Can you hear above 20khz? Test files included.

[Johnny2Bad]

About 10 years ago, my hearing stopped @ about 15 KHz. I should go get tested again.

That would be your steady-state hearing limit. We're discussing transient-state hearing perception, which is different, and almost certainly in your case higher. Otherwise, we could not discern the location of sound-generating objects to the level that can be easily demonstrated ... a few inches to the left or right, with your eyes closed.

There is no way that would be possible if your transient state hearing sense was limited to 15 KHz. Admittedly this makes use of both ears, but none the less, it's an ability to perceive sound (versus just "hearing" sound).

Now, this is all done by the brain, not just the ear proper. But the brain does all our auditory processing, and takes into account many factors besides just the input from the ear nerves. Our skin and even our eyeballs are pressure sensitive, for example, and the brain uses both to process sound, amongst other senses (vibration, in the skeletal system is another, although usually assumed to be a low-frequency sense).

To fully understand it, you have to realize that our ears are a primary sound processing sense, but not the exclusive sound processing sense. And you have to realize that "hearing" is a complex system, processed in our mind, not in our ears but with input from our ears. A subtle, but important difference.

Is it "hearing" if you are aware of a sonic phenomena that is above x frequency even if an individual ear cannot perceive it in a steady state? My position is if it's a sound and we can perceive it, then it is.

When I was young I became friends with a deaf person (deaf from birth) who lived next door to one of my friends. Later an old girlfriend married a teacher to the deaf, who confirmed some things that Elvis (that was the neighbour's name) told me, with regard to his students.

Elvis loved music. He couldn't hear a single note, but was none the less aware of the sound being produced via other senses in his body. I spent many hours playing LPs with him and other friends on my system at the time. It was a profound learning experience to me.

Now, what all this has to do with audio and our sound systems, or even our enjoyment of music itself, is a little less clear. I can't say I have the answers to that question, but it is something I think about and I am open to learning more about it.

 

[yepimonfire]

That would be your steady-state hearing limit. We're discussing transient-state hearing perception, which is different, and almost certainly in your case higher. Otherwise, we could not discern the location of sound-generating objects to the level that can be easily demonstrated ... a few inches to the left or right, with your eyes closed.

There is no way that would be possible if your transient state hearing sense was limited to 15 KHz. Admittedly this makes use of both ears, but none the less, it's an ability to perceive sound (versus just "hearing" sound).

Now, this is all done by the brain, not just the ear proper. But the brain does all our auditory processing, and takes into account many factors besides just the input from the ear nerves. Our skin and even our eyeballs are pressure sensitive, for example, and the brain uses both to process sound, amongst other senses (vibration, in the skeletal system is another, although usually assumed to be a low-frequency sense).

To fully understand it, you have to realize that our ears are a primary sound processing sense, but not the exclusive sound processing sense. And you have to realize that "hearing" is a complex system, processed in our mind, not in our ears but with input from our ears. A subtle, but important difference.

Is it "hearing" if you are aware of a sonic phenomena that is above x frequency even if an individual ear cannot perceive it in a steady state? My position is if it's a sound and we can perceive it, then it is.

When I was young I became friends with a deaf person (deaf from birth) who lived next door to one of my friends. Later an old girlfriend married a teacher to the deaf, who confirmed some things that Elvis (that was the neighbour's name) told me, with regard to his students.

Elvis loved music. He couldn't hear a single note, but was none the less aware of the sound being produced via other senses in his body. I spent many hours playing LPs with him and other friends on my system at the time. It was a profound learning experience to me.

Now, what all this has to do with audio and our sound systems, or even our enjoyment of music itself, is a little less clear. I can't say I have the answers to that question, but it is something I think about and I am open to learning more about it.

Localization of sound at high frequencies is determined by HRTF, or the difference in timbre and volume from the right and left ear based on the way sound diffracts around the head, and differences in timbre due to the shape of the ear. Lower frequency localization is primarily determined temporally, the difference in the time it takes to reach both ears. Sub Bass below ~60-80hz isn’t equally localized for two reasons, for one, the size of sub bass wavelengths are huge in relation to driver diameter, so speakers radiate low frequencies in a spherical 360 degree pattern, secondly, the wavelengths are so large in comparison to the size of our head that is completely refracts around it.

Biologically speaking, I’d consider “hearing” a sound to be anything that activates the auditory cortex. Recent studies show that at sufficient spl, frequencies as low as 8hz are audible. The upper limit is due to age and genetic differences, along with cumulative hearing damage. Some people probably just can’t hear above 16khz for genetic reasons, some can’t hear above 10khz because they’ve damaged their hearing over time, and some people can perceive as high as 22khz (mostly teens and young adults).

