Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio? (Read 17161 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

Yes.

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

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.
What if instruments are what they are _because_ they produce some high frequency sound too? And the composers were composing the way they did _because_ it was more pleasant of the high frequency content?

Most of that development took place at a time were there was only the "real thing" but no recording/reproduction of a severely distorted version of the "real thing" (due to technical limitations).

Quote
And... No, I have not read the paper(s) first hand, but isn't the problem with Oohashi that he looked for what he wanted to find? Isn't that the problem with quite a lot of people?

If you see it that way...mustn´t you consider exactly the same problem if relying on second hand evaluation, because people reporting about could be biased too?

Every experiment has to start (or shall start) with a hypothesis that will be researched. Nearly every technical enhancement of audio gear (that i´m aware of) was up to a certain degree motivated by some finacial interest, but that does not invalidate the work per se.

A reader should keep in mind that some conflict might exist, but any evaluation has to be based on the things that are documented. That´s why it is so important to read the actual papers (not only abstracts or conclusions) to know what was really done.
And to evaluate it always in the same strict manner, no matter if you like the results or not.

There is always something to debate about, because perfect experiments are highly unlikely due to human erroneousness.


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

Reply #27 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

Yes.


Agreed.

Interesting that an unfounded attack on a very accurate messenger is hidden under those  pretentious official-sounding words.

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

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
motivated by some finacial interest
Like you. Hence your inability to present any evidence in support of Hi Rez and >20k hearing. None. Zero.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.

There is always something to debate about
Wrong. There is no debate that you have pecuniary interests and zero evidence. That freak Oohashi's industry funded nonsense has been debunked. Except for those with $$ interest such as yourself.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #29 –
Btw, it appears this hyperbolic nonsense is worse up to 32KHz , the "Negative Hypersonic Effect"
Hmmm, so much for BS beryllium tweeters which are petering out in that range... ::)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #30 –
We can expect Jakob2s evidence anytime now....right after he accepts challenge and identifies the "burned in" wires like he claims is possible here.
Flap, flap, fap, fap
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
<snip>
It also is an irrelevant question. The topic is "what is heard?" not "what exists". <snip>

Of course, the "can somebody hear it" part is what matters most, but, as we both knew from long forum years, the "can´t be because...." posts are inevitably occur; sometimes it can´t be because of microphones that are not capable , sometimes it´s the instruments that don´t have high frequency content, so it is imo an important point.

Quote
Ignores the fact that the human ear produces large, audible amounts of nonlinear distortion all by itself.

"Ignores the fact..." is a funny remark too, as it is simply another topic.

Quote
They don't but for a reason that is very strong but infrequently mentioned: masking.  Sounds that are more easily heard are far more likely to mask sounds that are difficult or impossible to hear.  Just about every recording has a very significant roll-oof of high fequency energy starting as low as a few KHz.  Flether amd Munson proved that our ability to hear higher frequencies, particuarly above 10 KHz drops like a stone in water.

"They don´t" is what you think/believe. Fletcher/Munson did not help much as it is related to something different (i.e. contours of equal loudness) and auditory masking is presumably not an appropriate mechanism in this context.
Just because there is no familiar sound masking another sound (i.e. what could in the case that isolated additional high frequency content is present) as the additional high frequency content is still related/connected to the various fundamental tones, so might only be sort of enhancement of something already present.

Quote
The simplest possible study is, due to advances in modern technology, painfully easy to do. That you obviously haven't done so for yourself, but continue to pontificate on studies that in the end undermine your viewpoint, tells me exactly  how open-minded you really are, which is to say not at all. :-( 

Or it is simply that you have forgotten what the meaning of scientific terms is. I was talking about "replication" which means _not_ doing something different (i.e. the simplest possible study) but replication of the original experiment. As i don´t have access to EEG or PET scanner there is no replication possible.

Of course replication is in this field of science more difficult as we deal with human detectors (means the listeners) that might be quite different in their detection ability and their immunity against enviremental factors, but leaving that point aside for the moment the remaining should be part of a replication approach.

As i´ve said right from the beginning afaik nobody tried has replicated Oohashi´s et al. experiment so the "debunking assertion" is very questionable itself. If you have actual citations that contradicts my impression i am all ears , but believes do not count.

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

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
As i don´t have access to EEG or PET scanner there is no replication possible.
Completely unnecessary and that wouldn't make Jakob2 any $$ anyway.
Jakob2, all you need are audiophools already able (tons of subjects!) to hear Hi-Re$ using (tons of) widely available Hi-Re$ (>20KHz) music and a Hi-Re$ (>20KHz) playback system.
What are you waiting for???
Flap, flap, fap, fap...

Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #33 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
......he claims is possible here[/url].
<snip>

Maybe i should have written "might be possible" to make it a bit easier to understand, but i really think a less religious like motivated reader than you understands it nevertheless.

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

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
number of loudspeaker used and effects measured.

Funny you should mention the number of loudspeaker(s) (but not the fact that the Oohashi team uses own-designed tweeters without documenting their distortion characteristics). In fact, adding more speakers is one of the measures the Ashihara team routinely employed (even before the Oohashi 2000 publication) in order to isolate the IM effects.  Ashihara et al. conclude that they cannot find any effects once they do a proper setup.  This you would have known had you read the slightest bit more than what you had as of April 10th when you were ignorant about the mere existence of these studies.

And if you had updated yourself over the last fifteen years - rather than just knocking those who have! - you would have noticed that even the Oohashi team now claims the "hypersonic effect" to be at most zero up to past 30 kHz.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

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

Reply #36 –
@ Porcus,

as we now seem to agree that it does not follow from your cited statement that Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects, please consider that i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.

Afaik nobody else replicated their experiment, and Ashihara´s and several others were vastly different approaches. So it is simply incorrect to state that Oohashi et al. were debunked by .......´s study.

That´s the reason why i still cite it as a valuable reference.

P.S. wrt the subtopic (i.e. did Jakob1863 knew already about the other experiments or not :) ) if you need it,  i´ll cite some post from other forums from the past couple of years, but is it really important?
 

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

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.

... ... ...


No, it is based on the premise that some slight hiss, higher than the highest hiss you ever heard, imagined, and then some, could not possibly be pleasant to hear, or have any useful effect on anything that we can here.

You can rebut that by saying that I don't know that, and you are right.
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

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

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects
Quite possible Jakob2, but that is speculation on your part. Where is the data for the IM tests and other system tests performed by Oohashi or any other believer such as yourself? You are hanging your hat on results of a system of unknown provenance?
Oh well, believers gonna believe. ;)

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Your believer reading comprehension fails you yet again.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.
Yet Audiophools still can't tell the difference with their usual listening to Hi-Re$ music, even in their own systems.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
i´ll cite some post from other forums from the past couple of years, but is it really important?
Sure, since you have nothing else. Zero evidence. Except Oohashis unverified nonsense. When we now know there might be a negative hyperbolic effect. Strange how you forgot to mention this.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on

as we now seem to agree that it does not follow from your cited statement that Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects, please consider that i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.

Be my guest.

Show us that you can "Walk The Walk" by duplicating Ooashi's results and documenting them?

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

Reply #40 –
Tsutomu Oohashi -- visionary or crackpot? 

I research, you decide.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877437.html#msg877437

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877440.html#msg877440

And here's the genius at work:

http://www.sidianersatzvanes.com/supplemental/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/120403_SEV_OOHASHI_07_025_RGB_WEB.jpg

And that stuff is from >two years ago,  Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.

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

Reply #41 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Tsutomu Oohashi -- visionary or crackpot? 

I research, you decide.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877437.html#msg877437

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877440.html#msg877440

And here's the genius at work:

http://www.sidianersatzvanes.com/supplemental/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/120403_SEV_OOHASHI_07_025_RGB_WEB.jpg

And that stuff is from >two years ago,  Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.

Krabapple  - Those threads with the numerous citations are an awesome resource. Thanks for that :) Much appreciated !

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

Reply #42 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.
He's going to post that "more comprehensive reference list" any time now, along with his listening test results of the burned cables and the provenance test data for those Pioneer supertweeters+ system used by his crackpot hero Oohashi.
Boy are his arms tired!
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #43 –
I don't really give a flying f about replicating Oohashi's result.  MRIs?  please.  Meta-analysis to dig out possible positive nuggets?  please.  Can you say *stretch*?

Show me, instead, an audiophile who can identify CD rate vs hi-rez,  like *that* (snaps fingers), every time...under DBT conditions.  

Because that's what audiophiles, claim they (and sometimes 'even their wives') can do, sighted.  

They've been claiming it over and over and over, for decades now.

Find me *one* who can really do it.  

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

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.

... ... ...


No, it is based on the premise that some slight hiss, higher than the highest hiss you ever heard, imagined, and then some, could not possibly be pleasant to hear, or have any useful effect on anything that we can here.

You can rebut that by saying that I don't know that, and you are right.


