Sound beyond 20khz: The key to true high-fidelity?

[@alvarosundfeld]

I have to confess, in the beggining, i didn't belive in that. But i bought a good pair of hi-res headphones and made sure the rest of the gear was capable of reproducing frequencies above 40khz), and played some well-mastered vinyl records and hi-res files. It just sounds AMAZING, you kinda feel the music turns real.

[@anadialog]

Cool! Thanks for your feedback!

[@matthewv789]

And I’d be willing to bet that if they created exactly the same vinyl records from the same masters, only they inserted a 20KHz low-pass filter just before cutting, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Also, your high-res sources could be passed through a 16/44 conversion stage with perfectly matched level and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either. At least that’s what years of studies have shown in test subjects. One audio engineer has had such tests posted on his website for the past decade and nobody has yet managed to identify which source is which.

[@marcviej.5635]

@@matthewv789 calm down lol even if it doesn't really sounds better, he feels like it, it might be the higher quality headphones that he's enjoying

[@wpienaar999]

I agree with you 100% on a side note I would just like to mention that with audio equipment specs the frequency response noted by the manufacturer for the upper limit does not only mean that the equipment is capable of producing those high frequencies it also directly relates to its slew rate. Slew rate is the ability of the equipment to follow the source and amplify a signal at the rate it was produced at. This ability of an amplifier ( high slew rate) will give you that punch on a rising edge of the signal and is also perceived as dynamic range although it is not directly related. So what I am trying to explain is if you see specs on an amplifier that has a high frequency response do not think it is useless because you cannot hear that high it means that for frequencies you can hear the rising and falling edges of the signal will be more accurately produced.

[@anadialog]

True! Good point there.

[@QoraxAudio]

Slew rate also translates to mechanical limitations. The inertia of a cantilever on a cartridge determines how quick it can move, where the movement gets 'converted' to volts. So indirectly this movement can also be considered as slew rate in V/us, just like with amplifiers.

[@johnadams9041]

My amplifier Pioneer A9 has range from 5Hz to 200 000 Hz .What that means - that I can listening 200 000 Hz with my aura?

[@sean_heisler]

Suddenly my system sounds like crap after watching this video.

[@anadialog]

🤣🤣🤣

[@Andersljungberg]

listen to your favorite music or favorite artist without electrical contact in the wall then you know how it should sound. However, can be complicated with hard rock for hard rock without an electric guitar can be strange

[@GW2_Live]

Great video, I think people forget that just because you can't pick it out doesn't mean higher frequencies don't interact with the rest of the frequencies being produced. Which people CAN notice. Another thing people forget is if they are just looking for good enough, then this sort of conversation is pointless, it is only a conversation for those looking for more from their music, and their equipment.

[@jaydy71]

I'm not sure what you mean by "frequencies interact with each other". My understanding is that they don't, unless you hear those frequencies. There has been some confusion about that regarding 2 frequencies close together, producing a psychoacoustic 3rd frequency that's the difference between the first 2, and how they can be a thing in the supersonic frequency range: i.e. supersonic frequencies producing such difference frequencies that end up in the audible range. But this effect doesn't happen when those 2 frequencies are inaudible to begin with. That's my understanding of it anyway fwiw.

[@mortlach186]

Back in the eighties , Spectral audio who manufacture ultra high bandwidth equipment knew all of this quite well. I recall something about them demonstrating that even when an instrument is capable of producing harmonics out to 300khz even though those harmonics are 60 db down from the typical hearing range that even that part of the spectrum when filtered out of a recording affects the perceived sound we hear. This is very different than simply listening to steady state signals.

[@anadialog]

Exactly

[@matthewv789]

Middle aged audiophiles: we need higher frequencies! Give me 384KHz sampling! Translation: I wish I could still hear 15KHz. Also research: consistently shows that nobody, and I mean nobody, can tell the difference between a 24/192 source and the same exact source downsampled to 16/44. (Also: people can’t consistently tell the difference between that and 320Kbs MP3 or 256Kbs AAC.) Yes lots of microphones can pick up higher frequencies, and yes lots of that is in the digital signal, and no most of it is not lost in digital processing unless someone puts in a low-pass filter. Yet people still can’t hear the difference, which explains why real audio engineers often don’t bother with it. And what people are perceiving when those researchers play those high frequency complex signals is the lower-pitched aliasing produced by their combination, not the higher frequencies themselves. Which microphones can pick up from real instruments just fine, and regular speakers and headphones AND CDs can also reproduce just fine. Even though instruments produce higher sounds, all the parts that we can actually perceive are fully reproducible by cd. Also: once d-to-a converted and low-pass filtered, cd is just as analog as vinyl or tape, and more accurate. And I can’t believe you’re trying to compare vinyl with cd in terms of accurate reproduction. That’s such a laugh. By the time you get to 20KHz, most of what you are hearing from an LP is noise and distortion, and it just gets worse the higher you get. This is like defenders of MQA, who mistake all the noise it adds between 15-20KHz for increased “air”.

[@alkestos]

Word.

[@TrippinGnome]

Great video, yes the older you get the narrower your measurable hearing range gets. And for some of us having tinnitus that overlays another frequency range things are even more difficult. But still enjoy the music, and can easily tell when the source is higher or lower quality system.

[@doowopper1951]

Science has shown that as we age, our ears do not hear HF as well. But what about our bodies? Very little research has been done on that.

[@wandiquejr4208]

Thanks for the video! Thanks for your research ! This is a kind of thing that makes our listening better !

[@Uygkuyfkutfkytfkutfv]

I have to say, I had wondered about this exact set of arguments with no knowledge of any papers relating to it - when you play stringed instruments the power of harmonics becomes much more clear. In addition I’ve often pondered if the feedback from the room around me is also affected by these inaudible tones - much like when you pluck a low E on a double bass, all other E-tuned strings in the room feedback.

[@simoogle17]

Hi @ANA[DIA]LOG and followers! There is another thing may be interesting to consider. Sound is formed by waves. Waves interact with themselves, enviroment and materials, creating more waves above also the human audio limits. They do this interaction due to math's rules. This math and those waves are in our equipments and electronics too (cartdriges, preamp, amp etc). Tube for example add harmonics to the sound, they call it "distortion", as it is. Due to the math, this distortion goes also above 20kHz even inside electronics, similar to those phenomenoes that were initially created in the enviroment and instruments in a very similar wave form. Ergo we may have again this waves, above 20k, that were in the moment of capture event but "artificially" made in the "electro-mechanic enviroment". Maybe this is why people likes mosfet or tube distortion. So, this happend even if our source is cutted at 20khz. Last but not least we need supertweeters for listen to those waves "re-created" in our listening room. Sorry for errors..Maybe it's just fantasy. just a thought. Greatings from Italy

[@thespartan7292]

Great video!!!! Keep up the fantastic work!!

[@allenholdway8683]

Wow found this fascinating on the detailed information. Very cool. The harmonics was very interesting in how we can hear them. Thanks

[@CorvetteCoonass]

Even frequencies above 20 kHz are possible to be perceived by human ears as resultants. It's the same concept that allows pipe organs to achieve 32' pedal sounds with 16' pipes.

[@StewartMarkley]

I found your subject matter very intriguing as I have always been keenly interested in the human perception of sound. I did some researching on the subject and found a Masters Degree thesis paper by Johan Fredin in 2005 that showed how a speaker was made that used the nonlinear properties of air to create audible sound from ultrasonic frequencies. The result was quite stunning showing a very audible 1kHz fundamental tone with a lot of harmonic content above that from a 40kHz and a 41kHz sine wave. It is clear that there are significant intermodulation and harmonic products created by the nonlinear properties of air from ultrasonic frequencies but also from audible frequencies, and given that the sound field in a typical listening room situation coming from two speakers is vastly different than the sound coming from multiple sound sources from a live performance in a concert hall or other venue will surely create a very different mix of linear and nonlinear frequency products. This has to explain a large part of the reason why the sound of live music can never be replicated by any audio recording and reproducing system.

