Skip to main content
Topic: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio? (Read 2295 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Re: Do we "need" thos...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

<snip>
Archimago's posting is sufficiently up-to-date to know research that has refuted your reference (Oohashi). So if you want to update yourself, that is likely a good place for you to start.

May i politely ask that you don´t just trust Archimago´s writing but read the papers by yourself?


I have.

It's possible you've only been here since 2015.  If so , may I politely ask that you dos oem research *here* on HA?  This topic (including Oohashi's crackpottery) has been discussed before, to put it mildly.

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #1
So it seem we both agree that the statement porcus cited doesn´t provide sufficent evidence that Oohashi´s results were due to IMDs, right?

Although i did search a bit before posting, it´s of course possible that i´ve missed something., but in those threads there was nothing to find that justified to call the paper by Oohashi et al. "crackpottery" .

Not even in your nice reference list, that covers mainly the articles i´ve read and added some that are imo more related to other fields, is something mentioned to justify this sort of vilificaton.

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #2
doesn´t provide sufficent evidence that Oohashi´s results were due to IMDs, right?
Please link Oohashis IMD tests of the Pioneer ST used, thanks. Not in any papers (yeah, I looked).
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #3
So it seem we both agree that the statement porcus cited doesn´t provide sufficent evidence that Oohashi´s results were due to IMDs, right?
This is the wrong way up. Oohashi (or somebody else) should provide sufficient evidence that his results are NOT due to IMD.

Sorry Jakob, you ought to know by now how science works. If a single experiment that yielded an unlikely result could claim credibility despite reasonable doubts about the validity of the method used, you'd have the door wide open for all sorts of crackpottery.

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #4
<snip>
Sorry Jakob, you ought to know by now how science works. If a single experiment that yielded an unlikely result could claim credibility despite reasonable doubts about the validity of the method used, you'd have the door wide open for all sorts of crackpottery.

Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you?

Reasonable doubts are welcome, but wrt the paper cited by me, it was mainly unreasonable critique.

Quote
This is the wrong way up. Oohashi (or somebody else) should provide sufficient evidence that his results are NOT due to IMD.

I know it is much more cumbersome, but please read the main "20kHz thread" to understand why i made that comment.




Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #5
Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you?
You're playing the sitting duck, so why do you wonder?

Quote
Reasonable doubts are welcome, but wrt the paper cited by me, it was mainly unreasonable critique.
When it comes to alleged scientific support for audiophile pet beliefs, you usually leave the doubting to others, whereas you are much quicker with doubts over those who try to disprove them. So I continue to suspect hypocrisy here.

Quote
I know it is much more cumbersome, but please read the main "20kHz thread" to understand why i made that comment.
I don't think that this changes the appropriateness of my comment a bit. It should be self-evident when discussing such scientific experiments, to view them with scepticism until independently and convincingly confirmed, but it seems that it needs to be pointed out every now and then, even though I doubt it will change your stance.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #6
Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you?
Believers are always victims also. Its a self defense mechanism of speciousness.

I know it is much more cumbersome
Yes, providing evidence instead of nonsense can be burdensome
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #7
What did I miss? Why are there two threads now?

Is this the ultrasonic one? Because, if so, then I can hear it perfectly.
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #8
Aliasing artifacts
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #9
Aliasing artifacts, because it is impossible to construct a low-pass filter with such a sharp roll-off, that only freq. <20kHz will pass. without having some of the frequencies close to 20kHz dampened significantly.

Also, higher order low-pass filters are generally computationally more complex and consume more power. It's simply easier (and "safer") to push the frequency range upwards and use a relatively "mundane" low pass filter.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #10
Aliasing artifacts, because it is impossible to construct a low-pass filter with such a sharp roll-off, that only freq
<20kHz will pass. without having some of the frequencies close to 20kHz dampened significantly.

That is false. It is possible to have low pass filters that are sharp enough to prevent aliasing from being audible. Please provide reliable evidence (for example a DBT based on some commercial recording) of normal listening where aliasing is audible using a DAC of the kind that is commonly used for quality audio., or retract your false claim.

Quote
Also, higher order low-pass filters are generally computationally more complex and consume more power.

"More complexity" and "More power" are vague to the point of being meaningless. Yes, 2 nanowatts are more power than 1 nanowatt, but neither is a real world problem, even in ultraportable gear.

Again, please provide evidence of this. I suspect you think it is still 1985 and digital audio is in a relative stage of infancy.

Quote
It's simply easier (and "safer") to push the frequency range upwards and use a relatively "mundane" low pass filter.

No it is not. Upping the sample rate significantly increases the size of music files.  Doubling or quadrupling the sample rate has proportional effects on file size and with consistent technology doubles the size, weight, and power consumption of the storage for a given size of music library. It has the same effect on the time it takes to load a device with a music library, which already can take hours with modern gear.

At the very best pushing the frequency range up has the exact same effects as you have criticized. Please be consistent!

Criteria involving absolute perfection such as those suggested here prohibit the use of space-saving technologies such as perceptual coding. Now we are talking about increasing the size of files and the required storage by factors of 6 or more.

The current situation that due to contemporary equipment device limitationa music libraries larger than as little as 32 GB can be awkward or impractical.

Re: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #11
Jeez, it was a joke
Loudspeaker manufacturer


Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #13
 :D
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019