You started with the assertion "Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful?" which is the part my argument was mainly directed too. Because it´s just the question if composer, instrument makers and musicians couldn´t / can´t hear it. The opposite hypothesis would be that the sound of instruments contains high frequency spectra _because_ composers, instrument makers etc. could/can perceive it.

Wrt pleasantness, of course you could nevetheless be right, but maybe a suitable analogy could be a driver only reproducing the spectrum <80 Hz. Not a pleasant sound as well, but we already know that adding this "unpleasant" sound to reproduction chain lacking the part below 80 Hz will indeed (quite often) be perceived as better (or more pleasant overall).

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

Reply #45 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I don't really give a flying f about replicating Oohashi's result.  MRIs?  please.  Meta-analysis to dig out possible positive nuggets?  please.  Can you say *stretch*?

That you aren´t interested in that is of course a valid approach, but surely you are able to accept that it is nevertheless an interesting part of perception studies and therefore it is a valid approach to do such work.

Quote
Show me, instead, an audiophile who can identify CD rate vs hi-rez,  like *that* (snaps fingers), every time...under DBT conditions.
Exaggerations are common to all camps (unfortunately), be it the believers, the non-believers or the sometime believers. 

Quote
Because that's what audiophiles, claim they (and sometimes 'even their wives') can do, sighted. 

I´m sure that some audiophiles claim that, but i´m also sure that not all audiphiles claim that (and the wives can do it usually even unsighted ;) )

Quote
They've been claiming it over and over and over, for decades now.

Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;
did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen?
(Perhapy because it was so obvious?)

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

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;
did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen?
(Perhapy because it was so obvious?)
Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you? ;-)

Here's what they wrote in the AES journal in 2007; I include their entire chapter 4 so that context is preserved:
Quote
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.

Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment.

Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.

Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market.

So yes they found the hi-res recordings did sound better than the CD recordings, and yes it seems to have been obvious enough. But even if it hadn't been that obvious, there wouldn't have been reason to check it with a controlled listening test, because their research topic wasn't the comparison between hi-res recordings and CD-recordings, but between hi-res recording formats and the CD format. They didn't want to show that CD releases sound the same as hi-res releases, they wanted to show that the CD release could sound the same as the hi-res release, if treated with the same care in production. In other words, that the format isn't to blame for the sound differences.

Their chapter 4 was an attempt at explaining where those differences originate, given that they were demonstrated to not be due to the CD format. And their explanation, while not the result of scientific investigation, is entirely plausible. It is offered as a note, which makes it clear that no scientific rigor is to be assumed or demanded regarding this explanation.

I really have no tolerance for the often malicious ways in which their paper is being criticised, and you are no exception here.

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

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
surely you are able to accept that it is nevertheless an interesting part of perception studies and therefore it is a valid approach to do such work.
No, unverified and contradicted industry sponsored crackpot nonsense is only of interest to believers with Hi Re$ pecuniary interests, like yourself.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Exaggerations are common to all believers
Not to mention evasion, obfuscation, etc. as you confirm.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
I´m sure that some audiophiles claim that
Yes, along with wire "burn in", etc, etc, being "possibly" audible, while evading any test that would expose them as deluded fools, as you are keenly aware of.  ;)

Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions
Yet another delusion of yours, projected as reality.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on

Exaggerations are common to all camps (unfortunately), be it the believers, the non-believers or the sometime believers. 

Ah, the ever-popular 'buh buh both sides do it' argument.   How old are you, Jakob?  How many years of audiophile rhetoric have you experienced?  Someone my age (mid 50s) who's been following along know very well where the balance of 'exaggerations' rests on this matter.  Do you?

Quote
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;  did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen? (Perhapy because it was so obvious?)

It's not like their perception isn't in accord with what one would predict though.  "hi rez"  = better, right? (though in fact, hi rez masterings *can* be just as dynamic-range limited as CD releases; M&M assumed the masterings were more high-fidelity). 

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

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Jakob1863 on
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;

Ou of context paraphrase. The correct statement is that Meyer/Moran  wrote that every "Hi Rez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions. even when its resolution was reduced to CD quality.

IOW the attribute of the so-called Hi Rez recordings that they liked  was independent of their resolution. How can this be? The answer is that the Hi Rez recordings were also remastered and it was the remastering, not the higher resolution that they preferred.

In retrospect, we now know that about half of the Hi Rez recordings weren't actually Hi Rez because they were made from low-Rez masters. This confirms the evidence that their improved sound quality did not come from being Hi Rez. The improved sound quality came from being remastered.
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019