3 ms·

I don't think it's the reason. A pair of good speakers is the most useful equipment in audio. If I'm a millennial audiophool and want 192 kHz / 32-bit PCM, I'l

I don't think it's the reason. A pair of good speakers is the most useful equipment in audio. If I'm a millennial audiophool and want 192 kHz / 32-bit PCM, I'll simply put a new DAC in front of the original Hi-Fi amplifier. I won't throw the perfectly usable system away.

nl 7y ago
I think this was a sarcastic comment. Obviously "reproducing the ultrasonics" don't actually matter for music reproduction....
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  In all honesty, I'd like a system that could play and record ultrasound.
  - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
    > Inaudible ultrasonics contribute to intermodulation distortion in the audible range. Systems not designed to reproduce ultrasonics typically have much higher levels of distortion above 20 kHz, further contributing to intermodulation. Widening a design's frequency range to account for ultrasonics requires compromises that decrease noise and distortion performance within the audible spectrum. Either way, unneccessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance. - Christopher "Monty" Montgomery, the original author of the Ogg codec, founder of the Xiph.org Foundation, a real audio engineer. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I don't need it for music. I want to record ultrasound from the environment, and possibly play signals of my own.
      - tripzilch 7y ago
        I actually did this, sort of. It was to scare away the stone marter family that had made themselves a home under my parents' roof tiles. They are a protected animal where I live, so you can't just do anything to get rid of them. But they also tend to chew on cables in your car (they really do), making them dangerous. Also make a LOT of noise when they go hunting at night. Looking up various ways to get rid of these animals (apparently they also really dislike the smell of toilet fresheners, which you can place under your car hood or something), I found an ultrasound device but it was kinda expensive for single use. So I generated a bunch of high frequency tones, to make it extra annoying I had it do random(10,20) seconds of beep, then random(10,20) seconds of silence. I burned this to a CD, made three tracks at 15kHz, 17kHz and 19kHz. I didn't go higher because I had no way to find out if the speakers would be able to reproduce that tone :) I could clearly hear 15k, and my parents a little. I could nearly hear 17k, and my parents swore they heard nothing. Neither of us could hear the 19k, even at the loudest volume. Since I don't live there, we decided to put the 17k track on repeat, at max volume, because at least we knew it made a sound (that I could barely hear). The CD player was placed next to an open window close to the nest. That very night, the stone marter family got up and left. We assumed they probably just moved a few houses over, or something. However ... Just to be sure they wouldn't return, my parents left the CD player on repeat for an entire week. After that week when my dad turned off the CD, five minutes later, he walked into the garden ... "Hey, the birds are back!" (... and to think there's a popular route close to their house for people walking their dogs ...) So yeah, that definitely worked. It's just not very specific :-P
      - emmelaich 7y ago
        And annoy pets? I had some failing electrical gear that produced extremely high frequencies. Drove the dogs a little crazy until I found it.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Not annoy, but learn more about them. The original idea of investigating ultrasound environment came to me when I was taking care of some rats for a few weeks for a friend; I read a short book on them, from which I've learned that they communicate with ultrasound, which made me want to "listen in" on that communication, and perhaps replay some of it. FWIW, I have a cat myself, and I'm not the kind of person to annoy animals on purpose.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  Of course it's a sarcastic comment, and I know it when I was comment. It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication. "Reproducing the ultrasonics" here is a sarcastic reference to any sampling rate higher than 24 kHz (it actually backs back well before digital music). Audiophiles often prefer it because it's claimed that it has a wider frequency response, a lower quantization noise by oversampling, increased transparency after recording and remixing, while critics believe it's a point of diminishing return, and increases the odds of unwanted distortion that actually decreases the fidelity.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    When recording audio, it is necessary to filter our frequencies above Nyquist frequency to prevent aliasing. It is easier to make a good filter when you have Nyquist freq. at 48 kHz rather than try to implement a filter that can silence everything above 24 kHz and doesn't touch anything below 20 kHz. Or am I wrong here?
    - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
      Read the full article of Monty's criticisms of 192 kHz, it answers this question. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html His point is that once oversampling and filtering is done in hardware, the final output only needs to be encoded in a low sampling rate for its benefits, and all high-quality DAC and ADC already oversample the signal under the hood. Using 192 kHz for its output or music distribution is unnecessary, and only introduces drawbacks like additional IMD and wasted space.
  - nl 7y ago
    It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication. What makes you think I am unfamiliar with the background? Was it the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm? Either way, the hostility is unnecessary.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago

nl 7y ago

I think this was a sarcastic comment. Obviously "reproducing the ultrasonics" don't actually matter for music reproduction....

