Ultrasonic debate GO!

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:49 pm

I've heard both sides about this, thought I would ask the question here.

does recording sounds well above the highest we humans can hear really sound better in the end?

My assumption is... no.

Looking at the limitations of gear, sure you can record a 40khz tone at 96khz, and lets say you even play it back at 96khz, can your speakers produce it? Doubtfull. Please prove me wrong, prove me right. Let the games begin!

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:35 am

I think the debate goes something like this:
Those ultra hi freq interacting with each other can create other harmonics that do exist within our hearing range.
The assumption is that without these byproduct harmonics, our sounds can sound somewhat lifeless, steril, and downright yucky.
But if you have tinnitis (ringing in the ears) or you're over 40, it probably doesn't matter.

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:04 am

but the reason people record at 96k is not neccesarily to be able to record 40k as a pitch if thats' what your trying to suggest...

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:24 pm

Nope, I know exactly why I record at higher resolution and that isn't the reason. Besides, my mic cabinet has rollsoff at 20K. I just wanted to see what the opinions of recording at higher sample rates for ultrasonic sound are.

Cheers,
-Ryan-

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:18 pm

but the Mics don't roll off at 20kHz (brickwall) as does a Nyquist Filter for 44.1k sampling

Test can be set up to demonstrate the above 20k anomalies but whether or not this all effects the final result of a normal commercial CD product is doubtful.

For the high tech stereo orchestral with HD audio delivery systems then it is easier to demonstrate.
This also goes for the high tech Jazz recording with very few mics and channels.

but
for a synth based product generated from a suite of soft synths then there is little point I think.

If you and your clients can tell the difference and have the budget then go for it.

This topic sponsored by: