Re: High-frequency hearing in humans

[Neil Waterman <neil.waterman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not wishing to pile on, but unfortunately I have to say I too am very skeptical of such claims....

Unless the replay system these claimed differences are heard on is really top-notch, there is no way this can make any sense. 

As Bob notes below, there are a very small fraction of loudspeakers with any output of meaningful quality beyond 18-20kHz, let alone 24kHz and seriously... good luck finding with something out to 48kHz.

Even if the replay system is able to provide a linear response out to 48kHz, unless he/you are creating/recording the source material, I don't know where/what that might be coming from? And remember the recording system/microphone/etc need to have the same wide-band response for this to make any sense....).

Regards, Neil

www.asti-usa.com



On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Bob Masta wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2011 at 23:08, Kevin Austin wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> Anecdotally, I know someone who can 'hear a difference'
>> between a 96kHz and 192kHz recording. He's not sure
>> "what" the difference is, but he hears it. [He's one of
>> the few people whose hearing I really trust.] This
>> implies [somehow] that there are / were people who had
>> this 'extra' advantage of extremely wide frequency
>> response. 
> 
> I must say I am extremely skeptical that he is actually 
> hearing a frequency response difference.  If these are 
> commerical music recordings, then I would ask what else is 
> different besides the sample rates... a "premium" recording 
> might also use different microphones, different placement, 
> etc, etc.
> 
> Not intending to offend your friend, but I have noticed 
> that, in general, when such "extreme audiophile" claims are 
> made they never involve double-blind testing.  Admittedly, 
> that might be very difficult to do properly, so that a 
> stray perceptual cue didn't give away the game.  But 
> otherwise this is a case of extraordinary claims needing 
> extraordinary evidence.
> 
> If he really can hear a difference in sample rates, and it 
> is not due to anti-aliasing filter artifacts, then 
> presumably he could be tested entirely with 192 kHz 
> material that had various cutoff frequencies applied, or 
> (better yet) using synthesized clicks having controlled 
> spectral content.  
> 
> And note that getting headphones or speakers that have 
> acceptable output above even 24 kHz is not trivial, and 
> above 48 kHz is probably going to involve a quest in 
> itself.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Bob Masta
> 
>            D A Q A R T A
> Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
>           www.daqarta.com
> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
>    Science with your sound card!
>