There has also been studies shown that ultrasonic frequencies as high as 50khz are perceptible when added to music, imparting a different emotional response, whether or not this perception is an auditory perception or something else remains to be seen. I know myself that even though I have exceptional hearing, 1.5khz above the standard accepted max upper limit, I just can’t hear pure sine waves above 22khz no matter how high I crank the volume.

I think conduction of audio through our body, especially bone conduction at low frequencies really has an effect on our perception of sound. I have headphones with a ruler flat frequency response down to 5hz, and even though my sub rolls off at 25hz, I much prefer the bass produced by it to headphones. There’s just no substitute for the tactile perception of low frequencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[everettT]

I need to attend the Wiley E Coyote Auditory School

 

[yepimonfire]

I’d also add, Using headphones capable of reproduction below 20hz and above 20khz, my “useful” perception of sound ranges from 15hz-18khz. 21.5khz is just as loud in comparison to 20khz and 15hz sounds equally as loud as 20hz to my ears, I say 18khz is my max upper limit because 20khz+ sounds much quieter than 18khz, and playback of full range pink noise and low pass pink noise at 18khz is imperceptible in an abx test. Super
High frequencies above
18khz are like to be masked with full bandwidth sound. Though I can hear 8 hz at loud enough volume, it requires an extra 10dB in volume to be perceived in comparison to 15-20hz.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shadyJ]

I’d also add, Using headphones capable of reproduction below 20hz and above 20khz, my “useful” perception of sound ranges from 15hz-18khz. 21.5khz is just as loud in comparison to 20khz and 15hz sounds equally as loud as 20hz to my ears, I say 18khz is my max upper limit because 20khz+ sounds much quieter than 18khz, and playback of full range pink noise and low pass pink noise at 18khz is imperceptible in an abx test. Super
High frequencies above
18khz are like to be masked with full bandwidth sound. Though I can hear 8 hz at loud enough volume, it requires an extra 10dB in volume to be perceived in comparison to 15-20hz.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure you can hear these super low infrasonic frequencies as well as these ultrasonic frequencies? That is not something you can establish while just playing test tones through your own personal headphones. You would need audiometric testing for that, and I don't think that many audiometry labs test for infrasonic frequencies. You would need to first establish that 8 Hz is what you are actually hearing. Very few audio systems in the world can play 8 Hz cleanly at high SPLs. My guess is you are hearing the third and fifth harmonic. As for ultrasonic frequencies, how do you know you are not hearing a subharmonic distortion? You need to look at what sound is actually being produced in an RTA before knowing what you can actually hear.

 

[everettT]

Are you sure you can hear these super low infrasonic frequencies as well as these ultrasonic frequencies? That is not something you can establish while just playing test tones through your own personal headphones. You would need audiometric testing for that, and I don't think that many audiometry labs test for infrasonic frequencies. You would need to first establish that 8 Hz is what you are actually hearing. Very few audio systems in the world can play 8 Hz cleanly at high SPLs. My guess is you are hearing the third and fifth harmonic. As for ultrasonic frequencies, how do you know you are not hearing a subharmonic distortion? You need to look at what sound is actually being produced in an RTA before knowing what you can actually hear.

Based on the gear I have no doubt it wasn't 8hz or 12hz or 16hz.

 

[killdozzer]

My guess is you are hearing the third and fifth harmonic.

This is nice. I'm still getting some of the answers I needed. I was playing a Test CD tune of 25Hz, which shouldn't be possible with the speakers I have. Still, I heard something. My guess was same as yours.

 

[yepimonfire]

I did use an rta, it showed a clean peak at 21.5khz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[<eargiant]

Even when you don't think you hear it, you can perceive and prefer it. How it gets to you brain is another matter but it definitely gets there as seen below.


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

 

[killdozzer]

Even when you don't think you hear it, you can perceive and prefer it. How it gets to you brain is another matter but it definitely gets there as seen below.


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

This is complete BS and the very reason I always told you, no matter how you yourself prefer to see yourself, you're really a complete list of marketing hot air.

This is not even Malcolm Gladwell level and his already got called for what it is.

 

[<eargiant]

This is complete BS and the very reason I always told you, no matter how you yourself prefer to see yourself, you're really a complete list of marketing hot air.

This is not even Malcolm Gladwell level and his already got called for what it is.

The Journal of Neurophysiology publishes original articles on the function of the nervous system. All levels of function are included, from the membrane and cell to systems and behavior. Experimental approaches include molecular neurobiology, cell culture and slice preparations, membrane physiology, developmental neurobiology, functional neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, systems electrophysiology, imaging and mapping techniques, and behavioral analysis.

