High freq of speaker spec more than 20.000 hz. Does it do any good?

[dhias]

I found some speaker which has reponse from 40-60.000 hz. Does that high frequency (60.000hz) do any good in sound? because human ear only hear max 20.000 hz?

 

[WinterRacer]

Absolutely not.

From http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Above 20KHz, if a sound was so loud is was audible, it would be painful. One of the reasons why hi sampling rates are pointless for domestic audio playback.

 

[nopiano]

For a contrasting take on this, I'd say "it depends". 60kHz is pretty high, and certainly not audible (to humans) as a pure tone. But it is only an octave and a half more than 20KHz, which when you think of it like that isn't such a lot. The point is that any medium that goes beyond 20k can benefit, so that excludes CD, but includes good vinyl and hires audio which can have useful harmonics at 40k or higher.

You can be pretty sure that full orchestra heard live produces much higher frequencies than 20k from cymbals and strings obviously, and maybe elsewhere too. These contrbute to the accuracy of the audible frequencies, so ideally we need hifi to reproduce them.

A spec of 60kHz is only relevant with a decent array of response graphs and checks for ringing or distortion.

What speakers were they?

 

[abacus]

Sound is a complex interaction (Ask any studio engineer or professional) with all instruments having a fundamental tone and a number of overtones, (Thus giving you its characteristic sound) these overtones also intermix with each other and the fundamental tone to create the sound. If you remove these overtones then the characteristic of the sound changes, now as instruments can produce frequencies much higher than the human hearing, while you cannot physically hear them, you hear the interactions they make with the lower tones within the normal hearing range, so theoretical removing the high frequencies could cause a change in sound.

Regarding sampling frequency’s, it has nothing to do with the frequency of the sound, but how accurate the analogue waveform (All audio is analogue) is spit into, (The more it is split into the more chance of converting it back into the original waveform) if you sample at 44khz (CD) then a frequency of 22khz is only recorded (Sampled) on 2 parts of the analogue waveform, 11khz = 4 parts, 5.5khz 8 parts etc.

Move up to 96 kHz recording (Sampling) and 48 kHz gets sampled in 2 parts, 24 kHz = 4 parts, 12 kHz 8 parts etc. thus it is much easier to recreate the original waveform accurately.

Hope this clears up the confusion

Bill

 

[6th.replicant]

Which, I assume, is why an acoustic instrument - eg, violin, classical guitar - will sound 'different' when played live in a studio, compared to the 24-bit/48kHz playback of the same session? (Assuming the engineer is not 'colouring' / 'treating' the recording.)

 

[WinterRacer]

Sorry Bill, that doesn't help, you've misunderstood how sampling theory works. Rather than explain it all, perhaps you could read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem and then if you have any questions I'd be happy to help.

You're example is kind of the opposite of why we need anti-aliasing. Perhaps you're getting confused with that?

Anyway, harmonics above your range of hearing can't be heard - obviously! Harmonics are multiples of the original frequency, e.g., a 3rd harmonic of a fundamental frequency of 500Hz is 1500Hz.. It doesn't go the other way, e.g., a 60KHz fundamental doesn't produce harmonics lower down the frequency, that's not the way it works.

So back to the original question, speakers that go to 60KHz are pointless. Reproducing the frequencies we can hear is hard enough without having to worry about things we can't hear!

 

[WinterRacer]

Which, I assume, is why an acoustic instrument - eg, violin, classical guitar - will sound 'different' when played live in a studio, compared to the 24-bit/48kHz playback of the same session? (Assuming the engineer is not 'colouring' / 'treating' the recording.)

If they sound different it's due to THD+N & bandwidth distortion. Red Book sampling rates and bit depths have been proven to be audibly transparent. In your example, any differences won't be down to the sampling rate and bit depth used.

 

[WinterRacer]

For a contrasting take on this, I'd say "it depends". 60kHz is pretty high, and certainly not audible (to humans) as a pure tone. But it is only an octave and a half more than 20KHz, which when you think of it like that isn't such a lot. The point is that any medium that goes beyond 20k can benefit, so that excludes CD, but includes good vinyl and hires audio which can have useful harmonics at 40k or higher.

You can be pretty sure that full orchestra heard live produces much higher frequencies than 20k from cymbals and strings obviously, and maybe elsewhere too. These contrbute to the accuracy of the audible frequencies, so ideally we need hifi to reproduce them.

A spec of 60kHz is only relevant with a decent array of response graphs and checks for ringing or distortion.

What speakers were they?

Yes an orchestra will harmonics above your audible range, but they're not audible, so no need for your hi-fi to reproduce them - unless you want to impress your cat?

