I found this interesting post on gearsluts ? The general gist is that if we add 2 very high frequency sines together they can create a beating effect that is audible to our ears.
Here is the quote of the example:-


I'd love to hear what people think of this?

Short answer: bullshit.
Long answer: I didn't read, I just found what I expected to find scanning that site. You could repeat this with 1Ghz and 1.000001GHz and claim, we needed gear reproducing audio up to this frequency. But as a matter of fact, we neither store nor reproduce audio as sine waves. This 1kHz tone is well recorded and reproduced with standard 20-20 gear as it is (*obviosly*) within that range. The only difference is, that the two source frequencies are neither on the recording nor reproduced. Nyquist-theory as a hint.

the beat may indeed be 1kHz but i tried it just there and couldn't hear a damn thing. my ultrasound sensor did however register a signal so there was an ultrasonic sound.

so, based on my experience, i'd have to say its more baloney from the audiophools.

It's difficult to comment without having more details about the test, but there's a huge chance that IMD (Intermodulation Distortion) in the power amp is responsible for this effect.
Could the speakers reproduce the 57 kHz sine ? If so, was the 1kHz beat still there if the two sines were played back on separate sets of amp/speaker ?

Nothing spooky in here, its just beat.

Someone could clearly create a recording, wherein two >20k frequencies are recorded separately and only "meet" during playback.
In this situation reproduction of said frequencies > 20k would be needed to hear the beat.

In real life, though, beats in the audible range will be picked up during recording, and perfectly reproduced by your common, garden variety, CD player.

Okay, right. I agree.


If they do meet during mixing, that is not true. Only if you had them on separate channels and they would meet in your room, you'd need that gear.

Yea, I caught that brain fart, thus my editing of my post. Looks like you quoted me before I edited!

I have no time to read the gearslutz thread but see this this product, a very directional loudspeaker that uses a similar principle.

No it's not audible, as confirmed by insane_alien's test, and for good reason. It's incorrect to think of this (eg 57kHz-56Kz = 1kHz) as being in the "audible range". A better way to think of it is that it's more like a very high frequency signal (56.5k) that you can't hear being modulated (volume increased up and down) at a lower frequency. Imagine taking something that is completely inaudible and then turning it off and on at 100 times per second. Do you think that this will miraculously make it audible at 100Hz - it wont.

Edit : That was "Kees de Visser's" point back in post #4 btw. This is theoretically inaudible unless a non-linearity causes (via inter-modulation distortion) the production of a real frequency component (as in additive not multiplicative) at the modulation frequency.

So for this to happen the signal needs to be passed through a non-linear system such as Amplitude Modulation or Distortion. The reason it occurs is because the 2 signals create sidebands much like ring modulation does. Is this right?

Right (and this can be verified with basic trig too: f(x) = cos 9x + cos 8x; f^2(x)= ...?)

But: just because such intermodulation products are reproduced does not guarantee any sort of fidelity. That is, without knowing the details on exactly what causes such intermodulations in a "reference" environment, you have no way of knowing whether a different system will reproduce the intermodulations at the same levels. In other words, an extended frequency response alone does not guarantee "fidelity".

I must have been misguided then. I'm apologizing for my arrogant tone.
(edit: omg I'm so embarassed)

For this effect to be audible what sort of circumstances would make it audible?

Researching this further. It looks like it's not possible if transmitting 51khz and 50khz thorough the air to cause the 1khz harmonic as there is nothing to produce the harmonic. Unless the signals are being transmitted loud enough to cause the non-linear effects in the air. This of course could be bad for the ears. Another factor that could create this harmonic could be the speakers as they are also a non-linear system.

Also another thought that came to mind is the room. If the room was fairly reverby this could lead to the 1khz harmonic being smeared thereby making it difficult to hear.
And as Kees De Visser said the Power Amp could be causing the harmonic via intermodulation. So putting some of this together leads me to believe that there are alot of variables involved in this such as:-
Speakers
Systems being passed through
Amps
Room

Another thing to note is in the article is that is says "beat" now I at first took this term to mean in the sense of binarual beats. But seeing as it is intermodulation that is causing the harmonic it is not in this sense.

