Jump to content

Does 'hi fi' always have to be 20 Hz to 20 Khz in audio bandwidth?


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

One takeaway from this chart, for me, is to look at the two highest - violin and female voice.  That last is why one of my preferred test subjects for a system, is female vocal jazz, - preferably in front of a simple jazz combo including a double bass (Rebecca Pigeon - Spanish Harlem anyone :) )

 

Also, what is not covered in that table is the extraneous noises contained in a performance, such as the squeek of fingers on strings,  and breath sounds with sax and flute.  All necessary parts of the listening experience.

 

Rebecca Pidgean is hardly taxing on the high frequencies. She's low and husky.

im sure the violins and females they talk about are operatic sopranos.

and I'm sure background noises don't really need to be part of a table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Volunteer
56 minutes ago, joz said:

 

Rebecca Pidgean is hardly taxing on the high frequencies. She's low and husky.

im sure the violins and females they talk about are operatic sopranos.

and I'm sure background noises don't really need to be part of a table.

 

The frequency with which she is played is certainly high. 

She's certainly taxing too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joz said:

 

Rebecca Pidgean is hardly taxing on the high frequencies. She's low and husky.

im sure the violins and females they talk about are operatic sopranos.

and I'm sure background noises don't really need to be part of a table.

 

I thinks it's the huskiness that contains the highs.   Doesn't need to be a high note to contain high harmonics.

 

Also, those extra noises are part and parcel of a performance for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PleasantSounds said:

 

Actually quite opposite. Organ pipes produce quite a lot of high volume harmonics. Here's what it looks like:

 

 

CornopeanSpectrum.gif

 

 

Interesting, because that table had a bar that was mostly black, implying all fundamentals, not harmonics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aussievintage said:

 

 

Interesting, because that table had a bar that was mostly black, implying all fundamentals, not harmonics.

 

 

I think with most instruments there's an overlap between fundamentals and harmonics and in that case the graph you're referring to elects to display the fundamentals. That doesn't mean harmonics don't exist or are insignificant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Most of these frequency range charts are produced for people making recordings. They ignore content over 20kHz because their intended market, for the most part, don't want to record those frequencies having been told not to - another argument against "emotion being recorded outside of 20Hz-20kHz".

 

Excellent point, EtD.  :thumb:

 

3 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

 

For @Wimbo 's benefit, most LPs contain no useable information above 22kHz at very best; at least some cutting engineers try to avoid higher frequencies in the signal because they waste cutting amplifier power.

 

And yet, back in the 80s, the late great Allen Wright suggested a 50Khz pole was needed in the RIAA equalisation curve, to counter the effect of the cutting engineers doing exactly that! :D.

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
3 hours ago, PleasantSounds said:

 

Actually quite opposite. Organ pipes produce quite a lot of high volume harmonics. Here's what it looks like:

 

 

CornopeanSpectrum.gif

Actually, the harmonics depend on the air in a smaller portion of the pipe vibrating for each harmonic. By the time you get to the highest notes of the organ, you get fewer harmonics, because in the smaller pipes that have to be used for higher fundamentals, the amount of pipe and air just becomes too short to produce any kind of meaningful volume for the higher harmonics of their notes. As usual with musical instruments, the amount of sound above 20kHz is very low from pipe organs.

Pipes could be designed to produce higher harmonics of those high notes, but the energy directed into doing that would be lost to the production of the fundamental and lower harmonics that we can hear: so the opposite has actually happened over time, pipes are designed to produce the sound that we can hear, more efficiently. So it is with other instruments - there is no point wasting energy on what can't be heard.

 

Similarly with bass instruments, where often the design is more about producing volume in the lower harmonics (which, by the way, is why loudspeakers without the bottom octave can adequately produce notes where the fundamental is effectively out of range - because we hear the low harmonics primarily anyway!).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject of whether the content at high frequency is audible always draws a debate, especially for frequencies beyond the standard range. The authority on this subject is the published literature. Last year Audio Engineering Society's Joshua Resis conducted a meta-analysis of published results from a range of controlled testings and found that high-resolution audio that have high frequency content is audibly different to standard audio. The difference is small but statistically significant. The summary of the result and link to access the paper are here

 

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/High_Resolution_Audio_Perceptual_Evaluation/page4.htm

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/great-paper-released-meta-analysis-high-resolution-audio-perceptual-evaluation#ZjdELi84keO1MisD.97

 

The meta-analysis cannot determine the cause of this audible effects linked to high frequency content, and more research is needed. There are several possibilities, one is that these effects are artifacts from the use of high resolution audio, and not a direct result of hearing the high frequencies. Another possible explanation is that the higher frequencies result in better temporal resolution and less time-smearing of the reproduced signal, and we can hear this improvement. 

 

In any case it is wrong to think that this subject is closed and the facts are fully established, they are not. I urge people to keep an open mind and follow the expert researchers as they further our understanding of this debate. 

 

In any case discussing of content beyond 20kHz is off topic in this thread as the OP is only asking about 20Hz-20kHz. But for those who believe in the temporal resolution argument, then certainly having the full range resolution up to 20kHz is required for high fidelity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit from the PS Audio website.

James Boyk, of the Caltech Music Lab (yeah – I thought they only did spaceships too) wrote a fascinating paper entitled There’s Life Above 20 kHz .

Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz “induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality.”

Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners’ EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this “ultra-tweeter” was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.

From the fact that changes in subjects’ EEGs “persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation,” Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation’s being corrupted by “hangover” of reaction to the first.

Boyk’s own conclusion suggest that if true, and there seems ample evidence it might be, then hard filtering everything above 20 kHz, as in a CD, might just be the worst thing we can do – and explain much about why higher sample rates makes sense, even though we can’t technically hear above them.

It’s just one more possible nail in the coffin of the measurementists who steadfastly refuse to recognize what many of us perceive just might be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



It was said earlier that one can hear the emotion of a performance even through a crappy tranny AM radio.  I find this true and is probably because the emotional content of music is conveyed by many things in the performance including (but not only) changes in amplitude and changes in timing of notes which are not affected by the frequency ability of the playback chain.

 

However the emotional content of a recording will also be affected by how a guitar is plucked, how the bow of a violin is drawn and how close to the bridge etc etc which determine the frequency and phase spectrum of the notes being played and therefore its perception by the listener will obviously be affected also by the frequency & phase response of the playback system,

 

So although a tranny radio can give some of the emotion of the performance due to its ability to reproduce amplitude and timing as well as some frequency changes, a high resolution playback system including (but not only) a frequency response 20-20 kHz and gives me more emotional enjoyment -  and that for me is what is all about, period. 

 

Whether it needs to go beyond this frequency response is a more difficult question .  I can certainly hear on my reference system the difference between a soft dome tweeter (limited to around 20 kHz) and a beryllium one (which goes above 40 kHz).,  At the bottom end it is even harder to determine with certainty.  However when I visited Richard Small at Kef he demonstrated an extremely large prototype speaker whose bottom end could be switched in & out at 40 Hz to go down to around 15 Hz.  The latter sounded more realistic, probably because of subtle cues about the recording space.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer
44 minutes ago, legend said:

a high resolution playback system including (but not only) a frequency response 20-20 kHz and gives me more emotional enjoyment -  and that for me is what is all about, peri

 

Whilst this is often true, it's not always the case. A full range, well sorted system can make some recordings sound awful and thus remove their emotion. 

 

Edited by Sir Sanders Zingmore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

True.  Imperfections of a real world.  Still, likely less than a lot of other acoustically produced music.  A simple oscillation of air in a length of pipe probably produces markedly less harmonics.

 

I've listened to a number of pipe organs (live). There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the sound they make is even remotely close to being a sine wave (I've listened to A LOT of sine waves over the years). The reasons are obvious:

 

* The part that makes the noise is actually a kind of whistle.

* The pipe, itself, will vibrate, adding more harmonics to the mix.

* Nearby objects (other pipes) will also contribute their own sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

Whilst this is often true, it's always the case. A full range, well sorted system can make some recordings sound awful and thus remove their emotion. 

 

Might I suggest that this anomaly may be caused by the room the system is in rather than the stereo itself ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer
2 minutes ago, 125dBmonster said:

Might I suggest that this anomaly may be caused by the room the system is in rather than the stereo itself ?

 

I consider the room to be part of the system so, no. 

 

Also I don't think it's as much of an anomaly as you suggest. Well at least not if you listen to a wide range of music and not just audiophile dross. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, rocky500 said:

A bit from the PS Audio website.

James Boyk, of the Caltech Music Lab (yeah – I thought they only did spaceships too) wrote a fascinating paper entitled There’s Life Above 20 kHz .

Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz “induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality.”

Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners’ EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this “ultra-tweeter” was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.

From the fact that changes in subjects’ EEGs “persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation,” Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation’s being corrupted by “hangover” of reaction to the first.

Boyk’s own conclusion suggest that if true, and there seems ample evidence it might be, then hard filtering everything above 20 kHz, as in a CD, might just be the worst thing we can do – and explain much about why higher sample rates makes sense, even though we can’t technically hear above them.

It’s just one more possible nail in the coffin of the measurementists who steadfastly refuse to recognize what many of us perceive just might be right.

 

Certainly suggest ignoring James Boyk. He says one thing that is irrefutably true: musical instruments produce a sound spectrum that extends into the ultrasonic. What he says next in section X. Significance of the results, is mistaken (relies on Oohashi, bone conduction etc as evidence that it might be important to reproduce those ultrasonics).

 

The OP might want to read previous SNA threads on this or related topics. Maybe start with

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/36095-high-resolution-vs-vinyl/

 

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/62117-even-scientists-are-having-trouble-with-science/page-2#entry1055964

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rocky500 said:

It’s just one more possible nail in the coffin of the measurementists who steadfastly refuse to recognize what many of us perceive just might be right.

 

 

No point just putting nails in the coffin, rocky!  'Measurementists' are like the Undead - they need a garlic-coated, silver stake through the heart to stop them rising up.  :D

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LHC said:

In any case discussing of content beyond 20kHz is off topic in this thread as the OP is only asking about 20Hz-20kHz. But for those who believe in the temporal resolution argument, then certainly having the full range resolution up to 20kHz is required for high fidelity. 

 

No.   The "temporal resolution" issue  (which is definitely important), does not depend on having frequencies above X reproduced ....    You may be confusing the "presence of high frequency content", with "high sampling rates"   (accurate inter-channel timing is also critical).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Volunteer
41 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

No point just putting nails in the coffin, rocky!  'Measurementists' are like the Undead - they need a garlic-coated, silver stake through the heart to stop them rising up.  :D

 

Andy

 

Andy, unless you can provide scientific double blind proof, I refuse to believe that  the Undead exist :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Andy, unless you can provide scientific double blind proof, I refuse to believe that  the Undead exist :) 

 

I challenge you to come over again, Trevor.  But this time, instead of a couple of bottles of good red, I will 'feed' you a couple of bottles of metho.  I guarantee after you've emptied them:

a.  you will certainly be 'blind', and

b.  you will be seeing all sorts of strange things - including the Undead!!  :party

 

Andy

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This is the best information posted on this thread. It should be read and understood. 

A lot of fun once it is,  Zaph 

(a pair of Martin Logans to play with in addition to the PSE144) Which speaker set will portray  more "emotion" ? anyone for a guess @Sir Sanders Zingmore?

IMG_1471.JPG.78b7485e0dd68bd67143a6ced8361b37.JPG

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
38 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

No point just putting nails in the coffin, rocky!  'Measurementists' are like the Undead - they need a garlic-coated, silver stake through the heart to stop them rising up.  :D

 

Andy

 

Whereas every great component ever developed was produced without a single measurement ever being taken!

 

Seriously, with two such opposed sides in the argument, every experiment in this area gets picked over for any reason to discredit. There have been flaws in many of them anyway.

One thing I would say is that, if you want to be sure, there is no issue with reproducing ultrasonic frequencies, recordings are available with them intact and equipment is available, if you want to be "on the safe side" and deny the 20kHz limit.

 

Or you can carry on playing LPs, nothing there but distortion - it's been, er, measured:unsure:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

Whilst this is often true, it's not always the case. A full range, well sorted system can make some recordings sound awful and thus remove their emotion. [edit] ie in such a system one can differentiate between the poor quality of the recording and its reproduction.

 

 

Yes this is sometimes true - but I find with my reference system (Tikandi Plus) it rarely happens because the poor quality of the recording process which is being well reproduced often just adds to its 'authenticity' as part of my emotional response.[edit]  ie the quality of the recording is no longer confused with the quality of the reproduction eg if the vocalist has overloaded the microphone through being extra emotional etc.

Edited by legend
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top