[@anadialog]

Yes, I think I crossed that PDF, Interesting! Indeed a live event cannot rely, for its reproduction, on 2 normal speakers. Already omnidirectional speakers can get us closer...

[@savagefrieze4675]

Oh my oh my: we are talking science! Electromagnetic spectrum. Listen to a great pipe organ that reaches below 20hz and you feel it. A visceral feeling that goes through you.. we see a slice of spectrum well above normally perceived audio spectrum. Some people see colors when they hear notes and chords. Even when the ears don’t interpret sound spectrum above 10 or 12 kHz the waves are still there and penetrate your body. I can’t tell you how badly I’d like to return to turntables and reel to real tape. To have master recordings on vinyl would be a dream come true. Unfortunately my career followed the path of spiritual rewards, not financial ones. Envy may be a sin, but when it comes to audiophile sound it’s one this retired person seems un able to resist.

[@tomooo2637]

I have worked creating software for macromolecule crystallography where FFT's (fast Fourier transforms) are used to interpret experimental data. There are 2 issues here , particularly in digital which are seen in this work - same problem - but you can see the effects in the output pictures. : 1) The harmonics - as you described - effects the results of the lower resolution data - ie high frequency affects the "modulation" of lower frequencies. There are many scientific papers that discuss the errors of FFT and filters that should be used and the artefacts they create. 2) Boundary artefacts. Digital has a sampling frequency - for CD it is 44 kHz which is essentially equivalent to a signal carrier wave - and we must filter this out or it will damage the electronics. We need to use a band-pass-filter to remove this single frequency, and the sharper the filter , the more artefacts that occur at lower frequencies, the more they interfere (like ripples) down to lower frequency. The problem with CD has always been the sharpness of the filter, and poor CD players sound harsh mostly because of the rejection filter is crap. This is why, 1) high sample rate digital sounds better, 2) up sampling can help - even though it cannot create information at higher frequency, it means we can use a softer band-pass filter with less artefacts. 3) Stereo FM radio has a pilot signal at 19kHz to allow the circuitry to determine the stereo separation. This requires a band pass filter, which again can cause artefacts to lower frequency and why FM radio broadcasts can sound disappointing. 4) Depending on the analogue storage media, then we can get pink noise - either the ferrous particles of a tape, or the granularity of the record media. During the 1970's records were made with a lot of filler because of the oil crisis and they were of poor quality, resulting in excessive noise. It was more than just "sound" but the interference to lower frequencies. All recording is a compromise. The most annoying HiFi "artefact" for me is that when large orchestra music is recorded, they use a single stereo mic that is supposed to mimic the listener. This totally misunderstands how stereo should be recorded since the mic is NOT the listener, but an intermediate point that should be at the SAME position of the speakers. You now listening to your speakers which are about 6 feet apart, trying to hear sound recorded with a stereo mic that has a separation of 4 inches - because people think the mic is the listener - it is not - it is an intermediate point. That is why much large orchestral recordings sound flat and lifeless.

[@anadialog]

Thanks for sharing your interesting points, especially the last one, I agree on that but remember that it is also done to capture the entire and massive soundwave. A symphonic orchestra isn't simple to capture. These guys understood how to overcome the problem you describe: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHXdfYSjisqer5o

[@TT-it9gg]

Love to watch your video. Thank you!

[@yan4745]

The effects found by Ashiara which you refer to as "Harmonics" sound like what is called aliasing when sampling sound. It is also not a big surprise, even without the specific experiments, two superposed sine waves with different frequencies will create a new frequency which may as well be in the audible spectrum (which for this argument I locate in the sub 20 kHz range). This will still add something to the listening experience, even when assuming sub 20 kHz capabilities, however these effects would of course also be picked up in a 20 kHz cutoff recording. So up to this point, Ashiara is well within the traditional argumentation that > 20 kHz is not interesting. The interesting point I take away from the Ashiara paper is a different one. He uses two speakers from which he generates > 20 kHz signals. Your perception of the sound (even projected to the sub 20 kHz spectrum) change with your position between the speakers. For 38 kHz tones, the wavelength is about 9 mm (or roughly the width of a fingernail if you don't know SI units ;) ) so even small movements of your head (within that range of 9 mm) will change the tones perceived in the sub 20 kHz range. That is the physics behind it, I hope that at least. I would lay it out in more detail with some nice plots and everything, but this is a youtube comment on a 2 year old video after all... So I would argue that from the standpoint of wave dynamics, it would be well possible you hear a difference between a sub and par 20 kHz recording (even when assuming that your ears have a "cutoff" at 20 kHz) especially if you move your head (even slightly). [1] The question remains if that is desirable. Yes, an instrument will create > 20 kHz signals, I mean, why not? Its a physical thing that resonates... The question is if it adds to the experience and your goals while playing. Reproducing the intent of the artist/performer in a live setup, I would regard to be impossible, maybe you could come close to reproducing the intent of an audio engineer (who could also be the performer of course). But then in the end you like to enjoy your music and if you like aliasing-like effects from tilting your head a little, go for it (and those who claim its not desirable: Be aware that even with only 16 kHz your wavelength is only about 21 mm and so tilting your head slightly still changes what you hear) [1] I suspect with 9 mm wavelength there are also some other new interesting effects. Since your ear canal is roughly in the 9 mm range, there is probably some reflection within the ear going on... But this is to complicated for me to think about the results of that. Maybe its the reason why Ashiara couldn't measure differences above 38 kHz?

[@AvithOrtega]

Very good comment and insight!

[@wilianfc]

Great job!

[@ilidiosantos5457]

Another great video, with lots of information to think about, following your previous videos on this topic! Keep up the fantastic work!!!

[@anadialog]

Thank you very much Ilidio!

[@asbcustom]

Thank you for the video and related documentation, I'm here from your post in your latest video. I've done tests with my own instruments (measuring) and found this to be completely accurate. I could go on for hours about the details but the upshot is that the 20-20 was a bad mistake most likely made by the power of the marketing department and not linked to Acoustemology in any way. I believe I've quantified why the particular decks I tested sounded pleasant and could reproduce my findings, it's a fascinating business.

[@anadialog]

Thanks for sharing your experience!

[@jnhnauo6212]

Seems like emotional and deep complicated stuff. Its not just about being able to hear above 20khz. It does make sense. A persons soul really gets to become part of the music, like a religious type of thing. Thanks for your help 👍

[@anadialog]

Thank YOU!

[@johnadams9041]

theconversation.com/sonic-attacks-in-china-and-cuba-how-sound-can-be-a-weapon-97380

[@Studio407Biz-Music]

Thanks for a great video that gets right to the point. Of all the problems you listed, I think the microphone capability issue is the most serious. Yes, it is true that the sanken CO-100K has the characteristics to record up to 100 kHz, but the frequency response is terrible, not flat. the curve is such that the high frequencies are heavily boosted in order to land at 100 kHz. As you say, standard professional recording mics lose their characteristics at 20KHz. No matter how big the digital container is, the incoming microphone signal is not enough to fill it. Of course, the same can be said about analog media. It is unfortunate, but I think this is the biggest problem we have at the moment.

[@anadialog]

Indeed!

[@johnclintonmusicandmore]

I agree with you 100% our body sense things that we cannot see or hear that's why I going to a concert is the best I think

[@jn3750]

This is one of the reasons why I came back to R2R, with a measured +/- 3 db fr in the range of 20h-50khz (see, for example, Sony TC-880-2). I don't understand why MANY manufacturers only indicate around 22khz (perhaps using older tapes at within +1/-1 Db). My technician showed me the chart clearly showing my machine capable of sweeping 20hz to 39khz tones.

[@anadialog]

Exactly!!!

[@antonjoe5611]

And what is the level of the recorded signal?

[@jn3750]

@@antonjoe5611 320 nW, NAB, 15 IPS (2-track).

[@frederickrodger7249]

Great explanation. Thank you.

[@anadialog]

Thank YOU!

[@QoraxAudio]

11:45 But I'm not missing the bell ringing in the background! 😜 About harmonics: The concept of high harmonics creating lower tones is known for a very long time. Back in the first half of the 17th century (just before composers like Scarlatti, Bach and Händel) polytonal music became popular. They discovered that a combination of tones, can create a lower sounding frequency (the resultant tone) than the tones of which it's comprised of. It was sometimes used by organs in churches where there was no room to build meters long pipes to produce the lowest tones.

[@anadialog]

Interesting!

[@mikehydropneumatic2583]

In the world of synthesizers this is put to use on a daily basis. With subtractive synthesis using a low pass filter it will create harmonics that with resonance (with a propper synthesizer) can even self oscillate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mofKepltZtqKeJY I am also a synth nerd :)

[@matthewv789]

Yes and the point of this is that CDs can already reproduce all the audible results of higher pitched sounds just fine. It’s already baked into the sound it’s reproducing in the audible spectrum, including the contributions of those higher overtones.

[@QoraxAudio]

@@matthewv789 High harmonics can be outside of the audible spectrum, so no, those aren't included in formats limited to 20khz.

[@matthewv789]

@@QoraxAudio The only part of them that people hear, the lower frequencies that result from the interaction of the higher frequency components, are definitely included in 20KHz formats. All of this “evidence” that people can hear higher sounds is bunk (aside from 8 year olds being able to hear a little above 20KHz), because it always only the lower pitched byproducts of the interaction of higher frequencies that people are detecting. The effect goes away when using pure sine waves, showing that no, people actually aren’t detecting the higher frequencies themselves in the slightest, but rather the lower pitches within the audible range that arise from the interactions of those higher frequencies. Ergo, sounds that CDs, too, can store and reproduce. I even noticed this on some of the sine wave hearing tests here on KZbin: some of them are distorted enough that they’re not actually pure sine waves, and are detectable when sine waves wouldn’t be. This is because they’re actually generating lower frequencies than claimed (in addition of course to many higher frequency harmonics), and people hear those lower frequencies, even if they can’t hear the actual sine wave at the advertised frequency. (Thus, those ones are useless and misleading “tests”.)

[@ZeusTheTornado]

Very investing and informative, as always

[@doowopper1951]

Even if we could not hear, or detect anything above 20kHz (which I never accepted), IMHO, a system capable of reproducing up to, say 50kHz, should be able to do a better job of reproducing that 20k harmonic frequency than the system that cuts off at 20k. Remember, there are harmonics above 20k, they just get quieter and quieter as the order of harmonic increases. BUT, they are still there IF your system is capable of reproducing them.

[@anadialog]

Exactly!

[@thomaswalder4808]

"Remember, there are harmonics above 20k, they just get quieter and quieter as the order of harmonic increases. BUT, they are still there IF your system is capable of reproducing them." The classic instrument with the highest base tone is a piccolo fluet - which reaches about 5000 Hertz. A Soprano does not even reach 2000 Hertz. So where is a lot of gap for overtones up to the 20 Kilohertz. And as you said - each overtone is quieter as the one below him. On the over side the human ear is getting less sensible the higher the frequency is - so the minimum loudness for a tone to be hearable increases with the frequency. That ends up that a tone with 20 Kilohertz would need to be extremly loud to be hearable while in music overtones at this frequency are extremly quiet. Regardless if your system it capable to reproduce such high frequencies - your ear will not hear it...

[@ianyates7742]

I have to say your defiantly right, I myself have just added Super-tweeters to my system system and have to admit yes definitely is a difference the overall sound stage from bass mid and top end seems to be more open and alive.but only on my vinyl hq recordings 🔊🔊

[@anadialog]

Good job Ian! Are they Townsend?

[@ianyates7742]

ANA[DIA]LOG no unfortunately they where to expensive for my pockets, they are emoto sound air motion transducer ribbon super tweeters. There specs are VERRY comparable to the Townsend tweeters so close it was hard to separate them there frequency response is form 12khz to 40khz 150 wats rated ,90db sensitivity, crossover frequency 12/15/29 kHz. Here is the best bit they only cost me £200.00 pounds second hand 👍

[@MGoudsmits]

So basically the researched show they could measures some stuff but did not prove at all that anything would be audible

[@brandon1902]

I spent hours researching this so-called "hypersonic effect" (hearing beyond 20khz) initiated by the controversial study by Oohashi et al, and the key points are... (1) Carefully conducted attempts to replicate their findings failed to do so. (2) Studies show that not a single person has been found who can distinguish silence from the playback of >20 khz sound. NOT ONE! (3) Intermodulation products at lower frequencies when generating >20 khz frequencies inevitably alter the

[@anadialog]

In this reply of your I see even more bias. I will just repost what I wrote you in teh otehr comment. Thanks for your reply. I presented facts and you still present opinions. Some of those articles are peer reviewd and have a decent impact factor, you must present otehr evidence that is in contrast with that data and not to be the winner of the contest but because (I think) we are genuinely interested in the topic. I start fron the fact that real sound has all frequencies. So on a logic factor, it is obvious that a recording will be better if it contains all frequencies liek in real life. As demostrated in the papers it is something that is present, instruments go way beyond what everyone thaought in the past, it influences our brain (there are dozens of articles on this topic so we can take take for granted, sub and ultra sonics influence our brain). Plus, one of the fundamental aspects that you are not understanding, is that even if we cannot directly hear the upper frequencies of the sound spectrum they greatly influence the audible spectrum in many ways, harmonics, whoch means that new tones are generated and also simple pressure on our ears and body. Turning to vinyl, let's leave aside this prehistoric concept that it is limited in reproduction. The frequency extension can reach 122Khz (!) as demostrated in this article: positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm The fact that you say that a stylus can't stay in contact with a record at 20Khz clearly reveals you limited preparation on the subject. Just get a normal test disc like the HiFi + which contanins several sweps from 20hz to 20Khz (already out of you concept) and if you have a decent cartridge you will see that the stylus will have no problem in tracking that. Try, experiment and then judge!

[@brandon1902]

@@anadialog In science you can't just present cherry-picked research and say the case has been settled. I watched several of your videos so I know you're a smart man, which makes your confidence on this matter all the more confusing. The sum total of research on this (meta analysis) is very clear. Humans simply can't perceive anything above 20 khz and dozens of tests on audio professionals, including artists and mixers, plus those with unusually good hearing (e.g. perfect pitch, the best HINT etc.) clearly shows that nobody can distinguish 20khz capped audio from full spectrum versions (e.g. redbook CD from DSD 1024 or the analog source) below ~80 dBa, assuming proper anti-aliasing to hide the sub-20khz artifacts caused by the frequency cutoff. Above 80 dBa many people, including myself, can detect the noise floor, but the actual signal is just as good. And the fraction of studies that did find a slight statistical advantage for the >20khz versions didn't appropriately address the known modifications to frequencies below 20khz caused by any number of things, such as a the aliasing artifacts caused by all but the best cutoff filiters and the diaphram distortions that inevitably occur and impact

[@anonymex22]

I think that all your battle is nonsense. Beside all your technical data and or all document you pointing. The human brain coupled to our senses is an incredible tool. It's not dynamics, frequency responce that matter at the end , i think it's the information stream. The brain shine on wide information stream. Just put yourself in a room with 20 db natural noise floor for 1 day if you can!!!, then go out, you will feel way better by hearing the noises again. We are dead people without constant stream data to our brain. The more stream you get , the more pleased is your brain. In audio reproduction the 5000000 of bits that makes the best artificial audio stream in digital (today 192khz/24Bits) are nothing compared to the 80000000 particles whose are moving on a 15ips reel to reel today tape even if the dynamics are about 75db and the linear frequency responce around 20Khz. You can easily do a picture comparaison with video. A laserdisc which has """""""poor""""""" technicals carateristics , remains more pleaseant than a 4k or whatever compressed video you want, because of informations stream and also other factor in these case like ultra reconstruction of natural signal... (Used correctly with a CRT) Musicians started seriously to use 96khz digital, in the 2000 (as soon as it was available in fact) they don't care the technical spec, it's was just less distorded, more clear perception, even with a 8 khz effective bandwidth. It's just the musical industries whose wanted to make money (for them) on new economical format that said they didn't care about because low bitrate were making money. That's why several vinyl producer never worked with digital in their production workflow. Digital is just an economical way to send a bistream, never will be better than analog. Perhaps the quantic can change the cards. They are just fooling us like the who's said, and we are just so stupid, that we let ourself be fooled. (Sorry guys, but it's your fault that's the crt is gone, all the analog stuff, and so on you let them steal it from you, for their consummer supremacy, bring back all what you can before they disappear, completely even a 8 track cartridge for it's very cool fun useability , or a grammophone for it's beauty) Bio food, bio video, ... audio, ... social, etc didn't exist before the rise of the digital age!!!!!! Beside of that you should try an ELP turntable....

[@anonymex22]

@ReaktorLeak I'm sorry i couldn't understand your question.

[@brandon1902]

@@anonymex22 Firstly, laserdisk sucks in comparison to even DVD. That's not my opinion. The artifacts, blurring, ghosting, faded colors etc. make it a pain to watch. And 4K Blu-ray, especially with HDR color, is indistinguishable from the highest quality sources. Stop getting wet in your pants over analog. Analog is NEVER truly analog (infinite). Limitations in the sensor, recording material, wiring, editing etc. all add noise to the signal which almost always digitizes it well below 16 bits (in the case of audio), as does the need for a limited carrier signal that can be put on a disc or carried over the airwaves. Secondly, all commercially available analog music sucks even worse and are blown out of the water by CDs. So even if higher frequencies could be heard, which they can't, there's very ugly things that can be heard that are far more important. For example, in the case of vinyl there's a very high noise floor, random imperfections, beyond just pops and skips, various distortions, a very small dynamic range (especially towards the center of the disk), weak bass/treble, significantly washed out fidelity (especially above ~14 khz), significant channel bleeding, plus sound bleeding when quiet sections are near loud sections, and so on. In short, the best vinyl disk in mint condition played on the best vinyl player in existence, again in mint condition, is horrifically bad in comparison to a $20 CD player, so who cares about >20 khz frequencies, even if they can be subtly perceived? In fact, audiophiles, likely because they listen to a lot of loud music, have statistically poorer high frequency response than the general population, and the general adult population can rarely hear past 16 khz.

[@stephencosta6814]

👌👌👍👍👋👋Fantastic review very interesting stuff I've always believed we may not hear it but we sure can feel it I call it something we feel something different we may not be able to describe it very well as to sound but it is an emotional feeling excellent work PS you mention those names and pronounce them very accurately a big fan Steve Costello👋👋👍👍👌👌

[@anadialog]

Thanks Steve!

[@happyfox711]

Congrat's you just threw the most hopelessly hooked audiophiles a bone they can never have... edited: YET - the standard bandwith will probably take a jump over the years (or maybe not before it's officially recogniced by mainstream science how we percieve audio according to the guys you mentioned), but you know how slow this process are. We probably have direct synaptic headsets by then. I'm all for it though, don't get me wrong. And I always believed the human hearing goes beyond what we learn in school. But when it comes to my stereo it will only be as good as my records, so I've reached the upper limit and improvements for me go the other way with subwoofers. Love that bass.

[@cesarlozano776]

Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge. This video has changed my mind a lot about how to perceive music. Thanks

[@wpienaar999]

I have also experienced on a speaker system that even the mid to upper bass response ‘perceived’ to improve after a super tweeter was installed.

[@anadialog]

Exactly!

[@512bb]

Obviously you are not a follower Willem & learned the truth for themself, welcome aboard Sir!!!!

[@vicarsanc]

Totally agree!!

[@Maxime-ho9iv]

Absolutely fantastic video. With sources, omg you’re an angel coming from music heaven. Where is the video « Sound beyond/below 20Hz »?

[@bryfar6178]

Wow! That's interesting and imagine how all the sensory inputs of our new heavenly bodies will be BEYOND anything we are now. Thanks for your vids!

[@audioelitist3677]

Okay, this is more than interesting. I did a test to see if I could perceive this. Here's what I did. I took a CD track. 44,100Hz. Resampled it to 96,000Hz. Copied and mix-pasted the lower octaves after doubling the pitch. Messy, but it puts relevant frequencies there that should in theory create harmonics. At 50, I have excellent hearing to about 18KHz pure tone. Not bad for an aging mess. The frequencies I added shouldn't have been audible to me, but they were. As the matter of fact, the high end sounded more right to me than it ever has before. More crisp, full and defined. More right. Certainly perceived. This article is by far one of the most helpful I've yet come across. Since the music industry deprives me of good quality sound, I take matters into my own hands. I live to find good information like this. Spot on.

[@audioelitist3677]

I'll say one other thing. I've been playing with this now for a while. On some tracks where I introduce what would be considered "outside" human hearing range harmonics... The difference isn't difficult to discern, but actually immediately obvious. I have yet to make a track sound worse by adding these missing harmonics.

[@anadialog]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing your experiment!

[@audioelitist3677]

@@anadialog Absolutely. I love to tinker. I figured it didn't need to be distinct in the way the lower frequencies are in my direct hearing range. Only precise enough so as to create the mentioned harmonics. I cut out thirds of an octave using Fabfilter Pro Q3 bandpass, Linear Phase High, 96DB/Octave, Q Width 5.5. I used this twice to create a neat cutout at each third octave point... 12699.208Hz, 16KHz, 20158.737Hz... and used Elastique Pitch (seemed to be the smoothest plugin for the job) to increase each portion extracted up 12 semi-tones. I did it in thirds of an octave because of the diminishing volume as you reach into the higher frequency bands. Each band I pasted back into the mix 3db less than the last to mimic this diminishing level. I may clean up the process a bit to make a nicer heat map overall. There is an ugly gap between the 22,050Hz cutoff you get with 44.1KHz music and the third of an octave pitched up from the 12.5KHz band. I was thinking of eliminating the top third at 20KHz and replacing it with the third octave band at 10KHz, up an octave, just to moosh the created segments together nicely with the original track. This is where my OCD for a nice looking heat map probably gets in the way of better judgement. It's ugly and hardly accurate, I know.... but really I was more looking for a personal proof of concept (not that I didn't believe the test results, but more because I wanted to experience it first hand). Up that high, I'm not really sure it needs to be all that accurate, but I don't have much to compare to really know with any certainty. I'll say this. It's hard to find people with such good knowledge. I'm thankful to have found your channel. You have a lot to teach.

[@richardriley4415]

Very interesting. I've always wondered.

[@jjcale2288]

Well, far as I can tell, power hi-fi amplifiers and good speaker sets benefit from high freq capabilities ( well beyond 20kHz) and that is because not everything in our recordings is sinewave, on the contrary. Here comes the slew rate to differentiate things. A square wave or a steep impulse needs a huge bandwidth to be credibly reproduced with adequate (realistic) volume.

[@anadialog]

True!

[@h1nicolas]

Seems like you are describing sub harmonics, those higher frequencies are interfering with each other and create frequencies we can hear in the audible range.

[@anadialog]

Yes, but not only. Even those belonging to the upper register interact with our body and brain.

[@venturarodriguezvallejo9777]

Of course, LOWER frequencies than 20 Hz (TWENTY Hz) are perceivable (I'm NOT saying AUDIBLE) for almost every person, no matter the age. Our chest, mainly, craneal sinuses and other cavities of our body succeptible to resonate, give us an illusion of SUB-bass. BUT, higher frequencies ABOVE 20,0000 Hz (twenty THOUSEND Hz) are barely audible even for the more gifted human ears, supposed them in optimal conditions. As an analogy: No one claims humans can SEE beyond a wavelenght (the inverse of the frequency) shorter than 400 nanometers, because no one can say to others he is seeing something clearly invisible for anyone else without taking the risk to be easily proven he is not doing so. Just a very simple experiment will expose this: put a room in absolute darkness, and then illuminate it with exclusively ultraviolet light. If the subject is not mad, he will confess his lie before being blinded forever. Luckily for some type of "audiophiles", ultrasounds are not dangerous, if they are not incredibly subit and loud. Lots and lots of rigurous double-blind well conducted experiments (with thousends of induviduals involved) are for them irrelevant against two or three very dubious papers (not constrasted for other independent teams in any quantity and/or quality to get a consistent statistic sigma) if those papers back up their beliefs. There are FACTS and there are "FAITHS".