How is a study published in The Journal of Neurophysiology supported by EEG scans marketing BS?

http://jn.physiology.org/

 

[Irvrobinson]

This is complete BS and the very reason I always told you, no matter how you yourself prefer to see yourself, you're really a complete list of marketing hot air.

This is not even Malcolm Gladwell level and his already got called for what it is.

While I'm not an expert in any of the relevant physiology fields (by any means), that paper <eargiant posted looks as scientifically relevant as any I've seen posted here. Of course, the rest of the signal path has to be up to this sort of wide-range response, especially the speakers, and I doubt most are. Since some tweeters have a break-up mode above 22KHz or so, with a big resulting amplitude peak, it might explain why some people actually don't like 24/192 audio.

 

[killdozzer]

The Journal of Neurophysiology publishes original articles on the function of the nervous system. All levels of function are included, from the membrane and cell to systems and behavior. Experimental approaches include molecular neurobiology, cell culture and slice preparations, membrane physiology, developmental neurobiology, functional neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, systems electrophysiology, imaging and mapping techniques, and behavioral analysis.

How is a study published in The Journal of Neurophysiology supported by EEG scans marketing BS?

http://jn.physiology.org/

I'm glad you ask. Your link doesn't link to the article, but the journal itself, so, if I could ask you to quote, directly, where it says that some registered brain activity reads as "buy SACD", please? This is the part we're missing and it is the ONLY important part for our discussion.

And, please, let's not turn this into 16-17 pages. There's a simple end to this discussion, we need a paragraph where it says that registering brain activity can be as precisely interpreted as you suggest.

 

[<eargiant]

I'm glad you ask. Your link doesn't link to the article, but the journal itself, so, if I could ask you to quote, directly, where it says that some registered brain activity reads as "buy SACD", please? This is the part we're missing and it is the ONLY important part for our discussion.

And, please, let's not turn this into 16-17 pages. There's a simple end to this discussion, we need a paragraph where it says that registering brain activity can be as precisely interpreted as you suggest.

I see, you jumped the gun and commented (ad hominen I might add) without even reading the entire study.

The original link in post #49 should have taken you right to the article, it works on my end and it seems Irv was able to access it also. I'll try it again again:

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

Other than that I have no idea what point you're trying to make. My post and linked study are very relevant to the title of this thread which is "Can you hear above 20khz? ..."

As requested, to make it easier for you here are two paragraphs that support my comment that "Even when you don't think you hear it, you can perceive and prefer it."

But don't stop with the two paragraphs I quoted below, please take the time to read the entire study.


"Despite the fact that nonstationary HFCs were not perceived as sounds by themselves, we demonstrated that the presentation of sounds that contained a considerable amount of nonstationary HFCs (i.e., FRS) significantly enhanced the power of the spontaneous EEG activity of alpha range when compared with the same sound lacking HFCs (i.e., HCS). In parallel experiments employing exactly the same stimulus and methods, PET rCBF measurement revealed that FRS activated the deep-lying brain structures, including the brain stem and thalamus, compared with HCS. In addition, subjective evaluation by questionnaire revealed that FRS intensified the subjects' pleasure to a significantly greater extent than HCS did. We conclude, therefore, that inaudible high-frequency sounds with a nonstationary structure may cause non-negligible effects on the human brain when coexisting with audible low-frequency sounds. We term this phenomenon the “hypersonic effect” and the sounds introducing this effect the “hypersonic sound.” We do not think that the hypersonic effect is specific to the sound material used in the present study because we previously confirmed, by EEG analysis, that the same effect can be introduced by different sound sources containing a significant amount of nonstationary HFCs"

and

"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference toward FRS, give strong evidence supporting the existence of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena. Additional support for this hypothesis could come from future noninvasive measurements of the biochemical markers in the brain such as monoamines or opioid peptides."

 

[killdozzer]

I see, so you jumped the gun and commented (ad hominen I might add) without even reading the entire study.

I see. So once again (as in every thread/post with you) you don't have the required answer, but are quick to disagree. So once again we do need 16-17 pages of chasing our own tails?

The original link in post #49 should have taken you right to the article, it works on my end and it seems Irv was able to access it also. I'll try it again again:

No need. Simply copy/paste the paragraph. What's the problem... Since it doesn't work for me, why not?

Other than that I have no idea what point you're trying to make. My post and linked study are very relevant to the title of this thread which is "Can you hear above 20khz? ..."

No idea, again? Well, let me tell you;
"you can perceive and prefer it."
There it is. Now, could you put some led behind this claim?

You see, when someone writes this:
"My post and linked study are very relevant to the title of this thread which is "Can you hear above 20khz? ..."
After writing this:
you can perceive and prefer it.

It's, eerrrrm... Help me find the right word... mmm mm...

