[Edmund[_2_]]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:01:58 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Edmund" wrote in message
... 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:

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 )

Then you are waiting for the Second Coming and the New Heaven and the
New Earth! ;-)

Bt that I mean that the (current) laws of physics are running strongly
against you.

Creating high frequencies at high amplitudes takes more energy.

Not so much and even so, I don't care.

Not so much? All other things being equal, energy is proportional to
frequency. You say you don't care but you actuall do or at least
should.

Well I admit I am a bit rusty here, but are you saying the ultrasonic sound
of a bat requires more energy to produce then the 7 Hz sound of an elephant?
Looking at instruments too I see the same phenomenon, low frequencies require
more air to be moved and much bigger instruments en more power to drive these
instruments. In loudspeakers too, the bass is bigger and need far more energy
then a tweeter.
Anyway it is not a problem to deliver the energy to drive a tweeter for the
very high frequencies.



For thousands of years people have been designing and building musical
instruments to be as audible and pleasing as possible. Evolution did
the same with our voices. This means that they very intentionally
*avoid wasting energy* with frequencies that are barely heard or not
heard at all.

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
quite a few instruments that produce sounds above 20k.

Simply producing any sound at all should be of no interest to you. What
you should matter to all of us is whether we can hear those sounds. To
hear a sound it has to be above the threshold of audibility and not
masked by other, stronger sounds. The flaw in the article you cite is
that it ignores actual audibility. Think of that article as being a
journalist for the Detrot Free Press making a big fuss out of the fact
that there is a huge pile of pure gold only a few hundred miles from
Detroit. It's called Ft. Knox and its presence does not enrich
Detroiters any more than anybody else in this country. In its way, its
existence is mostly irrelevant to us all.

The existance of microscopic sounds at high frequencies is a truism, and
generally meaningless to musical enjoyment.

Then every change from silence requires an infinite bandwidth to make
it perfect.

Several flaws there. First off, nothing in the real world is perfect.
Secondly, what we seek is reproduction that is audibly
indistinguishable from the origionial soun, not some sound that all
conforms to some imaginary criteria that some audiophile or journalist
makes up.

Just shaking your keyring produces frequencies above 20k but -agreed-
that isn't
a sound that is recognizable as music is but it does show that such
high frequencies are easily produced.

Not news to reasonably knowlegable people. No concern to more
knowlegable people.

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


The problem is that these frequencies have been recorded, so *someone*
has recorded them. Once recorded, a vast number of independent
experimenters have found that their presence or absence makes no
noticable difference.

I read about it and also that one younger man ( boy) scored a ten out
of ten and thus he was able to tell the difference.
Then people tell a lot of stories about high end and I like to hear
it for myself.

Edmund