For the domain of sound reproduction this is all irrelevant. You can surely create setups where two 50 kHz waves in a room create a 1 kHz modulation. But when reproducing sound this will usually be an unwanted artifact and a function of a specific listening room (and not related to the original soundstage). All sub 20 kHz intermodulations of higher frequencies, that actually were existent at the original event (at the microphone positions), are perfectly preserved with standard Redbook audio CDs. Any > 20kHz content, that could be recorded at the microphone positions is not supposed to cause any more <20 kHz intermodulations at playback time!

If you think this through, it would even make sense to low pass >20 kHz content intentionally in real world setups for higher fidelity. Subjects can't hear HF content directly, so why reproduce it in their listening rooms, where it could only cause audible intermodulations that were not part of the original soundstage? Since they can't hear it directly, they won't miss it and also get less listening room specific artifacts.

I felt the need to register to chip in a bit here - the discussion I am having with @boomtopper is too big for Twitter!

I am not trying to post the 'final word' on this - the subject is just fascinating and it is a topic well worthy of debate (a traditional method for sharing and improving understanding of science!)

I love the subject of beating because it is the simplest form of dissonance, and I have done extensive academic research into dissonance theory (or as we call it, 'gride' theory) - see the link to my thesis at the end of this post.

The original question was essentially:



This is entirely possible, but I don't think it is proven. Just as when audible freqs are within critical bandwidths (1/6 of the freq), they bounce, for example when you play two piano keys that are next to each other. The beating is at a very low rate, like a tremelo. Beating is proven and common, listening for beating is helpful when tuning guitar string (for example).

Beating will occur regardless of whether we can hear the 'original' two frequencies at, say, 56 and 57KHz. The question above, and really the point of the debate, is whether we can hear only a side effect of interaction between freqs out of our hearing range.

I wanted to quote a few posts to this thread and dispel a few myths/assumptions...



Probably worth reading things before you dispel them, as you say "the two source frequencies are neither on the recording nor reproduced" - it never says anything about this test being recorded, and there is no evidence the person who did this test does not have the equipment with the range and ability to play back frequencies up at 56 and 57k.

Let's assume they hypothetically do have the kit that could reproduce - some super high grade speakers with a tweeter sensitive enough to move back and forward up to 60 thousand times a second, analog gear with an operational limit up to or past 60k (I know op amp freq responses don't always go that high, but it IS possible, I don't see why certain equipment wouldn't have the capacity to do it - but this is a hypothetical question, so stick with me).

So we have a system that can produce these two 56 and 57 KHz signals. This system would produce the frequency at 1k, because the speakers are trying to reproduce two waveforms which phase and then sum an amplitude at a speed of 1000 times per second. So the speakers ARE producing an audible frequency of 1KHz.

This is under the condition that the 56 and 57k are coming out the same speaker What if the speakers were playing one frequency each? So the left one is playing the 56k, the right one the 57k. We wouldn't hear the sounds in isolation, but I suppose we don't know whether the 1k would be audible in this instance - the only place the beating could occur is on the basilar membrane in the cochlea. Naturally occurring beating, where the source of the beating is not a physical object trying to represent two close frequencies as described in the speaker example above, is just your basilar membrane reacting in the same way, unable to 'play' two frequencies in consonance because they are within a critical bandwidth of each other (1/6 of each others freq.)

So two sine waves on a piano, say a C and a C#, played at the same time (at the same./similar amplitude or masking can occur, where the louder note masks the other), hit two separate springs, which are both representing the C accurately on one string and the C# on the other string, have no place for beating to occur other than when it actually gets into your ear and your basilar membrane (For a longer explanation of the basilar membrane, and how it acts/reacts and looks like, see my academic work I link to at the end of this post).

(An open question here is actually whether normal air has the capacity to represent the frequencies, because then beating is occurring before it gets to your ear - yet another area in psychoacoustics which is not fully researched. Seriously, this field is so open that if you want to make a name for yourself in science, this is the area with enough niche to go and find something groundbreaking. It is also why so many people have these kind of debates, because actually we don't know for certain some of the points discussed in this thread, and neither side of the argument is proven or disproven other than in theory, and that we should all have an open mind, or perhaps sometimes some skepticism when talking about 'proven' facts.)

Of course, this is assuming a system with a super high grade frequency range. I don't know for certain that such a system is easily availabe, though if anyone would have equipment that high grade, Geoff Emerick probably does.

