Frequency Responce Quick Question

[Sherako]

So if I plug in headphones that are 10-39800hz into an Audio Engine D1, which outputs 10-25000, will I hear the difference between actually hearing the headphones (10-39800hz) and using the D1. Please don't say anything about the quality of the DAC, I am asking about the frequency response. Also, anyway to work around this? I didn't buy the D1 yet, so what's a good DAC that can handle 10-39800hz? Thanks!

[SSL]

No, those numbers are meaningless without conditions, i.e. how the sound intensity varies with frequency (amplitude transfer function). Anyway, 20Hz - 20kHz are the extremes of human hearing.

[Peter Vaughan Truslow]

you can't actually hear that high. most DAC say 20-20k hz because that's the widely accepted range of human hearing.

many DAC will have both a low pass to filter signal noise in the high end and a high pass to filter DC in the low end.

my DAC and amp will play as low as 4 hz as far as I have tested in music. I can watch the cone move and count the number of cycles

the published Frequency range is rarely anything actually indicative of it's response. it's just a range where they have tested it.

edit: you will rarely hear as low as 10hz with headphones, as frequencies that low act as pressure changes more than sound waves. 

with Cd and DVD quality audio at a 44.1KHz/48KHz sample rate, the highest possible frequency is just over 22,000 hz, so unless you have lossless audio codecs, it is literally pointless to have a headphone to produce more than that.

[Lays]

Our human hearing only ranges from 20-20khz, so getting that extra khz would be meaningless, since you won't be able to hear it.

[Oktyabr]

I agree the published specs are for the most part non-essential.  These are usually limited to 20hz-20khz because it's the standard of human hearing, not because the sound is purposely chopped off at either end.  If we are talking about amplifiers/speakers usually the specification is where the sound begins to "roll off" beyond that frequency, usually -3db, and even this must be taken with a grain of salt (it's much more complicated than simply saying "20khz is where the sound level drops by -3db).  That said nearly every family of musical instruments can produce measurable sound above 20khz, some MUCH above that extent.  Harmonics above 20khz may not be "heard" as such but may yet be detected by the brain, giving the instrument some of it's timbre and tonal qualities... i.e, improving the part that we DO actually hear.  It's the difference between listening to a violin live, or a ring tone made from the recording of that violin.  Long story made short I don't think I'd worry too much about those two being incompatible because of their published ranges.

[SSL]

Harmonics above 20khz may not be "heard" as such but may yet be detected by the brain, giving the instrument some of it's timbre and tonal qualities... i.e, improving the part that we DO actually hear.  It's the difference between listening to a violin live, or a ring tone made from the recording of that violin.  Long story made short I don't think I'd worry too much about those two being incompatible because of their published ranges.

 

Simply no. Even if these frequencies were audible (blind testing?) their contribution to timbre would be negligible.

[Oktyabr]

I agree that evidence to support either side of the argument is all over the place and further colored by possible marketing strategies (as arguments for DSD, SACD or 24/192 formatted files, for instance), but the science behind the actual frequencies produced by instruments and the harmonics they produce is absolutely true.

[Lutkeveld]

Harmonics have a lot of influence on the timbre. Above 20khz maybe not because you can't hear it properly, but a lot of music doesn't even extend to 20khz anyway.

[SSL]

Harmonics have a lot of influence on the timbre. Above 20khz maybe not because you can't hear it properly, but a lot of music doesn't even extend to 20khz anyway.

 

I agree that evidence to support either side of the argument is all over the place and further colored by possible marketing strategies (as arguments for DSD, SACD or 24/192 formatted files, for instance), but the science behind the actual frequencies produced by instruments and the harmonics they produce is absolutely true.

 

At what point did I say otherwise? Harmonics make up the majority of the sound on some instruments - e.g. piano, particularly in the bass. The only laughable concept is that inaudible ultrasonic harmonics have any kind of impact on audible timbre.

[Lutkeveld]

Inaudible indeed, but many people are able to hear above 20khz. Does it make a lot of difference? Probably not.

[Oktyabr]

And so the argument goes.

[SSL]

And so the argument goes.

 

That's why evidence is better.

[Oktyabr]

That's why evidence is better.

I'll bite.  Produce some?

[SSL]

I'll bite.  Produce some?

 

Go for it.

[Oktyabr]

Like I said, and so the argument goes.   This is an OLD argument that has reeled off pages upon pages of debate in numerous forums far predating the invention of the internet, as I'm reasonably sure you know.  And yet a concrete conclusion proves elusive.  What I do know is what I've already stated.  Musical instruments of every family have been found to produce frequencies and harmonics far above the extent of human "hearing".  Harmonics are a known and fairly well understood principal.  I think the real area of debate lies in questions like "Does the human brain detect/process sound outside of the audible frequency range?" 

I know I spent money on Radio Shack "Super Tweeters" decades ago.  While they didn't seem to contribute much that was "audible" it was still obvious (under blind A/B) when they were part of the system or not.  YMMV.

[SSL]

Like I said, and so the argument goes.   This is an OLD argument that has reeled off pages upon pages of debate in numerous forums far predating the invention of the internet, as I'm reasonably sure you know.  And yet a concrete conclusion proves elusive.  What I do know is what I've already stated.  Musical instruments of every family have been found to produce frequencies and harmonics far above the extent of human "hearing".  Harmonics are a known and fairly well understood principal.  I think the real area of debate lies in questions like "Does the human brain detect/process sound outside of the audible frequency range?" 

I know I spent money on Radio Shack "Super Tweeters" decades ago.  While they didn't seem to contribute much that was "audible" it was still obvious (under blind A/B) when they were part of the system or not.  YMMV.

 

Oh dear.

 

There is a big difference between mere perception and:

 

Harmonics above 20khz may not be "heard" as such but may yet be detected by the brain, giving the instrument some of it's timbre and tonal qualities... i.e, improving the part that we DO actually hear.  It's the difference between listening to a violin live, or a ring tone made from the recording of that violin.

 

That sounds like a statement of fact, to me. Are there any studies, even controversial ones, that make any statement about the role of ultrasound in high fidelity audio production or overall perception of music?

[Oktyabr]

 

That sounds like a statement of fact, to me. Are there any studies, even controversial ones, that make any statement about the role of ultrasound in high fidelity audio production or overall perception of music?

Of course!  Google is your friend.

[SSL]

Of course!  Google is your friend.

 

Can't seem to find the one where it makes the difference between listening to a live performance and a recording.

[ShearMe]

Outside the range of human hearing the Frequency doesn't matter to your ears and brain, but it DOES influence the performance of your other equipment negatively by objective standards unless that equipment was specially designed to handle those frequencies.

[SSL]

Outside the range of human hearing the Frequency doesn't matter to your ears and brain, but it DOES influence the performance of your other equipment negatively by objective standards unless that equipment was specially designed to handle those frequencies.

 

What does objectivity have to do with audiopeeling, I ask you.

[Oktyabr]

Two well referenced papers for your perusal:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

 

[ShearMe]

What does objectivity have to do with audiopeeling, I ask you.

 

Nothing at all, which is why cheek tweeters are a thing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_QYt7owKNk

[SSL]

Two well referenced papers for your perusal:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

 

 

Saw those, but thanks. The first paper seems pretty uncontroversial. Unfortunately the only support it has for perception of those frequencies above 20kHz is the second paper.

 

 

Nothing at all, which is why cheek tweeters are a thing.

 

Wrong cheeks if you ask me.

[Oktyabr]

There are others but I don't have time to locate them at the moment.  I remember one that stirred up a bunch of controversy in one of the other audio groups, came from MIT.  Another cited results from studies done by the US Navy and DOD.  It's certainly an area I'd like to find something with evidence, either way.