 

[<eargiant]

I see. So once again (as in every thread/post with you) you don't have the required answer, but are quick to disagree. So once again we do need 16-17 pages of chasing our own tails?



No need. Simply copy/paste the paragraph. What's the problem... Since it doesn't work for me, why not?



No idea, again? Well, let me tell you;
"you can perceive and prefer it."
There it is. Now, could you put some led behind this claim?

You see, when someone writes this:
"My post and linked study are very relevant to the title of this thread which is "Can you hear above 20khz? ..."
After writing this:
you can perceive and prefer it.

It's, eerrrrm... Help me find the right word... mmm mm...

The "required answer" is clearly spelled out in the link I originally provided. It's not my fault it does not work for you. If you're still having trouble copy and paste what I highlighted in red below into a Google search. That should take you right to to the study. Please read it before you comment again:

Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect
Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, Hiroshi Shibasaki
Journal of Neurophysiology Published 1 June 2000 Vol. 83 no. 6, 3548-3558 DOI

There is no "problem" other than the one you are trying to create, re-read post #54 which I was editing while you replied. I quoted two paragraphs for you to start with while you locate the study. Here it is again:


As requested, to make it easier for you here are not one but two paragraphs that support my comment that "Even when you don't think you hear it, you can perceive and prefer it."

But don't stop with the two paragraphs I quoted below, please take the time to read the entire study.


"Despite the fact that nonstationary HFCs were not perceived as sounds by themselves, we demonstrated that the presentation of sounds that contained a considerable amount of nonstationary HFCs (i.e., FRS) significantly enhanced the power of the spontaneous EEG activity of alpha range when compared with the same sound lacking HFCs (i.e., HCS). In parallel experiments employing exactly the same stimulus and methods, PET rCBF measurement revealed that FRS activated the deep-lying brain structures, including the brain stem and thalamus, compared with HCS. In addition, subjective evaluation by questionnaire revealed that FRS intensified the subjects' pleasure to a significantly greater extent than HCS did. We conclude, therefore, that inaudible high-frequency sounds with a nonstationary structure may cause non-negligible effects on the human brain when coexisting with audible low-frequency sounds. We term this phenomenon the “hypersonic effect” and the sounds introducing this effect the “hypersonic sound.” We do not think that the hypersonic effect is specific to the sound material used in the present study because we previously confirmed, by EEG analysis, that the same effect can be introduced by different sound sources containing a significant amount of nonstationary HFCs"

and

"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference toward FRS, give strong evidence supporting the existence of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena. Additional support for this hypothesis could come from future noninvasive measurements of the biochemical markers in the brain such as monoamines or opioid peptides."

Is that enough "led" [sic] to back up my statement for you? If you want more you'll have to read the study for yourself.

Next time, it would behoove you to actually read what one is referencing before calling them out on a statement they made.

At this point I think you owe me an apology.

 

[haraldo]

Yeah...... I can hear the bats going crazy

 

[shadyJ]

I have read through that study, and it does not support the notion that humans can hear above the usual 20 kHz range. The authors suggest that the ultrasonic pressure waves may be modulating pressure waves within the audible range, but I wouldn't even jump to that conclusion. How do the authors know that the equipment isn't causing IMD products that are jumping into the audible range? The wider bandwidth of the signal, the greater the IMD will be. We can't hear ultrasonic frequencies, but we may be able to hear byproducts of ultrasonic playback.

 

[yepimonfire]

I'm glad you ask. Your link doesn't link to the article, but the journal itself, so, if I could ask you to quote, directly, where it says that some registered brain activity reads as "buy SACD", please? This is the part we're missing and it is the ONLY important part for our discussion.

And, please, let's not turn this into 16-17 pages. There's a simple end to this discussion, we need a paragraph where it says that registering brain activity can be as precisely interpreted as you suggest.

Actually DSD sucks if you want ultrasonic response, as there is a ton of quantization noise above 20khz. DSD can’t even be mixed and edited natively, and requires conversion to pcm and back to dsd to edit in a DAW, each conversion adds additional noise. From a technical standpoint, DSD is worse than pcm, from an objective standpoint, listeners cannot differentiate between pcm and DSD.

 

[yepimonfire]

I have read through that study, and it does not support the notion that humans can hear above the usual 20 kHz range. The authors suggest that the ultrasonic pressure waves may be modulating pressure waves within the audible range, but I wouldn't even jump to that conclusion. How do the authors know that the equipment isn't causing IMD products that are jumping into the audible range? The wider bandwidth of the signal, the greater the IMD will be. We can't hear ultrasonic frequencies, but we may be able to hear byproducts of ultrasonic playback.

I don’t think IMD would be that big of a factor, I actually measured a 4khz tone and a 25khz tone layered on top and did not see any side band distortions indicative of IMD out of curiosity.