Let's not get into the digital/analog debate, we all know the pros and cons of both systems, so let's assume we all know that a digital system at a sample rate of 44.1KHz just wouldn't reproduce the 56 and 57k at all, that sample rate can only theoretically reproduce frequencies as high as 22.05KHz (and only if the converters are any good... we'll move onto this).

However, a 192KHz sampling rate could, so again assuming someone had the speakers that could play a freq as high as 57k, a digital system with decent clocking (at least apogee or prism audio quality) could indeed process all those frequencies we are taking about. We just wouldn't hear them... unless two frequencies within a critical bandwidth of each other are played, and then we have the same situation as with the above hypothetical analog system.

You are welcome to say that it all ends up on CD at 44.1khz and it would lose it. I think it would, unless the side effect of the 1KHz 'beating' does actually get recorded, but that is more of the debate which is open, because you'd have to test it, and the discussion is something of a headfuck as it already is! And of course, why would we even burn this test to CD?

I want to touch on Nyquist theory for people, because I get the impression people don't fully understand it.

I'm sure you all know the gist of it - the highest potentially audible frequency, supposedly 20KHz, can only be properly represented with a sampling rate of twice that. If you aren't aware of that much, do and read a little more about it somewhere else.

But if this is the case, why would anyone record with a sampling rate above 44.1KHz?

Hands up, who records at a rate higher than 44.1KHz?

In fact why isn't the sampling rate just 40KHz? Think of the sampling rate having a bit of a slope to it, like a low pass filter - 44.1KHz works because the 'slope' is higher, going up to 22.05KHz, rather than lower down in an audible range. This is with poor/common converters, you probably won't get this with Apogee (or above) quality. This is why, when we don't have that expensive quality, we use 48 or up to 96KHz, which people often describe as a more 'open' sound, because the theoretical LPF when using those sample rates is way higher and therefore does not affect the range we can hear, up to 20k.

If anyone says to you about how they use 96k sampling because the 'resolution' makes it sound better, they are actually wrong (stick with me), because 44.1 is technically as much resolution as you need to represent audible frequencies. 'Resolution' is an often cited reason for why higher sampling rates are better, and yes the resolution is higher, but it is not the reason people would naturally think at first, probably to do with presuming it is the same kind of thing as when an image has a lower resolution. It isn't at all. (There may indeed be a benefit with plug in processing at higher sample rates, but I am not qualified to answer that aspect of it).

--------------------

Okay, back to responding to quotes! I've covered everything but want to get specific.



You may have realised after reading my post that you may need:

- Speakers that represent beyond 57KHz
- A sampling rate of 192KHz
- High quality converters
- Your ears exactly in line with the tweeters, since freqs are more direction as the get higer (a bass sub can go anywhere in the room, it is non directional, but higher freqs increasingly get more directional. Try a sine at something like 16KHz from only one speaker, listen to it of axis, then listen to it exactly on axis to the tweeter, it will be louder

And IMO there is no need to spend that kind of money of kit for a little experiment like this!



Interesting example, because this is actually how beating works - the quick, repetitive phasing between the two signals IS turning it on and off because is nulls then sums at a new freq. BUT... to turn something on and off at 100hz just means something inadiuble is turned on and off, and remains inaudible. You are forgetting the summing part of the beat phenomenon.



You mean 56KHz and 57KHz. I think the part of my post here answers where the beating effect is produced.

I can why you might think you need the >20KHz to be really loud to cause the beating at an audible volume, but they wouldn't have to be that loud - remember the equal loudness curve/fletcher munson curve? We are SUPER sensitive to sounds in the upper mid range, like 1KHz to 5KHz (roughly, depends on the person). We would be able to pick up a sound at 1KHz easier than ANY potentially audible frequency. Consider this - imagine you have a bass sine at like 80Hz and a sine at 1KHz. If you have a mixer in front of you now get them up on two tracks, then try and match their apparent volume. The 1KHz fader would have to be a lot lower, because you are more sensitive to it. I heard that if that 1k sine actually had the same power as the bass note, it could kill you! Anecdotal of course, but the point is that a bass note has to have a LOT of energy just for us to hear it like normal. An upper mid range sound could sound just as loud as that bass note with very, very little energy, such is our sensitivity to that range.

Now, I don't know for certain how much energy the 56 and 57k signals would need to produce enough energy for the 1K beating effect to be audible, but just remember that out of every feasible frequency, for example 0Hz to 1 million Hz(!!), the range of 1-5KHz(ish) needs the LEAST energy to it to be audible to us. Get me? Just for your consideration.

--------------

Now to answer some of @boomtopper 's points on twitter:



Yes, this is a facinating story. Although it is not written on an academic, peer reviewed paper, we should also give it the credibility it deserves, for the following reasons:

This is an interview with Rupert Neve, of course as in Neve, the effing better preamps and EQs etc of the entire history of recording. Rupert Neve, while talking to Fletcher (BTW, Fletcher is a very trusted and respected individual in the pro echelons of modern recording culture - he runs mercenary audio - though his credibility is irrelevant to this story, but perhaps of interest to you), recalls a story about Geoff Emmerick, the most famous and emulated of engineers - you surely all know he engineered The Beatles, and pretty much invented many of the technique we use on a daily basis.

If anyone had equipment good enough to playback these inaudible but somehow perceivable >20KHz frequencies, and trained enough ears, then it would have been this guy in this studio. And in turn, Rupert effing Neve agreed there was something different about these channels. And lo and behold, they found there actually were transformers incorrectly fitted. Assuming the story is true, (and remember Rupert Neve was a first hand witness to this, and Fletcher is as trusted as it comes), then this would be evidence that somehow, some people have perceived a difference when there was a +3db peak at 54KHz. I am not saying 'look, this is guarenteed proof of the concept', but it is a convincing demonstration of an effect we definitely do not know enough about.

We should admit that science has not discovered everything to do with audio and the brains perception of it. We haven't by a long shot, and if you disagree, read a book on psychoacoustics, write down all the questions you think of along the way, then discover most of everyone's questions have not be researched let alone answered.



Yes it is.



They don't particularly matter, according to our current understanding of science - I'm not trying to make out they matter even a percent of how much the audible range of 20-20k matters, but I want everyone to accept we really don't know that they don't matter.



It wouldn't be bad for the ears, because the 56 and 57k sines are inaudible, so they wouldn't damage you. (as described ealiar, you wouldn't necessarily have to have those sines loud to get the 1k beating side effect. Maybe you would, but like I said before, probably not).


---------------

This discussion on the effects of higher inaudible frequencies is very valid and overdue, in my opinion. They may be inaudible, but they may be perceivable. At the other end of the spectrum, few would argue that sub 20Hz freqs are at least percievable. If a hypothetical 10Hz wave was coming out a speaker the size of a house, you wouldn't 'hear' a wave at 10Hz, but by god you would feel it. You might haemorrhage and die, such is the power! (infrasonics, the <20Hz range, is just as interesting and slightly more studied that ultrasonic sound).

Psychoacoutics is TOTALLY under-researched. Really, just because we can't hear a frequency above 20KHz (or lower, of course, because of ageing) doesn't actually mean that it's presence doesn't in some way affect our perception of it. In all my reading on the subject I have not come across conclusive proof (or any kind of proof) that we do not react to higher frequencies in some way. The topic of a side effect with beating that we have been discussing fascinates me, because it should remind us that their presence can have an audible effect. What other tricks are lurking up there? Could research on this subject actually make sense for showing that HD audio can actually have a measurable effect on quality/perception/air/space on a record? Could this be the unique selling point for HD audio, something everyone had previously decided wouldn't make a difference since we can already get up to 20KHz with a regular CD player?

I urge anyone at uni with a dissertation coming up to study this, it would be a great topic to cover. There are gaps in our knowledge and perception of audio, and it may or may not be of our benefit to fill these holes.

May the discussion continue.

For my academic paper on 'Analysis, Testing and Discussion of Extreme Dissonance' which covers similar topics as here (but <20KHz), click here and download the relevant PDF.

Oh, please say whether you read all that or not. I understand it is a big read, but try not to argue against parts of it without seeing it all, the whole piece was just bashed out in one go so important points are a bit scattered.

I read most of it and still ask myself why this should matter. There is no reason to question the possibility of audible <20kHz modulations between multiple >20kHz waves. But all this doesn't matter for the domain of sound reproduction due to the reasons given in my last post, which were also already mentioned in earlier posts.

This (once again) wave of Gearsluts hysteria isn't really worth so much attention. Weee! Somebody has shown that the product of two > 20kHz waves can have audible components. Fine, then you just record these components and ignore the HF parts, as we are doing it for ages. That's it.

Indeed, the relevance of >20k in music production is totally questionable. But it does not mean to write it off. My entire point is that we should be open to the potential psychoacoustic effects of these ultrasonic frequencies have, not beating specifically, just that there could be things that one day will prove useful in music production. Or not.

Filtering with both LPF and HPF is something I always do to clear headroom in a mix - filtering (apparantly) inaudible information clears amplitude space for the entire mix, especially at the lower end.

BUT...



Maybe... just maybe... these unintended modulations could be a critical part of an ethreal quality for the recorded sound. If in an A/B test, the unfiltered version for whatever reason sounded better, you would keep it, yes?

Did you read my section on sampling rates? What sampling rate do you record at?

I can't rule that out here. But it usually goes like this:

A. Subject listens to < 18 kHz signal and identifies it.
B. Subject listens to < 18 kHz plus ultrasonic signal and is able to discern it from A.

Ergo ultrasonics are audible.

No! Ultrasonics can modulate audible signals. The correct test would not compare A to B but B to properly low passed B, so that intermodulations within the audible band are present in both cases.

Of course you need a proper low pass. But in my experience the following is true:

For any signal B including ultrasonic content, there is a possible low pass filter F, that both eliminates all frequencies above a ultrasonic threshold and results in a signal B', that is indiscernible from B for humans.

Edit: typo

Unintended audible modulations, that were present during the original recording and part of its "ethereal quality", can easily be captured with 44.1kHz equipment. Anything unintended beyond that point is completely contingent, but in any case no improved capture of the "ethereal quality" of the original scene.

I do record in 96kHz but only to keep more headroom for filtering. For pure listening of final mixes and records I don't need anything above Redbook.

This is what needs to be tested (the AB test you suggest).

Interesting:



This is a good point - but two things arise from it.

- It suggests that regardless of whether or not the ultrasonic frequencies are recorded, their audible effects are somehow useful. We don't even know for sure that there are common effects, but if they are, then recording them is irrelevant here - the point is whether humans somehow perceive them.

- If we refer to a beating effect from any ultrasonic sounds, you assume in your example that the effects only can be recorded if the effects are present during recording. But you have forgotten the importance of where the beating effect can potentially take place (the instrument/speaker/air/ear), which was an integral part of my post, like when I mention the two separate piano strings. In a way, these effects don't exist unless there is something to perceive it! Brings a whole new meaning to the 'If a tree falls in the woods...'

If a standard Red Book CD does capture the lower frequency harmonics as part of the recording. Then wouldn't this "ethereal" quality have been recorded with it? And as we can't hear those 50khz sounds they don't matter?

Edit: posted something wrong. Just edited my previous post which refers to the post above this here.

Edit 2: Let's also be careful about reffering to it as an ethereal quality - it could be, or it could be unpleasant, or useful, or not useful

If a linear system does not respond to the 56 kHz and 57 kHz tones then there is no signal to modulate to produce beats. If the system is nonlinear then a 1kHz tone is likely to be generated but the mechanism is a nonlinear transfer function and not beats.

Isn't the point of high fidelity recording to get a high quality reproduction of sound. So wouldn't it follow that we would want a recording with no artifacts in it?

One thing that did occur to me when @playmusic says "ethereal". Maybe some high freqs could be sensed by the body. Much like when you listen to very low freq that you can't hear but can feel. But whether this can also apply to high freqs I don't know?

The pinnae apparently does, but to what extent isn't clear. If at all. Like I say, there needs to be proper testing done.

This testing has indeed been done since at least the 50's. The results are robust and well researched. For references see, for example, the citations on Wikipedia about the absolute threshold of hearing. We call those frequencies ultrasound, that are above all humans' upper limit of perception. You'll know that - but it is so thoroughly researched, what do you think has been missed?

There is the controversial claim of a hypersonic effect, but those studies have been heavily criticized for not including the physical intermodulations (within the audible range) for the negative test samples. This is what I called for when I wrote you must test B vs. low passed B and not A vs. B.

No, it's not. This is an argument from authority, and in this case the authorities are not experts in psychouacoustics or audiology, nor was the 'experiment' conducted well.
They are people who 'work with' sound, but that is not the same thing a someone who researches hearing rigorously.