[@anadialog]

Wait a moment. This isn't a matter subject to opinion. We must be very careful on this aspect. Currently, only articles published on renown peer reviewed journals with high impact factor can establish what is reliable and scientific. The papers (exept for the magazine article) I have presented in my video on ultrasound belong to that category kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKXRZmpoj652bs0. That is a fact, as the facts they have showed and demonstrated in the articles. They are not trying to advance an hypothesis, no, they are presenting scientific data based on a scientific method. There is no question about this. If we do not accept this then we are blind and just rely on our feelings and prejudice.

[@matthewv789]

@@anadialog Even from your brief description of them it was clear they likely were not proving what they claimed to be proving. All they seemed to prove was that when you combine multiple ultrasonic sounds into a complex waveform, lower-pitched sounds arise in the audible spectrum that we can hear. (Probably very quiet but barely detectable.) But this was already well known for a very long time, and it’s also known that regular audio equipment like CDs can also reproduce these audible byproducts of complex higher-pitched waveforms. So they proved nothing about any need for higher frequency sound reproduction, since all the audible components of that are already baked into the audible spectrum and already reproduced by CDs.

[@Thebarleymasher]

Interesting stuff

[@jn3750]

It should be noted that DSD has a FR of up to 100khz, btw. I have not seen any vinyl (or read anywhere) with an actual (NOT theoretical) FR of above 30khz within +/-3 dB band as stated in the video (and I've been reading Stereophile and the Absolute Sound for 30 + years).

[@anadialog]

Yes, new high-res and DSD di have good numbers but the releases are very low in number and mostly ruined by repeated conversions not only A/D or D/A but also PCM/DSD DSD/PCM...

[@dariusstitilis4744]

great video!!! thanks

[@audioelitist3677]

Wanted to let you know. The knowledge I obtained from this video has been the basis for the greatest amount of improvement I've ever been able to make to music tracks. Here's what I've learned... When I first started generating higher frequencies to simulate harmonics, I noticed an immediate improvement in the high end. I came to some realizations. It's actually not a problem that these harmonics are missing. Not one bit. Why? Because all harmonics really are is a frequency at 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc... that of the signal it's missing from. They can be generated. For example... Let's say we take a 8000Hz tone... At 44.1KHz sampling rate, at the top or bottom of the sine wave, there is no longer adequate data to be able to create a "dip" in the middle accurately. In fact, anything over 7350Hz, a 44.1KHz sampling rate can't accurately express even the first harmonic resonance because it requires 3 points to do (amidst the top or bottom of the sine), and at over 7350Hz, there's less than that. That means 44.1KHz sampling rate is horrifically inadequate to express sound, even well into the human hearing range of pure tones, let alone beyond it. [methodology removed] I'll post it to your email if you want.

[@anadialog]

Wow! That sounds very interesting and clever....I wonder if has already been done...thanks for sharing that! Perhaps you could send me the various files for a listening test to share on the channel...

[@audioelitist3677]

@@anadialog I've been doing it to stuff that's, no doubt, copyrighted, but I could send a few things and let you sort it out. I could also make an instructional video as to how exactly this is done, point for point. What's the best way to send stuff to you?

[@audioelitist3677]

@@anadialog Something else I'm noticing... On older tracks where a lot of harmonics are missing... This methodology is performing miracles, making the older tracks sound truly modern made. Moody Blues tracks for example... It's beyond mind blowing.

[@anadialog]

You can use wetransfer and send it to my mail. Address is in the info tab.

[@audioelitist3677]

@@anadialog So long as it isn't too big, the files are sent. Two tenish second clips of what I started with and ended up with.

[@sebacorp]

What a nice voice recording - what setup are you usung? Microphone, Sound interface, etc... brand model...

[@anadialog]

At that time a Blue Yeti Pro with Blacklion Revolution.

[@arturogalvanmd]

La bellezza dei tuoi video è decisamente fondata sul tuo rigoroso approccio scientifico. Da medico anche sulla base dei miei studi di neuroscience è evidente la differenza tra sensazione è percezione. Lavoro grandioso.

[@anadialog]

Grazie davvero Arturo. Sono questi commenti che mi fanno andare avanti!

[@arturogalvanmd]

ANA[DIA]LOG devi decisamente e non solo perché hai una platea vasta ed internazionale ma perché sai cosa dici e lo dici bene. Io non mi considero un audiofilo sensu stricto però i tuoi video sono molto istruttivi e “100% snake oil free certified”.

[@anadialog]

🤣🤣🤣

[@gustavohannun]

We can feel the vibrations but can't listen. What we want are the sensations when listening music, this is much more than just listen.

[@ogreunderbridge5204]

Sounds very true. But no matter what equipment we create, it cant cure popular musics lacks of talent :D

[@anadialog]

True!

[@johnbaker6461]

Excellent video!

[@JingoLoBa57]

Thanks for bringing this information up and stating in ways that challenge the objectivist narrative.

[@qwiklok]

Its the qualjty of sound that needs the high frequencies to get it right. A violin playing at 5000 has so many overtones pushing well beyond 20k that is needed to reproduce the clean pure sound

[@anadialog]

Exactly

[@wetcat833]

I've been a professional photographer for nearly 40 years and this same argument also goes on when it comes to the resolving power of the human eye. Why do television manufacturers make TVs with resolution and colour depth that is way beyond what the human eye can resolve? The bigger question is why do they look so much better?

[@anadialog]

Good point!

[@Nihilist13]

Thanks for the video. I'm a big proponent of stereo subs to 'see' the lows and by extension hear more music.

[@doowopper1951]

I have stereo subs, and even when the lowest frequency should be above there cut off, I can sense their contribution to the music, not only in frequency response, but in the special aspects of the music. We listen to music with more than our ears!

[@benpit2762]

Thanks for sharing... absolutely loved the sound of church bells in the background!

[@anadialog]

Yes, I live in a small town in Italy out of Florence...a magic place!

[@benpit2762]

ANA[DIA]LOG Yes I knew that... keep doing what you’re doing, awesome! Perhaps something you may want to discuss in an upcoming video are Streamers and how they compare with vinyls and CDs, just a thought, cheers!

[@XjunkieNL]

Hi! Great point. Difficult discussion. As we hardly have any high definition recordings, only when it's artificially introduced by our gear. Still love music live and recorded :) Ciao. /Paul

[@anadialog]

Hi Paul! High-res recordings are present but mostly from unknown artists with so so music...we have great labels with poor artists and vice versa....what a pity!

[@iowaudioreviews]

I agree. Unfortunately so many things would have to change in the music and audio industry I don't see any of this happening. Kinda sad because we have the tech now but instead it will most likely be used to make better lossy formats codecs etc. in the future. I asked a engineer at PS Audio "why is 16/44.1 still the standard with todays technology?". He basically said "because its more than good enough for 99% of listeners so the cost of changing the standard doesn't make sense".

[@alwaysexpandinghorizons6173]

Which cartridge are you using on your Technics? Keep up the good work & Thanks!

[@anadialog]

Its the Dynavector 20X2L. Thanks!

[@RickyMackie]

I have always wondered if there was anything up beyond 20k that’s useful since cats and dogs hear way beyond us. Thank you for doing research and sharing man!

[@ThePSMA]

Great video, clear, synthetic and assertive. I’m a long time audio fan (+45 years), started on vinyl and tape, them CD, then added digital all resolutions including DSD and now I’m back to vinyl which I enjoy a lot - One of my favorite subscriptions-Thanks!

[@anadialog]

Thanks Paulo! I think I can say that we had the exact same itinerary...don't exclude tape. Back in the days we were using it in the wrong way (also because we did not have the money for the good stuf).

[@radiocoffin4185]

Great Video!!!

[@MikeLeePhoto]

Hi mate, have subscribed to your channel, love your topics! Few quick things. Have you heard all DVD Audio, Blu Ray Audio, SACD Audio formats? Would be great to do a show on this alone.Would be interested in the comparison. Re your story on noise Reduction systems, i stilL have my DBX 118 Compander/Expander(Circa 1980) and hope to intergrate it back into my system. it can make your records more dynamic & I find it can help with noise reduction on tape as well which leads me to the great CBS CX noise reduction for discs which was the last bastion for CBS against the take up of CD.Chow!

[@anadialog]

Yes, a comparison is a good idea. I did cover all of them singularly. I agree a good compander, used in the correct way and moment, does bring benefits! I did not cover CX like several other NR systems but, yes, another great solution by Telefunken.

[@okay1904]

ANA(DIA)LOG - absolutely love the tone of your voice - what microphone did you use to record this, and what recording chain - microphone preamp, device, etc. Just wishing to learn from your experience.. The quality of your voice in this video was excellent, do you do any post processing such as EQ and compression/limiting after recording ?

[@anadialog]

Believe it or not, this is the first time that someone asked! I use a Yeti blu pro in analog mode connected to a portable Tascam recorder in mono 96khz/24bits. Then I compress, equalize, limit and normalize the recording with audacity. The quality is much much higher when recorded close to the mouth, like I did for my new outro. But that way you need to keep the mic in front of your mouth and it isn't a good solution for a vlog IMHO.

[@okay1904]

@@anadialog Thanks.. All your hard work IMHO has paid off.. Just confirms that doing the basics is all one needs to, and all the clamour for esoteric equipment is just a lot of hype, by equipment manufacturers and their advertisers/endorsers.. I think your recording @ 96khz may be one of the contributors to the quality I heard... Even though KZbin downsamples and uses data compression algorithms, your starting with a high sample rate is important to note.... And to consider you achieved this in Audacity is a credit to you. I found the end result very natural (as recorded by a microphone!!), consistent and easy to listen to.. I use a pretty highly resolving system - playback @ bit perfect 96K ( so youtube is upsampled to 96K) and some really great D/A converters, with custom DSP speaker correction(using accurate measurement microphones, etc, corrected using 80% generated and some manually corrected convolution impulse files, to implement the EQ correction, rather than using parametric EQ's), so I listen to a pretty flat frequency response end result from my speakers. It is not every day that I hear something that makes me pay attention. Your recording quality certainly did that for me. This is such a great example of doing the most important things, decent recorder, decent microphone, and great post processing skills, using basic effects, to achieve results that are as good as anything I have heard. The voice sounded so natural and pleasing, with the deeper bass in your voice well captured also...Congratulations..on not having to spend ridiculous amounts of money yet obtained a world class result... Your microphone is clearly not cheap and the quality of the result shows.. Very good transient response...

[@megawhitemaster7740]

love it,thx!!

[@colloidalsilverwater15ppm88]

Sensing above 20 kHz? That is really daring ....and interesting, must admit. Hope you're right. I have always been right the same opinion.

[@rumuru98]

Very interesting and informative. Thanks. I will read the papers. I have one question though.. If the vinyl recordings were not recorded with a mic capable of more than 20khz (i presume it is so because most vinyl records were produced way back in the day), how vinyl has difference? In terms of dynamic range, vinyl is worse media than CD.

[@anadialog]

Well, in most cases, yes, it's true. In fact my video is aimed at future recordings, which now with the high-res hipe is starting to happen for a few audiophile recordings. If we are talking about the same albums, no, the CD version, say of Pink Floyd albums, will not have more frequency range or dynamic range than the vinyl version. Actually, the vinyl version will have a better frequency range AND better dynamic range if an original pressing due to the degradation of tape. CD, came out after a while and with issues. They have a limited frequency range and potentially a great dynamic range but tape had a limited one, which gets worse each decade.

[@rumuru98]

@@anadialog Can't agree more. What's the point of better media if the source is already deteriorated? Thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts.

[@ryanchenoweth5673]

Another interesting layer of Hifi to think about! What speaker design do you think best suits to reproduce this extra detail? 🤔

[@anadialog]

Thnsks! You just need a speaker with extended frequency response tweeters or just get a pair of supertweeters like I did.

[@anonymex22]

Hi, Also did the simple test of recording my master cassette tape (studio metal cassette) trought the microphone, and compared with a record of mp4 and wav also trought the microphone the mp4 and wav does produce high, but with less power than the cassette which has result close to my shhh test. Of course the capture has be done with proffessional speaker, like infinity, or woodless, not the best of the best, but sufficient to reproduce signal way above 20khz. Unfortunately i don't think that metal tape will be produced again! :'-( Still waiting for RTM or ATR chrome as the RTM or ATR Ferro are good. Have a good day, Rgds,

[@anonymex22]

Here is a special recording of the 78rpm microgroove of the beattles: ufile.io/gahds02c I have reach a quite good spectrum signal going above the 192Khz sampling rate. Which to have more 78rpm like this!

[@anonymex22]

Hi, I know now why i don't support numeric sound. For another one comment, i've played with very frequency up to 30Khz. I was even myself suprised but i can ears/perceive them up to 30Khz (End range of my speaker) Din norme isn't sufficient for me! Bad news the 22Khz frequency alone at 192/24bit is making me headhache, i've must use 500Khz/24Bit (experimental simulation) to listen to it without having pain. Unfortunately no possibility to listen to the above range whitout head hace and so even with my 500Khz/24bit simulaton. Going back to my tapes... Rgds,

[@anonamouse5917]

Hello. Yan's post from a year ago pokes massive holes in the 'harmonics' argument. Can we benefit from subsonics? You bet we can and any CD transport can send a frequency all the way down to DC. Things I will concede; 1: The closer to the Nyquist frequency, the less complex a waveform can get. At 22.05 kHz a CD can only deliver a square wave. 2: The types of low pass filters (high order) ahead of the ADC to prevent aliasing could be introducing their own distortions. If Sony/Phillips could have standardized on 88.4 or 96kHz in the late 70's there theoretically would be more at the high end and better low pass filters could have been employed. That being said, when I put on the headphones and listen to cymbals and hi-hats, I do not get the feeling I am missing out on high frequencies or that the high frequencies I am hearing are missing detail. As much as I would love to have a Studer and master tapes in my living room, I don't have the money. Vinyl has way too much surface noise for me even to consider. For me, CD's are the only physical medium left standing.

[@pavankuchipudi4763]

awesome info , ' is there website or company which are providing real HiFi songs which are recorded with a 100khz microphone ' .

[@anadialog]

Don't think so! But decent high-res recordings do exist like new DSD recordings...

[@Sheepmansheep]

I purposely chose a speaker that only went up to 20khz because when I had a speaker that went up to 35 khz it made me have ear fatigue really bad. It did sound better and more detailed but harsher on my body. I have very sensitive hearing due to tinnitus and other issues so I could be the exception rather than the norm.

[@Sheepmansheep]

I may experiment with something else that goes beyond 20khz in the future but I need my safe go to speakers as well.

[@anadialog]

That is reasonable, because you are mainly playing material with a lower frequency extension so until we have true high-res records that gear may create issues like yours. I have a pair of ribbon super twitters always on and I love them.

[@valentingheorghe1693]

Keep in mind that in order to produce the final music product, you need to mix all the instruments together. Every instrument note will have a fundamental and harmonics. Some of those harmonics are above or below the human hearing, but nevertheless, they have energy. In order to preserve all the energy of every instrument, with the current equipment capabilities, a lot of dynamic range is required, which, sometimes, simply isn't available. A mixing engineer have to make room in the final mix for all individual instruments and, in order to do that, he has to filter some of that energy (usually the energy below or above the human hearing), thus creating the necessary space for every instrument within the available dynamic range. Note the word: available dynamic range. The available dynamic range dictates the decisions you make when designing and building the audio equipment. Furthermore one has to think how to make that dynamic range available to all people (market) and this is where it begins to get tricky, because one cannot ignore cost. If one wants to be selfish and think only about himself and his own unlimited amount of money, theoretically, he can obtain a piece of equipment with very good specifications. But, in reality, it is not how economics works. When you think about how many people don't have a roof over their head because they simply cannot afford to rent a house, let alone to buy one, you simply tent to be pulled down to earth and take into consideration if building and producing such dream audio equipment is really worth it. Who will buy such equipment (very expensive)? Answer: the selfish ones!