TeMPOraL 7y ago
In all honesty, I'd like a system that could play and record ultrasound.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  > Inaudible ultrasonics contribute to intermodulation distortion in the audible range. Systems not designed to reproduce ultrasonics typically have much higher levels of distortion above 20 kHz, further contributing to intermodulation. Widening a design's frequency range to account for ultrasonics requires compromises that decrease noise and distortion performance within the audible spectrum. Either way, unneccessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance. - Christopher "Monty" Montgomery, the original author of the Ogg codec, founder of the Xiph.org Foundation, a real audio engineer. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I don't need it for music. I want to record ultrasound from the environment, and possibly play signals of my own.
    - tripzilch 7y ago
      I actually did this, sort of. It was to scare away the stone marter family that had made themselves a home under my parents' roof tiles. They are a protected animal where I live, so you can't just do anything to get rid of them. But they also tend to chew on cables in your car (they really do), making them dangerous. Also make a LOT of noise when they go hunting at night. Looking up various ways to get rid of these animals (apparently they also really dislike the smell of toilet fresheners, which you can place under your car hood or something), I found an ultrasound device but it was kinda expensive for single use. So I generated a bunch of high frequency tones, to make it extra annoying I had it do random(10,20) seconds of beep, then random(10,20) seconds of silence. I burned this to a CD, made three tracks at 15kHz, 17kHz and 19kHz. I didn't go higher because I had no way to find out if the speakers would be able to reproduce that tone :) I could clearly hear 15k, and my parents a little. I could nearly hear 17k, and my parents swore they heard nothing. Neither of us could hear the 19k, even at the loudest volume. Since I don't live there, we decided to put the 17k track on repeat, at max volume, because at least we knew it made a sound (that I could barely hear). The CD player was placed next to an open window close to the nest. That very night, the stone marter family got up and left. We assumed they probably just moved a few houses over, or something. However ... Just to be sure they wouldn't return, my parents left the CD player on repeat for an entire week. After that week when my dad turned off the CD, five minutes later, he walked into the garden ... "Hey, the birds are back!" (... and to think there's a popular route close to their house for people walking their dogs ...) So yeah, that definitely worked. It's just not very specific :-P
    - emmelaich 7y ago
      And annoy pets? I had some failing electrical gear that produced extremely high frequencies. Drove the dogs a little crazy until I found it.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Not annoy, but learn more about them. The original idea of investigating ultrasound environment came to me when I was taking care of some rats for a few weeks for a friend; I read a short book on them, from which I've learned that they communicate with ultrasound, which made me want to "listen in" on that communication, and perhaps replay some of it. FWIW, I have a cat myself, and I'm not the kind of person to annoy animals on purpose.
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
Of course it's a sarcastic comment, and I know it when I was comment. It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication. "Reproducing the ultrasonics" here is a sarcastic reference to any sampling rate higher than 24 kHz (it actually backs back well before digital music). Audiophiles often prefer it because it's claimed that it has a wider frequency response, a lower quantization noise by oversampling, increased transparency after recording and remixing, while critics believe it's a point of diminishing return, and increases the odds of unwanted distortion that actually decreases the fidelity.
- codedokode 7y ago
  When recording audio, it is necessary to filter our frequencies above Nyquist frequency to prevent aliasing. It is easier to make a good filter when you have Nyquist freq. at 48 kHz rather than try to implement a filter that can silence everything above 24 kHz and doesn't touch anything below 20 kHz. Or am I wrong here?
  - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
    Read the full article of Monty's criticisms of 192 kHz, it answers this question. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html His point is that once oversampling and filtering is done in hardware, the final output only needs to be encoded in a low sampling rate for its benefits, and all high-quality DAC and ADC already oversample the signal under the hood. Using 192 kHz for its output or music distribution is unnecessary, and only introduces drawbacks like additional IMD and wasted space.
- nl 7y ago
  It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication. What makes you think I am unfamiliar with the background? Was it the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm? Either way, the hostility is unnecessary.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago