[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:36 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Edmund" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:15:38
+0000, Audio Empire wrote:
=20
And we can debate for a long time since there are no recordings
recorded with much higher frequencies then 22kHz. I for one am still
waiting for such real high res recordings. ( don't know about SACD
since I cannot make such files visible.... yet )
=20
Then you are waiting for the Second Coming and the New Heaven and the
New Earth! ;-)
=20
Bt that I mean that the (current) laws of physics are running strongly
against you.
=20
Creating high frequencies at high amplitudes takes more energy.

Not so much and even so, I don't care.
=20
For thousands of years people have been designing and building musical
instruments to be as audible and pleasing as possible. Evolution did th=
e
same with our voices. This means that they very intentionally *avoid
wasting energy* with frequencies that are barely heard or not heard at
all.
=20
Good luck trying to get the musicans of the world to switch over to
musical instruments that make SACDs sound different than CDs! ;-)

I read " there is life above 20kHz " ( or something ) and there are=20
quite a few instruments that produce sounds above 20k. Then every=20
change from silence requires an infinite bandwidth to make it perfect.
Just shaking your keyring produces frequencies above 20k but -agreed- tha=
t isn't
a sound that is recognizable as music is but it does show that such high
frequencies are easily produced.

So as long noone is recording these high frequencies in real music it rem=
ains
pointless to discus whether or not it is audible.

Edmund



=20