[@anadialog]

True! Several so-called high-res recordings get downgraded during mixing for the reasons you listed.

[@valentingheorghe1693]

@@anadialog Filtering unwanted energy takes place in every mixing stage, regardless of sample rate or bit depth.

[@anadialog]

Yes, but it still remains a non-high res recording while true high-res is degraded changing class. That is a forgery.

[@valentingheorghe1693]

@@anadialog If by changing class you are referring to resample and bit depth conversion, in order to be compliant with a certain format, yes, the resolution is lowered. However, if you want to keep the resolution as high as possible, you have to keep the sample rate and bit depth constant throughout the whole production process. For example, decide the desired resolution as 192 khz / 32 bit and then record, mix and master at the set resolution.

[@anadialog]

Yes, but not everyone does that, that is why certifications are becoming popular

[@stormmotors9943]

people don't need hearing to feel it... under 8Hz is infrasound, which make people euphory or scare, - so sure feel it...

[@anonymex22]

Hi, i did a simple test today, and recorded my voice doing SHhhh at 192khz on a specttrum analyser and i've seen signal until 96Khz, and it was not completly reproduced... (Of course its about 10DB at 96khzBP) have a good day, Rgds'

[@anadialog]

We are missing parts even of a simple shhh...thx for sharing!

[@mcnyregrus]

What, if anything, would make you change your mind about your claims in this video and in the Pink Floyd comparison video (CDs can't sound right because of lack of content above 20 kHz, digitization audibly changes the sound, etc.)?

[@anadialog]

Wait a minute! I Also said something much more important at that foundation of all these high res or not high res issues....microphones! If we are not or have been not used high resolution mics, then a CD is more than sufficient. It is not only a matter of frequency range but let's just settle it there. Finally, a good mastering will make a CD sing so please do not think I am against digital or all that BS. Good mastering with extended resolution meaning wide dynamic range and frequency response, can really blow you out of the water and achieve in some cases results similar or even better than analog. It all is relative to the different factors involved.

[@mcnyregrus]

@@anadialog So I'll change my question: What, if anything, would be able to make you change your mind about your claim that analogue is a better technology than digital (thereby also implying that digitization audibly changes the sound)? And just for the record (no pun intended), you did say that because CDs don't contain information above 20 kHz this is why they will just never sound "right".

[@anadialog]

@@mcnyregrus The answer is when I will be engaged as much as with analog media. In terms of numbers (quantity) digital is superior in most cases, in terms of emotion (quality). Analog IMHO is paramount. Yes, CDs are lacking a lot for a variety of reasons, and not only above 20Khz, but this is a long story. What I was saying is that if the mics employed in the recording do not have an extended frequency response then the damage is greatly reduced.

[@mcnyregrus]

@@anadialog It seems to me like you're only talking about having a preference, rather than how good are the technologies. There's nothing wrong with having a preference, but it's silly to attack a superior technology because you prefer a different type of sound, as in "I like this particular sound (vinyl), therefore the alternative (digital) must be a poor technology". Digital is a better technology in every single way, but you might simply not like how the music is produced, and/or you might simply like how your analog rig changes the sound - which it does. As far as I know there has never been a single phono cartridge in history that has come even close to having as flat a frequency response as the +/- 0.1 dB within the audible spectrum of almost any A/D and D/A converter on the market. I wrote a long explanation about frequency response in the comment section of the video called "The truth about vinyl", which you can read if you like. Just to sum up, most cartridges have a dip in the harshness region and a peak around 10-12 kHz, which will make the music sound more relaxed (the dip), yet airy (the peak). Then many vinylphiles conclude that vinyl must be a better technology, which it's not - it's worse in every single aspect, but they just prefer it. Besides a non-linear frequency response there's poor channel separation, several different kinds of distortion (including inter-channel intermodulation distortion), higher noise level, and wow and flutter. But all these things can make a record sound more pleasant and "fun" (or "emotional" as you say), since we often don't like how "perfect" sounds. I've listened to several vinyl records cut from a digtal master that I preferred, simply because of these changes in sound. And I've bought several thousand records throughout the last 20 years, but despite this digital is still a superior technology.

[@emilfender7123]

Standard CD's go up to 22khz

[@malavista8461]

What You said is truth, but in practice mostly applies to live audio with or without amplification. Vinyl recordings have pre-emphasis and to playback a de-emphasis is used, which is basically somehow a low pass filter; this means that all the ultrasounds would get attenuated. As recordings don't have unlimited amplitude, there will be a limit to the pre-emphasis they receive (wich translates as compression). In playback these ultrasounds would be filtered severely.

[@anadialog]

I agree on the compression, that is almost always present but specific audiophile labels do try to keep as much as possible of the original signal. The RIAA curve is obviously present but the results is a flat response, that is where a precise quality phono preamp does the magic reestablishing what was there.

[@brit-in-czech]

"Stupid CD's" - but I see tons of them next to your record player.

[@anadialog]

The proof that I know what I am talking about ;-)

[@s9209122222]

But it needs to be loud enough to be perceived, right?

[@diesistkeinname795]

Digital can reproduce significantly higher frequencies than 20 kHz. The highest reproduceable frequency is 1/2 the sampling rate. However at that point you're losing information on the waveform of that sound. At that frequency you can not differentiate between a pure sine and let's say a rectangle. That's the main reason higher sampling rates exist, you get more sampling points along each wave of a high frequency sound. With a sufficiently high sampling rate, a digital recording can record any frequency. This is allready beeing done in scientific applications where noises of high frequency need to be analyzed. But that needs special microphones since normal microphones don't realy work at let's say 100 kHz.

[@anadialog]

Indeed. I never said the opposite. I did an entire video in high-res digital: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ7FeJ2hqtucobs

[@mdrummond194]

I’ve been thinking about super tweeter’s for awhile now. Is there actually any quality difference between say budget and expensive fancy “high end” ones?

[@anadialog]

Materials and geometry clearly have an impact so better these are the better the sound. Usually the better costs more. The trick is to find the middle ground, high quality at the correct price.

[@screamtrumpetguy]

You might want to read that Ashihara study again. This was their conclusion: "It was concluded that ultrasonic components that were inaudible as a single tone could not have significant influence on impression of complex sounds." Their findings are the opposite of what you present them to be. The debate here is comparable to the debate over whether the Earth is flat.

[@anadialog]

You might want to watch again my video AND analyze the English grammar of what you just reported. I said exactly this: as single sine wave, a single tone, is not perceivable (in fact in nature there is no pure sine waves) but what you did not report is that they confirm that multiple tones played through a single loudspeaker, which create harmonics, is indeed perceived!

[@Uygkuyfkutfkytfkutfv]

@@anadialog you were very clear, I understood clearly from the video what you were saying.

[@Le_Lys_Eclectique]

Very interesting and I have also read a paper where they show how high frequencies perceived by our brain (no through ears) can even reach much higher frequencies up to 100 kHz or thereabouts... So my questo is, I’m passionate about electronic music that does not have real instruments so it does not need microphones (that are 20 kHz limited) does this mean that a music file sold as 24 Bit / 96 or 192 kHz can be truly that hires? Or even in the production on electronic music can be limited to 20 kHz intentionally and then, for selling it as hires, ne transformed in hires audio? Thank you so much!!!

[@anadialog]

High-res of analog recordings is not just a matter of frequency extension but also of resolution and dynamics so yes, it does make sense and if they used a mic with an extra frequency extension then that will be on the high-res version and not on the CD, very rare tough. The rest of the music is very limited, compressed for bigger volume and easier playback on all phones and crap like that.

