of value beyond human audibility in any scenario on the topic at hand - music reproduction/playback.

There are multiple scenarios where a car may be driven faster than typical or expected when purchased (track days, emergencies) and situations where a meter's ability to measure more accurately can be utilized (medical equipment testing, measurement compliance testing).

Again, the discussion of luxury as a way to vet the validity of purchasing DACs etc. is an interesting topic. It's just not fit for this subforum.

 

[Indiana]

Again, the discussion of luxury as a way to vet the validity of purchasing DACs etc. is an interesting topic. It's just not fit for this subforum.

If a dac seller says: my dac make you feel like wearing Armani is one thing. But they use a different vocabulary. And it sounds always the same. They always present solutions to problems that do not exist. The psalm of clocks, jitter and filters.

 

[bigshot]

I did learn how much the introduction of audible harmonics introduces so many new variables into the situation, even more than I had previously appreciated, both at the low end and the high end.!

The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.

They always present solutions to problems that do not exist. The psalm of clocks, jitter and filters.

Boy! You can say that again! When the whole jitter thing was hot, I realized that it dealt with an area of sound reproduction that I hadn't considered before. So I spent a week diving into it and researching it and I puzzled it out. At the end, I realized that I had wasted a whole week on theoretical sound that didn't exist in practice. And when it comes to timing errors, the best turntable introduces more error than the worst CD player by several orders of magnitude.

There is a tendency among high end audio salesmen to look for a theoretical problem that they can advertise that they have discovered a cure for. I'm beginning to think that RF in USB qualifies as the latest and greatest version of this. I'm getting better at asking the questions that makes it easier to spot them.

I'm haven't heard this album but some of the other Zappa CDs were pretty bad. I think the tapes were in poor condition when they transferred them digitally - in fact, they had to have someone come in to re-record some of the drum parts and it sounds nothing like the orginal.

That isn't the issue on that particular album. It's just plain old different mastering on the CD than the SACD. In order to compare CD to SACD fairly, you need to find an SACD with the exact same mastering on the redbook layer. It's harder than it seems. When I was doing my listening test on this, I discovered that there were often big differences between the layers on an SACD, especially with rock albums. I found a Rolling Stones SACD where it wasn't just different mastering, the redbook layer had an old mix done for LPs and the SACD layer had a brand new digital remix. Everything about the two were different.

If someone wants to do a comparison test for themselves, I'd suggest using a Pentatone disc. They only sell SACDs, but many people who buy them don't have SACD players and only listen to the redbook layer. This means that they are not motivated to hobble the redbook layer to justify the SACD format.

When I did my test, I used this Pentatone disc, which was recorded in native DSD and has a redbook layer that is identical to the SACD layer. Neither me nor my friend who was helping me with the blind test could tell any difference between the layers.

http://www.pentatonemusic.com/stravinsky-lhistoire-du-soldat-die-deutschekammerphilharonie-bremen

One thing to keep in mind is that the CD layer is usually quieter than the SACD layer. If you don't level match carefully enough, you will think the SACD sounds better because of the volume difference.

Woodyluvr, I think what we are seeing is an absorption with the self, a hyper focus on a single topic, and the inability to treat others as people. That might not be something that's able to be changed. A little vacation will probably help.

on another subject...

As I explained before I think that spending money on things that don't matter fits under the definition of expendable income. Anyone is free to spend money on whatever they want. They can throw it in the fireplace just to watch it burn and I'd say that is their right. But you yourself know that you can't hear a difference above 256 compressed audio. Buying something more than that for purely theoretical reasons when you know that it offers no practical or aesthetic benefit is certainly unwise, and perhaps even kind of dumb. If you have expendable income, I think smart ways of spending it would be on travel, or more music, or art or literature. All of those things can enrich your life in tangible practical ways. Superfluous zeros and ones do absolutely nothing except take up space on a shelf or fill up a hard drive with digital packing peanuts. It's a waste of money and a waste of space.

Here's an analogy for you... The quality of a Christmas present isn't judged by the size of the package. I didn't realize that when I was 5 years old, but I learned that by the time I was 9!

 

[Zapp_Fan]

The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.



Boy! You can say that again! When the whole jitter thing was hot, I realized that it dealt with an area of sound reproduction that I hadn't considered before. So I spent a week diving into it and researching it and I puzzled it out. At the end, I realized that I had wasted a whole week on theoretical sound that didn't exist in practice. And when it comes to timing errors, the best turntable introduces more error than the worst CD player by several orders of magnitude.

There is a tendency among high end audio salesmen to look for a theoretical problem that they can advertise that they have discovered a cure for. I'm beginning to think that RF in USB qualifies as the latest and greatest version of this. I'm getting better at asking the questions that makes it easier to spot them.

The point about harmonics can't be emphasized enough. I've seen a post or two that misinterprets the frequency vs. highest-note-of-orchestral-instruments chart to mean that the maximum useful frequency is actually quite low, because they're looking at fundamentals and not harmonics.

This really doesn't have much or anything to do with ultrasonics, but it should at least make you appreciate upper treble as something worth caring about.

Anyway something like this will make the importance of harmonics obvious in very short order, plus is fun: https://meettechniek.info/additional/additive-synthesis.html

 

[bigshot]

I would say that the importance of upper harmonics is exactly the same as the importance of frequency bands for fundamentals. Human hearing has a sweet spot and it becomes less discerning at the bleeding edges of our ability to hear. The most important harmonics would be the ones that fall between 2kHz and 5kHz. The least important ones would be the ones between 10kHz and 20kHz (and 20 and 40Hz). Everything is relative and bigger numbers aren't necessarily more important.