 

[nopiano]

For a contrasting take on this, I'd say "it depends". 60kHz is pretty high, and certainly not audible (to humans) as a pure tone. But it is only an octave and a half more than 20KHz, which when you think of it like that isn't such a lot. The point is that any medium that goes beyond 20k can benefit, so that excludes CD, but includes good vinyl and hires audio which can have useful harmonics at 40k or higher.

You can be pretty sure that full orchestra heard live produces much higher frequencies than 20k from cymbals and strings obviously, and maybe elsewhere too. These contrbute to the accuracy of the audible frequencies, so ideally we need hifi to reproduce them.

A spec of 60kHz is only relevant with a decent array of response graphs and checks for ringing or distortion.

What speakers were they?

Yes an orchestra will harmonics above your audible range, but they're not audible, so no need for your hi-fi to reproduce them - unless you want to impress your cat?

I simply don't agree. Removing anything that was there must affect what we do hear. Those sounds beyond our hearing range still influence what we do hear.

 

[WinterRacer]

I simply don't agree. Removing anything that was there must affect what we do hear. Those sounds beyond our hearing range still influence what we do hear.

Why must it?

Did you look at this link? http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

What in this article do you disagree with?

 

[pauln]

For a contrasting take on this, I'd say "it depends". 60kHz is pretty high, and certainly not audible (to humans) as a pure tone. But it is only an octave and a half more than 20KHz, which when you think of it like that isn't such a lot. The point is that any medium that goes beyond 20k can benefit, so that excludes CD, but includes good vinyl and hires audio which can have useful harmonics at 40k or higher.

You can be pretty sure that full orchestra heard live produces much higher frequencies than 20k from cymbals and strings obviously, and maybe elsewhere too. These contrbute to the accuracy of the audible frequencies, so ideally we need hifi to reproduce them.

A spec of 60kHz is only relevant with a decent array of response graphs and checks for ringing or distortion.

What speakers were they?

Yes an orchestra will harmonics above your audible range, but they're not audible, so no need for your hi-fi to reproduce them - unless you want to impress your cat?

I simply don't agree. Removing anything that was there must affect what we do hear. Those sounds beyond our hearing range still influence what we do hear.

:wall:

Some people still think that the sun revolves around the earth - no amount of science will convince them otherwise.

 

[nopiano]

Some people still think that the sun revolves around the earth - no amount of science will convince them otherwise.

Well, I don't think that. Science is notoriously unreliable in certain areas, though I have no dislike of measurement applied with intelligence.

As to the article, it ceratinly highlights many research sources that conform to the established 20Hz to 20 kHz human hearing belief. Broadly, I accept that, but I believe (without much readily available research to support it) that ultra- and infra-sonic sounds affect the overall perception experience (my concert hall analogy). There is some research from Oohashi T, Kawai N, Nishina E, Honda M, Yagi R, Nakamura S, Morimoto M, Maekawa T, Yonekura Y, Shibasaki H. ‘The role of biological system other than auditory air-conduction in the emergence of the hypersonic effect’.

Department of Research and Development, Foundation for Advancement of International Science, Tokyo 164-0003, Japan; National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Koganei 184-8795, Japan

You can access a good article that refers to it here:-

http://www.hificritic.com/downloads/Archive_A10.pdf

You will see it concludes overall there is little benefit in reproducing above 20kHz, but returning to the OP, I still prefer the notion of speakers that try to get some way to 60kHz instead of brickwalling at or before 20kHz. If the source is well tailored at HF then that's OK, but I'd rather the speakers weren't at their last gasp. I've long preferred the sound of wide-bandwidth gear, as you can see from my signature.

However, your article mainly seems intended to scotch any idea that 24/192 recordings are a benefit. Obviously that makes all the hifi manufacturers, record producers and hifi reviewers gullible, blinded by numbers, and delivering kit that worsens the listening experience then. A sort of conspiracy, even?

As an example of the established view, WHF reviewers said this in the Naim NDX streamer:-

"Switch to higher-resolution recordings such as Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No.5 by the Scottish Chamber Orchestra – a 24-bit/96kHz recording – and the increase in subtlety is readily apparent."

Do you think they were imagining it?

 

[manicm]

pauln and others - please provide scientific professional evidence that humans categorically cannot hear, or be affected by frequencies above 20khz. There are some who believe that consciously you may not fathom anything above 15 or 20khz, but that subconsciously you may actually be hearing something.

As far as I've read the perceived human range of 20-20khz is not absolute in any way.

 

[CnoEvil]

pauln and others - please provide scientific professional evidence that humans categorically cannot hear, or be affected by frequencies above 20khz. There are some who believe that consciously you may not fathom anything above 15 or 20khz, but that subconsciously you may actually be hearing something.

As far as I've read the perceived human range of 20-20khz is not absolute in any way.

Tannoy clearly believe in the benefits: http://www.tannoy.com/products/112/Eyris%20DC_Revise.pdf

and here:

http://support.tannoy.com/entries/20608577-What-s-the-fuss-about-Wideband-

 

[pauln]

pauln and others - please provide scientific professional evidence that humans categorically cannot hear, or be affected by frequencies above 20khz. There are some who believe that consciously you may not fathom anything above 15 or 20khz, but that subconsciously you may actually be hearing something.

As far as I've read the perceived human range of 20-20khz is not absolute in any way.

I really don't have the time.

However, as you are questioning something that is universally accepted, is it not up to you to show some evidence that people can hear frequencies above 20khz?

How can you "subconsciously" hear something?

 

[Phileas]

Some people still think that the sun revolves around the earth

Well, it does really, if you think about it.

(Although I admit I'm being a bit pedantic!)

 

[def lugs]

I simply don't agree. Removing anything that was there must affect what we do hear. Those sounds beyond our hearing range still influence what we do hear.

Why must it?

Did you look at this link? http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

What in this article do you disagree with?

Could it not be possible that a frequency (say 36K) above the range of hearing that is a multiple of a frequency (say12K) within the hearing range could add amplitude to the lower frequency if it was in phase?

 

[Phileas]

I simply don't agree. Removing anything that was there must affect what we do hear. Those sounds beyond our hearing range still influence what we do hear.

Why must it?

Did you look at this link? http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

What in this article do you disagree with?

Could it not be possible that a frequency (say 36K) above the range of hearing that is a multiple of a frequency (say12K) within the hearing range could add amplitude to the lower frequency if it was in phase?

If it did, it would be recorded, and the "effect" would be played back through ordinary speakers.

 

[pauln]

pauln and others - please provide scientific professional evidence that humans categorically cannot hear, or be affected by frequencies above 20khz. There are some who believe that consciously you may not fathom anything above 15 or 20khz, but that subconsciously you may actually be hearing something.

As far as I've read the perceived human range of 20-20khz is not absolute in any way.

Tannoy clearly believe in the benefits: http://www.tannoy.com/products/112/Eyris%20DC_Revise.pdf

and here:

http://support.tannoy.com/entries/20608577-What-s-the-fuss-about-Wideband-

Do they? Well it must be true then... although someone more cynical might call that marketing BS designed to lead uneducated people to believe that the Tannoys must be better speakers than let's say... Harbeths, which have a frequency response up to only 20khz. Hell, until recently I had no idea what the range of human hearing was so I would have compared the specs and thought the Tannoys were much better.

This is all pointless anyway. The objectivists will never convince the subjectivists and vice versa. I'm not going back to believing in HiFi voodoo any more than I'll go back to believing in the tooth fairy. I will continue to believe in the basic engineering and scientific principals I read about on the Harbeth forum and NwAvGuy's blog and I really must stop coming here and getting involved in these futile arguments.:doh:

 

[manicm]

pauln and others - please provide scientific professional evidence that humans categorically cannot hear, or be affected by frequencies above 20khz. There are some who believe that consciously you may not fathom anything above 15 or 20khz, but that subconsciously you may actually be hearing something.

As far as I've read the perceived human range of 20-20khz is not absolute in any way.

Tannoy clearly believe in the benefits: http://www.tannoy.com/products/112/Eyris%20DC_Revise.pdf

and here:

http://support.tannoy.com/entries/20608577-What-s-the-fuss-about-Wideband-

Do they? Well it must be true then... although someone more cynical might call that marketing BS designed to lead uneducated people to believe that the Tannoys must be better speakers than let's say... Harbeths, which have a frequency response up to only 20khz. Hell, until recently I had no idea what the range of human hearing was so I would have compared the specs and thought the Tannoys were much better.

This is all pointless anyway. The objectivists will never convince the subjectivists and vice versa. I'm not going back to believing in HiFi voodoo any more than I'll go back to believing in the tooth fairy. I will continue to believe in the basic engineering and scientific principals I read about on the Harbeth forum and NwAvGuy's blog and I really must stop coming here and getting involved in these futile arguments.:doh:

Tannoy themselves did not say their speaker is superior to any other - so who exactly are you accusing of marketing BS? You're leading yourself down a corner in a very narrow alley by making blanket statements like this. You mention 'basic engineering and scientific principals' - so recording audio in genuinely high resolution, for example, conflicts with that? So you can say secondary tweeters, often named 'supertweeters' are also gimmicks. These for example have been employed in speakers in since the 70s, perhaps even earlier, and are being used now as well, for example by Sonus Farber, and Linn as well. And the latter consider themselves a pure engineering company.