[@Le_Lys_Eclectique]

@@anadialog thank you so much! So also on music download sites that sells hires songs don't have a really hires music, even if is lossless and maybe reaches 24 bit / 96 (or 192 kHz)? And, last question, on a real sound that comes out of the speakers, what range extension has a 24bit/96kHz song? I mean 96kHz what doe sit mean? How many real maximum kHz will be able to hear to good speakers?

[@anadialog]

Some are true high-res and some are upsampled CDs. Qobuz say they are certified...may be...in any case sometimes the quality is stellar and sometimes the CD sounds better. It's a gambling game! For your next question, you are mixing sampling rate with frequency extension. The frequency extension is half the sampling rate. So a CD has 44.1Khz sampling rate, tye maximum frequency allowed is 22.05khz

[@Le_Lys_Eclectique]

@@anadialog ok thank you! Or, better said, GRAZIE! As found out you are italian! :D

[@BluesBrethrenofPolishPeoplesR]

Ineresting. Thank you. To me, though, more devastating is jitter or time inaccuracies in poor digital reproduction than just frequencies (we talking cd and higher). Now I finally can enjoy Tidal Master digital music after getting sabre dac, I can compare it with my vinyl copies on type II cassette recordings experience from the analog past (with no crack and hiss, of course).

[@anadialog]

Is the DAC MQA?

[@BluesBrethrenofPolishPeoplesR]

@@anadialog yes, it is MQA, but this Sabre chip delivers a much better sound in every format, too, even without engaging MQA feature. 👍🏻

[@rasc0030]

Oh boy..... They never give up.

[@mosinatic2011]

I have 3 polk signature speakers that supposidly have tweeters that are certified good up to 40khz,but i dont know if i am perceiving up to that level.,maybe perception also drops with age, i am 57.

[@anadialog]

Cool! It will always contribute to deliver better low and mid frequencies, just like a subwoofer in the mids regardless your hearing capabilities.

[@SWRMR]

Whenever you refer to "digital audio" frequency response, I assume you are talking about CD quality digital audio, because as we know, Hi-Res digital audio (particularly DSD128+) can go way up in the spectrum.

[@anadialog]

I mentioned CD all along the video. Yes, of course high-res digital can deliver infinitely higher frequencies...but only potentially because unfortunately they cut all off to make sure anybody can play anything anywhere....so sad...

[@ranbymonkeys2384]

Most of the time the human brain, especially with our young people, thinks that if one can't see, hear, taste, feel or smell something that it doesn't exist. That's why talking with humans can be such a pain in the ass. Aren't they wonderful.

[@pavankuchipudi4763]

one more question !! " can we hear difference between Spotify (premium) and Tidal (MQA) music with Hi-Res headphones ".

[@anadialog]

I sure can! Obviously if you are just going to hear house music Spotify is more than enough. Remember that in order to have the full resolution of MQA (full origami unfolding) you need a dedicated DAC (that is why in the end I prefer Qobuz, which is lossless while MQA is lossy).

[@emilfender7123]

Absolutely, Tidal tracks sound better, they are punchier, details are cleaner, soundstage is bigger, there is more air. Even apple music sounds better than Spotify because of better audio codec. But spotify is better for discovering new artists.

[@matthewv789]

Possibly, since MQA adds a large amount of noise between 15-20KHz. So if you can still hear much above 13KHz, MQA will probably sound “airier”.

[@xiaobaozha]

@@matthewv789 …have seen you add the same/similar comment on another video re MQA. The noise you are referring to will not be present unless the MQA file is played back with no decoding/unfolding at all. Even if you are only using the Tidal app, the decode/first unfold is completed and thus the effects of the slow roll off minimum phase filter (used in MQA by design) will be moved away from the audio band. If you use an MQA renderer or even better a full hardware decoder then this is handled even more effectively. This is also true of the embedded ‘region b and c’ ultrasonics, these are moved away from the audible band. In this manner MQA is audibly lossless to 48 khz and only lossy above 48 khz (again by design).

[@xiaobaozha]

@@anadialog …I enjoy both Qobuz and Tidal (with full hardware decoding). MQA is only demonstrably lossy above 48 khz (by design) as the ‘region c’ ultrasonics (above 48 khz) embedded in MQA are only an approximation of those present in the original hires master. That approximation can be very close though and anyway such ultrasonics are often mostly noise anyway.

[@jeandejazz6426]

High Fidelity lacking in our recordings? No true high fidelity recordings? Come on... my dog hears frequencies from a dog whistle... does he hear in better fidelity then me ? Yes of course you are right , there are frequencies way above our typical hearing levels but that's the case when we hear live music or whatever. Live performances are also good or not so good based on the general acoustics of the room the musicians are playing in, along with a number of factors such as reverberation, the speakers used etc...etc... I have friend that has a 10 000$ sound system composed of a 2000$ turn table a 6 000$ hand crafted amplifier and a set of 2000$ speakers. Last Christmas I was at his house with my 17 year old son and he played some parts of this album for us: "Moonlight Serenade" by Ray Brown and Laurindo Almeida on the Jeton record label. I was floored and my son too. He told me after : " "Dad that is the nest sound recording I have ever heard, it's just like the bass and the guitar were right in front of me with no filter whatsoever. " I agreed. Check out that particular recording on vinyl or compact disc and tell me what you think. If that's not real Hi-Fi then I don't know what Hi-Fi is... keep up the interesting reflections!😉

[@anadialog]

Hi there, well I did not say there are no high fidelity recordings. I said that we do not have many true high-resolution albums. The best would be to have the whole spectrum but obviously, especially with recordings with a small number of instruments they are very good. Otherwise I wouldn't be developing this channel and my love for music and its forms of reproduction.

[@JingoLoBa57]

Did he do a double blind test? Perhaps what we are perceiving is backwards harmonics, that are around 6k and seem like shimmer or atmospherics. Speculation of course, but that is part of science too.

[@martifingers]

Very interesting and amongst the best things I have read on this debate. However are we sure that the lab results would translate to real world differences? Eg are the frequencies above 20KHz or so present with sufficient amplitude to be "perceptible"? In addition to mic technology, are we sure that loudspeakers can faithfully reproduce (ie linearly) such frequencies? One other thing. I have always been sceptical of film-maker's enthusiasm for 3D. The argument is it's so much more vivid and "realistic". Perhaps that's not what (the art of?) audio is for, certainly in some genres.

[@hernancantu1]

Saludos desde México!!!

[@anadialog]

Hola dall'Italia!

[@drkevintan]

Thanks once again for a most educational and insightful video. My question is this: If, as you say, no microphone has yet been designed to capture the ultra high frequencies, how then can those frequencies be captured on tape or vinyl?

[@anadialog]

The standard models mainly in the past had the classic 20hz-20khz design. Now things are changing with high-res music and DSD. There are recordings done with extended frequency response mics. I have shown a mic in the video that is capable of reaching 100Khz. With similar mics they recorded and cut even higher signals on vinyl. Here is the experiment: www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm

[@drkevintan]

@@anadialog Thanks for your clarification. I misunderstood you to be saying that current vinyl records are capable of reproducing frequencies beyond 20kHz.

[@anadialog]

@@drkevintan Oh, I see. Well, if those frequencies where present and cut on the vinyl of course they will be there but that rarely was and is the case.

[@mehmetcanal5520]

AUDİOPHİLES PLEASE HELP. WHERE MAY I FİND MUSİC ON THE NET BEYOND THE `20Hz-20,000Hz` ? do SO CALLED `.flac`files really have frequencies outside the CD standard ? should I limit the search to Analog Recordings digitized into `flac`format ?

[@anadialog]

Start with high-res classical music od native dsd recordings

[@jinxbeast392]

I wish we could have a piece of technology to allow us to hear above high frequencies , maybe in the far future :)

[@anadialog]

That could be! But not needed. Let's start to use as a standard high-res mics.

[@moogoomoogoo5990]

All I know is my dogs howl when I play your videos😂😂😂