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.
Main: SqueezeBox Classic>AVI ADM40
Second: SqueezeBox Touch>AVI ADM9RSS
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
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.
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.
Arcam Solo Mini/Monitor Audio RX1/Cambridge Audio 751BD/Samsung 37” LCD
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.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
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.........
Sonos ZP90 / CA 751BD / Sky HD / Apple TV
-> AVI ADM40
-> Panasonic PDP50G10
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-manufactu...
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.
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!
Hi-Fi: Krell KAV-300cd, Michell TecnoDec/RB250/Grado Prestige Black1, KAV-300i amp, Transparent balanced interconnects and bi-wire to Sonus faber Concerto grand piano speakers, Nakamichi ZX-7 cassette deck, Logitech Squeezebox Touch, Hitachi FT-5500 and Sony S570ES tuners, BCD Engineering stand, RA Powerlink, Chord powerchord, Grado SR60i cans.
AV: Sony Bravia KDL-32EX503 telly, BDP-S370 player with QED HDMI. Currently unused: Denon AVR-1705, DVD-1710, KEF KHT1005.2
Close - they were the original SL6, with the copper dome tweeters.
To clarify my comments, I wouldn't be prejudiced against any speaker manufacturer who designed their speakers to go higher than 20khz. The sad fact is that they may need to in order not to be discounted by people who've bought into the fallicy! But there are clearly people are are seeking this out this 'capability' and vehemently defending the principle that here is some benefit to a speaker reproducing frequencies beyond the audible spectrum and its them that I pity. And of course any speaker manufacturer that actively capitalises on it that I regard with a mixture of admiration and contempt!
I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, but I've never heard of anyone on here (or elsewhere) discounting speakers purely on whether they can go above 20 kHz or not.
I would suggest that most people putting together a demo list, are unlikely to give the top frequency more than a cursory glance.....they are too busy checking out how low they will go. They will then make their selection based on how it sounds, which will be effected more by the type and material of the tweeter.
When I give a recommendation, the top frequency response doesn't enter the equation (I don't even check it out)....only the quality and character of the sound it delivers, as well as it's suitability to the OP's needs /system.
Fair enough cno. I hope you're right, but clearly some people buy in to the belief that sounds beyond the human audible range are of consequence and defend that position and clearly some manufacturers are happy to cash in on that. Like I say, the fact that a speaker can reproduce sounds above 20khz is not, in and of itself, something that I have an opinion on.
With regard to SACDs and hi-res downloads, the science relating to frequences etc that the human ear can / cannot detect is irrelevant. Probably.
In the spirit of Einstein's "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough," I'll step aside and quote a wise fella, Jud, from another forum:
"...For the vast majority of us, our DACs will handle 44.1k differently than 96k, and 96k differently than 192k, in that the lower resolutions will run through more rounds of filtering/oversampling than the higher resolutions. Those filters are imperfect (this is mathematically provable). So it's indisputable that the vast majority of DACs will put lower-res files through more rounds of imperfect filtering than they will for higher-res files. The germane topic is then to what extent we can hear the effects of these extra rounds of filtering."
I suppose the concept is similar to wavelengths humans can or can't see. We can't see, for example, X rays or radio waves, so I don't understand why we would hear ultra high frequencies if our ears do not respond to them. And as to why speaker manufacturers have tweeters that exceed well above 20kHz, well it's because they can achieve this quite easily and cheaply, so they may as well include this to ensure they don't lose market share.
This confirms the only reason for upping the f beyond what we can perceive is to keep the in-band phase response as linear as possible. It's often called Phase Delay. It may also effect Group Delay but my knowledge is a bit shaky on this subject.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing