[ADD]

btw, to answer the original question, my source is a Sony PCM D50 which is the new millenium answer to the old Sony portable DAT machines. Since it has 96 KHz sampling capability, it can and has delivered frequencies higher than 22 Khz out of it's line output. Not that I think this matters in the slightest unless your listening levels are around the same SPL as a small nuclear explosion and you have perfect hearing (well at least till the metaphorical explosion went off anyway).

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I stand to be corrected. If anyone has any evidence of a natural acoustic musical instrument producing tones above 25 Khz that are also clearly captured in a spectrogram in a modern high resolution digital recording, then I am genuinely interested to see that.

The Balinese Gamelan apparently has harmonics extending beyond 30khz which Oohashi used for his experiments, though his graphs are remarakably poor quality he does seem to be able to show musical information at beyond 30K , albeit at the - 65 to -70db level.

However he used analog kit.

Quote:

source sounds were collected by a B&K 4135 1/4 inch condenser microphone, which has a flat free field frequency response up to 100 kHz. The output signals of the microphone were amplified by a B&K 2633 head-amplifier and a remodeled B&K ME-3213 preamplifier, and recorded using a B&K 7006 analogue data recorder which has a flat frequency response up to 60 kHz.

I doubt that this has any practical benefit whatsoever...

 

[feckn_eejit]

My computer can put out 24/192... I do have a handful of hi-res files but 99.9999% of my material is red book... guess I could go find 70% of it on vinyl but that would probably consume the rest of my life and money... I shudder to think of the cost of a vinyl rig that would trounce my red book rig handily enough to justify not only the cost of itself but my time to find material on vinyl... as for hi-res digital the selection just isn't there for me.

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Balinese Gamelan apparently has harmonics extending beyond 30khz which Oohashi used for his experiments, though his graphs are remarakably poor quality he does seem to be able to show musical information at beyond 30K , albeit at the - 65 to -70db level. However he used analog kit.

The best I have ever seen for a purely digital chain are the Acousence recordings. I just checked their Mahler excepts which are short 24-192 demos available for download. I can't really see anything at all much above 25 Khz, but at least there is a clear difference between that and the 20 Khz cutoff on the CD version. This is actually the only example of digital I have ever come across where there is indeed any appreciable difference.

Of course, what a musical instrument can actually produce in terms of harmonics versus what is captured on a recording are quite possibly two different things. What I am interested in is what can be captured on an actual recording that isn't noise, distortion, etc.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fsma /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, vinyl is 24/192 ( 24bit / 192Khz ), and SACD is 24/96 ( 24bit / 96Khz ). And for the record, 16/44 digital files are just that 16/44. a large number of people migrated from cd player to desktop playback years ago, and those 16/44 cd's do playback at 16/44 everywhere other than "bog standard" cd players.

I LOL'd at this so much when I saw a snippet in a search that I just had to come and check it out to make sure that you were really actually saying that. wanted to check for context just in case you were being funny. no bit information in analogue dude; any constraints like that you put on it are of your own making. the dynamic range that can contain information without being overrun with noise can be quantified, but thats it.

as to the OP, yeah my source can output 24/192; as for having files that have information up that high; yeah sure; I have some hirez flacs including one from NIN that has some pretty insane screeching above that. plus I make tunes in Logic on my mac and I have a number of synth plugins that will generate noise down to DC and up to the limits of 96khz. the moog mo dular plug-in will easily surpass this mark; as will the prophet; in fact pretty much all of my analogue modeling synths will exceed those marks. I also have a nice piano modeling program that has some harmonics that will reach pretty high too. not the actual notes, but some of the information that is used to describe them

 

[m0nKeY bUsiNeSs]

I think the cheapest way to get into high resolution playback is with a sound card and the some high resolution downloads. That is what I did at first. I get good, and very enjoyable sound this way. I have an Onkyo SE-200 in my headphone rig and an SE-90 on my 2 channel stereo.

As far as dedicated sources go I have a Marantz SA-8001 for 2 channel SACD, and an Oppo BDP-83 for DVD-A, SACD, & Blu-ray.

 

[Magpie]

Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think anyone reading this can likely hear anything above 20khz, and most can only hear to around 16 khz. Check this out for what it is worth. Hearing Test - Can you hear it?

 

[haloxt]

But your headphones will do funny things like affecting the audible sound reproduction while attempting to reproduce ultrasounds coupled with the physical sensation it may generate which imo would be a possible theory for why people like higher frequencies. Me I like to fool around with comb generator on regular files lol.