 

[CnoEvil]

Do they? Well it must be true then... although someone more cynical might call that marketing BS designed to lead uneducated people to believe that the Tannoys must be better speakers than let's say... Harbeths, which have a frequency response up to only 20khz. Hell, until recently I had no idea what the range of human hearing was so I would have compared the specs and thought the Tannoys were much better.

This is all pointless anyway. The objectivists will never convince the subjectivists and vice versa. I'm not going back to believing in HiFi voodoo any more than I'll go back to believing in the tooth fairy. I will continue to believe in the basic engineering and scientific principals I read about on the Harbeth forum and NwAvGuy's blog and I really must stop coming here and getting involved in these futile arguments.:doh:

You made an absolutist statement which is contentious....and you may or may not be correct.

I am not qualified to say whether there is truth in what they say, but just wanted to show that there is another side to this......it could simply be spin, but I suspect not.

Tannoy are hardly "fly by night" charlatans, and neither are Kef, AE, Focal and B&W etc.

 

[Dan Turner]

I think we should all take our hats off to the Hi-fi marketers frankly. Lets all take a step back and just think about it for a minute.....They have convinced many of us that we should invest more of our hard earned cash to be able to reproduce sounds that we can't hear. I'll leave that out there for a minute, to sink in.........

Well, good on them. Shame on anyone who allows themselves to be taken in by it - they deserve to be parted with their money.

It's as simple as this - you can either hear it, or you can't. The range of a human being's hearing cuts off somewhere between 15 and 20khz, depending on your age and condition of your hearing. You can easily prove this to yourself with various test tones, free hearing test apps etc that can be downloaded.

All this convoluted 'harmonics interacting with lower parts of the frequency spectrum' stuff is nonsense. If any 'interaction' was taking place and it had any efect on the sound (i.e. resulted in something happening below 20khz), then it would be captured in the recording and we'd be able to hear it.

What would you think if a TV manufacturer was claiming a USP that their TV could produce wavelengths of light that were beyond the perceivable range of human vision, "oh but it makes what you can see look better"..... Or a supermarket that's produced a new type of freshly baked bread which has smells which are beyond the range of human smell, "oh, but it makes what you can smell, smell even nicer"......

I'm sorry but this is ludicrous and some people (decent, genuine people, who have been taken in by marketing BS and are too proud to admit it, even to themselves) are just embarrassing themselves now.

Sorry, I don't usually like it when I see rants like this, but in this case I just couldn't help it. This is just too silly. Only in the hi-fi industry.........

 

[nopiano]

Thanks to Dan and Cno for reasoned arguments. I can't say for sure, but as stated earlier I have invariably preferred wide bandwidth kit, dating back to (say) Quad 33/405 being far less to my taste than comparable era Marantz or Harman/Kardon models. I recall Cno and I once both owned Celestion SL600 speakers, going back to the mid-80s, early metal domed types with a sharp notch down at HF. Good in parts they were!

What this thread has revealed for me is not so much the misunderstood ultrasonic debate, but the challenge to 24/192 recordings. Especially the implication they are worse than 24/96!

 

[CnoEvil]

Thanks to Dan and Cno for reasoned arguments. I can't say for sure, but as stated earlier I have invariably preferred wide bandwidth kit, dating back to (say) Quad 33/405 being far less to my taste than comparable era Marantz or Harman/Kardon models. I recall Cno and I once both owned Celestion SL600 speakers, going back to the mid-80s, early metal domed types with a sharp notch down at HF. Good in parts they were!

Close - they were the original SL6, with the copper dome tweeters.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm sorry but this is ludicrous and some people (decent, genuine people, who have been taken in by marketing BS and are too proud to admit it, even to themselves) are just embarrassing themselves now.

Sorry, I don't usually like it when I see rants like this, but in this case I just couldn't help it. This is just too silly. Only in the hi-fi industry.........

Dan, I know you are talking generally, but I personally wasn't taken in by anything.........I am simply not qualified to properly comment, and just don't know for sure.

When I started a similar thread before, Richard Allen gave his experience (post 3): http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/a-question-for-the-speaker-manufacturers-on-here?page=1

FWIW. I chose my speakers, not because they went up to 60 kHz, but because I liked the sound of them......and I suspect that goes for the vast majority of people buying speakers as well.

So for a manufacturer to spend large sums of money researching, designinig and building a tweeter that goes way over 20 kHz purely as a BS marketing tool, would make little sense - as almost nobody buys a speaker based on how "unnecessarily" high it goes (imo).

MA Platinum range goes to 100 kHz, and I don't like them,.........go figure.

Kef are much more interested in highlighting their Uni-Q Point Source driver array than their supertweeters, which I don't think get much mention, except in passing.