So I frankly don't give a toss if it's Rupert Neve or Geoff Emerick or Fletcher -- I have seen far too many such pros on pro boards make factually incorrect claims about audio and digital audio in particular, to blindly grant them that authority. I have seen some of them promulgate some of the direst just-so stories of high end audio too. (Neve in particular has previously reported badly controlled experiments that he claims shows proof of 'ultrasonic' hearing.) Neve is an audio gear engineer, not a scientist. Geoff Emerick is a mixing and mastering engineer, not a scientist. They are great at what they do, but what they do well is not scientific research. It is mainly to do with the practical manipulation of sound. They build or record things that 'sound good'. Success at this need not involve any new science; there are an infinity of ways to manipulate sound and signals that really will make an audible difference, without having to invoke 56kHz signals.

My personal hypothesis is that success at making things that 'sound good' gives some of them the false impression that anything they believe they hear, must be real -- that they are immune to the various psychological biases that are part of our makeup.


Anyway, when does this turn into a thread about the (still unreplicated AFAIK) Oohashi et al. 'hypersonic effect'?

I love Fletcher to death, but I promise you he has only a minimal grasp of the science of audio. He knows gear models and brands, and he's an excellent recording engineer who can turn the knobs to make music sound good. But he doesn't know a standing wave from slew rate limiting.

One thing I didn't see mentioned here so far is that our ears distort, and that's a common source of IM beat tones. I sometimes play percussion in the local symphony, including glockenspiel (orchestra bells). If I play two adjacent high notes very loudly, I can clearly hear the low frequency beat tone that's generated inside my ears. I doubt anyone in the audience ever hears that because they're much farther away from the bells than I am. So the level of those notes is much lower inside their ears, and the generated IM products are much lower too.

--Ethan

My point is that there is plenty more testing worth doing, to confirm or not whether there is more to the presence of ultrasonic frequencies. Are you aware of any testing on ultrasound and the emotional perception of a sound? Or whether it can improve presence of a recorded piece? Scientists would have to be creative with the studies they implement, but as I said a few times, my point is that people should be open to the idea that there could be interesting psychoacoustic effects yet to be found. This is as much to do with psychology and biology as it is audio science. I'm sure if anything new were found, we would all be quite interested.

And again, there could well be nothing to it. Till we know, let's not shun the topic as many have. We'll find out eventually.



Like I said in a sentence prior to the section you quoted, this 'experiment' was not on an academic, peer reviewed paper. But it is not some kid in their bedroom making claims they heard 54KHz, this is people who had the highest grade equipment in the world, and the maybe the most carefully trained hearing in their industry. The conditions this anecdote came from give it more credance than you're giving it.



No, people who visit forums like this 'work with' sound, either casually or in a job in a studio, or similar. If you think Rupert Neve doesn't have a next-level understanding of hearing and how to control voltage specifically for use in audio, the entire science around it, and left a genuinely timeless legacy, you might be mistaken. The story is an anecdote, so none of us should assume it is a fact, but coming from him makes me pause for thought, and is worth our consideration.

Oh, you say it is not the same as someone who researches hearing rigourously. Would you trust someone who does? That is something I have done in a great academic institution, working hard to improve our understanding of psychoacoustics - something I studied extensivly, and a subject I have written entirely new theories on. Am I worthy of your audio forum X-factor contest?



I don't know what your engineering experience is, but in mine, it is a science. Do you think those two haven't invented at least some of the scientific techniques recording engineers worldwide use on a daily basis?

Have you invented any?



That is true, but you wouldn't say something like 'computers work fine as they are. The internet is great. Let's put a bar up on any new research or technology, it's fine!' Progress is based on hit or miss research, and the hits keep adding up. No one has said introducing ultrasound will improve the audio, in fact in the anecdote given, they were unhappy with the +3db peak in that range. I have suggested that the field is worth further study - you know, 'just in case', and because we don't know everything there is to know about psychoacoustic effects.

Hi Ethan, I actually did cover this in my large post on the first page, referring to the basilar membrane.

The audience won't hear your instrument because other tones in the symphony might be louder louder and mask them, but to you the tones must be loudest (and a similar/same amplitude, otherwise they would be masked anyway).

Thanks for your awesome acoustic research, made a huge difference to our acoustic design at the studio here!

Edit: In fact, the distortion in our ears on the basilar membrane is basically the entire subject of my research and testing into hyper-dissonance (gride) sounds, which I linked to on the first page - it's also on http://public.me.com/playmusic

Oh and regarding fletcher - his scientific knowledge is irrelevant to the anecdote from Rupert Neve, just that he is trusted enough to pass on a story without completely bullshitting (I think!)

I thought you did a BA? So that is not strictly true. I would have said you're more engineering. While you will have of knowledge in parts of this you by no means have a complete picture. And the same of course of myself that is why I question. Especially in the field of psychoacoustics.

What is not strictly true? My engineering experience not being a science? I am referring to the studio craft of recording being science, in response to someone saying engineering is not a science. Much of it may be subjective, but it is mostly scientific methods and techniques which lead to the desired results. But I'm preaching to the converted now.

And Rich, I'm not claiming to be an authority on anything, this is a debate. I asked a lot of open questions in my first post on the first page.

Opps I misread the manner of text, interepreting it like that my applogies . Of course your knowledge that you use in your everyday work is grounded in science and physics and helps you get the best results. But Next to say someone who specialises in the physics and science of sound they would mainly have a differant level of understanding. They might not know how to get the best mix or make a killer master but they would have a more comprehensive understanding of sound and frequencies and how our environment affects it.

I do appreciate your awesome work on your psychoacoustics based dissertation and can see how you would have more of an idea that a standard studio engineer it doesn't mean you know everything about that whole field. As at the same time I also did well with my Dissertation yet there are gaps in my knowledge that I need to fill.

True, but the physics of sound has been nailed, and well documented, so really any of us can go and be as well informed as them. This debate really relates to psychoacoustics more (edit:) which is often an open topic.

Perhaps most aspects of physical hearing have "been nailed", but maybe not all of them?

~ Place Theory

No, I was saying that the physics of sound and how it acts is nailed (in response to someone reffering to "someone who specialises in the physics and science of sound"), but you are right in a sense, because you may also be thinking of psychoacoustics, which as I keep saying is not fully researched, by a long shot

Just looked at that place theory page, which demonstrates my point that psychoacoustics is not fully researched.

Going back to the idea of beats.When 2 pure tones are played at the same frequency the human ear percieves this as a "fused" tone. For the human ear to perceive beats, the 2 tones that are playing usually have to have a frequency difference of 12.5hz. The sound that we percieved is still of a "fused" tone which sounds "rougher" when the frequency differance is increased beyond 15hz. As this difference is increased further there is a point where the fused tone gives way to 2 seperate tones but still with a "rough" sound. If we go on even further the "smooth" sperate 2 tones are perceived while it is still in the human frequency range.

The frequency of the beats that are heard are at (F2 - F1) or (F1 - F2).

In the case of 56k and 57k the difference is large. So therefore beats are not percived by the ear, instead they are perceived as indvidual tones. The other way in which the 1k harmonic could be heard is if it is a Non-Linear system such as Amplitude Modulation or a Distortion as mentioned above. This is because of Intermodulation Distortion

PS feel free to nit pick through this if there are errors

It is certainly possible to produce audible frequencies by heterodyning two ultrasonic ones, and this was discussed in at least one popular science or audio magazine a couple of years back. New Scientist was one if my memory serves me. There are advantages, but also disadvantages, such as high distortion and poor LF. It was, I believe, considered as a technique for steering audio to individuals in a crowd.

A quick google search gives this url: http://bcwildfire.ca/hprScripts/WildfireNe...Fire.asp?ID=339

And there is a web site selling such a product at: http://www.atcsd.com/site/content/view/13/104/

However what this has to do with high end audio escapes me...

And one other problem I found with this and of course the most obvious. Is that those frequencies mentioned are way out of our hearing range . So that puts out the idea that beats being caused by our perception of the 2 sounds.

Indeed, I was referring specifically to the physics of sound, rather than the psycho-acoustics of human hearing. Psyche, of course, in this case refers to mind, of which the ear is not generally considered to be a part of. Place theory, from what I understand, relates to how pitch is sensed by the inner ear. Psychoacoustics, of course, is the study of the psychological correlates of the physical parameters of acoustics.

I read it until I started seeing namedrops, then I stopped reading. It was interesting up to that point, however.

What it bottles down to is that the harmonic that is generated is not a product of psychoacoustics but rather from the systems that the signal has passed through. This then leads back to the point mde by rpp3po made saying that this is an Unwanted Artifact

And here is more proof that our ears do not repond to frequencies beyond 20k.