FYI regarding ultrasonics, it's a myth that mics and speakers cannot respond to frequencies higher than 20kHz; plenty can. That's just where the specs usually drop off. For example ADAM A7 speakers can do 35kHz at -3dB. I don't know where a -6dB point would be but it would of course be higher than 35kHz. Also there are plenty of preamps that are flat to 60kHz; analog tape recorders could often record up to 24-28kHz when tweaked.
 
However, if it is shown eventually that ultrasonic content is important to the listening experience, then I think speakers would have a woofer, tweeter, and an ultrasonic transducer like the Senscomp, which is about +/-8dB from 50 to 100kHz (either as a microphone or speaker).

.

If it turns out there is actually credible evidence that ultrasonics can indeed be sensed somehow, if not by the ear and not consciously (if it was, how come no one has proved it 1000 times over with simple double blind testing?), I look forward to the discussions that follow.
 
Like whether one should use the conventional mic that "sounds better" but rolls off at higher frequencies or the one that specifically has better ultrasonic response and hence might capture stuff that - even if we can't consciously perceive it - makes whatever we're recording "subconsciously more enjoyable".  Fun, fun, fun. 

Anderton
But the study of greatest interest to me involved measuring EEGs of subjects listening to sounds in the range of 20-20kHz, 20kHz-100kHz, and both together.
 
If they listened only to the ultrasonic sound or to no sound, certain areas of the brain didn't respond. If they listened to sounds in the "audible" range, those parts of the brain responded as expected to the stimuli. However, the activity within that same part of the brain increased significantly when the ultrasonic frequencies were also reproduced along with the usual audible frequency range.
 
Furthermore, for whatever reason there was a lag time of about 30 seconds before the increased brainwave activity occurred in the presence of the higher frequencies, and another 30 seconds before the activity ceased once the higher frequencies were filtered out. Depending on why this happens, it would imply that switching back and forth between standard audio and audio containing ultrasonics for AB comparisons would need to take this lag into account.

 
This sounds like the much discussed Oohashi paper of 2000. 
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
 
You can read 14 years worth of heated discussion from the "true believers", skeptics and disbelievers regarding it, but you probably aren't going to add anything to those discussions until someone can independently verify it. 

.

I'm not sure what to think about this thread and I do not mean this in a negative way ….
 
it is my understanding that all things in the know Universe vibrate at select predetermined frequencies .
These frequencies  are bound by mathematics and a sequential order that are probably beyond the current scope of human understanding at this point in time .
Music reaches people (many times) on the levels of consciousness that generally fall into the realm of the persons
subconsciousness awareness...
A person can react to the influence of music and vibration and not have a conscious  awareness of the stimuli ...
does a violin need to be aware of the piano when a piano produces a note on a key that sets the violin into a state of sympathetic vibration  ?
No , this is a predetermined chain of events that are bound by laws that are governed by an order that will guarantee a predictable out come ...
this is in part because the known attributes of a sympathetic vibration  is an elementary concept and we have become aware of the know attributes that would constitute a repeatable experiment ...
In the vast realm of the Universe this action is Childs Play or a teaser if you will indulge me ….
 
Now how does this all relate to the topic ? 
On one level we have the person ( the OP ) relating a desire to come to an understanding of why for some reason a previously held conviction concerning the use of a higher sample rate has had to be amended and possibly changed .
now with out getting into sides or allying myself to anybody's Yay or Nay ....for or against the topic …...
 
a very important thing that I see going on here is ,
We are not subconscious Robots  anymore  
 
it is totally within my realm to understand that sound , even sound not perceptable to human hearing can influence me with out my conscious participation ...
interestingly enough,  I'm almost reluctant to mention that sound is one of the lower spectrums that constitutes the full range of frequencies …we all know that light is a higher octave 
 
now , the very fact that people have the capacity and desire to learn and harness this attribute / aspect of music creation is a very good thing …..
 
I think the desire to shatter and expand the boundaries of awareness is a very good thing  
it stands as one of the first steps of all creative human endeavors and human evolution  ...
 
for those of you that like your science 
 
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/5/99.05.07.x.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration 
 
 
 
Kenny

.

Kenny, It stands to reason there is more to know of the spectrums we don't know about yet.
Look how vast the universe is. It is expanding, changing.
It is good to predict facts from known laws. 
That's Engineering.
 
 

drewfx1
If it turns out there is actually credible evidence that ultrasonics can indeed be sensed somehow, if not by the ear and not consciously (if it was, how come no one has proved it 1000 times over with simple double blind testing?), I look forward to the discussions that follow.

I thought Meyer-Moran showed pretty conclusively that no one could reliably tell the difference between playback at 96/24. DSD, and 44/16. I've also recorded multiple projects at 96/24 for classical recordings that were sample rate converted to 44/16 for release on CD. So I knew the material VERY well, as did all the participants, and none of us could detect any difference between 96/24 and 44/16. I also participated in listening tests at AES and IMHO, DSD sounded more like 30ips tape than anything else...but all that means is that if 30ips tape is messed up, then DSD is messed up in the same way. For everything else, the differences were not significant and any perceived differences could have been due to, say, different converter or filter characteristics (and I suspect the latter is why I preferred the character of the DSD technology of that time).
 
What gives me pause re: what I saw at NMS was the 30 second delay cited before the EEG changed when going from no ultrasonics to including ultrasonics or back again. I don't know the rate at which Meyer-Moran switched, but if it was typically 30 seconds or less, that would explain why there was no noticeable difference to the participants. Also, auditory memory is not that great. I would have a very difficult time saying conclusively that something I heard at time "x" was better/worse/the same as something I heard 30 seconds prior to that if the two were very close.
 
At that point it all becomes very subjective and we get to the "it sounds better" position, which some people swear is reality but doesn't lend itself to convincing me. However if a significant number of people truly believe they prefer 96/24 and there is a physical phenomenon that comes into play above 20kHz, it's logical to think there may be a connection.
 
Ultimately, it's in the best interest of the record industry (i.e., greed) to promote a new format and claim that it's better. However, it's in the best interest of the listener if it is in fact better, so before accepting or rejecting higher sample rate formats for playback as desirable, we need to be pretty sure we can nail down repeatable experiments that demonstrate any perceived superiority or lack thereof.
 
Again, let me emphasize that I differentiate between the performance of higher sample rate performance for recording and for playback. I hear a difference with recording for reasons cited earlier. I do not hear a difference on playback, but any tests I did were not carefully controlled and not done taking any possible timing lags into account. So, I have some reading and testing ahead of me before I can come to any conclusion.

mike_mccue
 
This comment isn't meant to dissuade anyone from remaining open minded to, or even convinced of the idea that we can sense high frequencies. This comment is meant to point out that bad metaphors aren't especially reassuring to everyone that encounters them.

I was intending an analogy ("a perceived likeness between two entities"), not a metaphor (as in "figure of speech intended to communicate that likeness"). The only point I was making is that there have been instances when a few true believers considered as possible something that the vast majority of people felt was impossible, only to find out eventually that what had been claimed to be impossible was in fact possible.

Mosvalve
It appears that there are so many variables that must be considered when testing audio that it makes me wonder if there can ever be an absolute conclusion.

A great example is when I heard two people arguing about whether you could hear a difference with different cables. Given that one was using a cable to patch a synth out to a line level input, and the other was using it to patch a single-coil pickup to a high-Z input, of course they were both right. So the absolute conclusion is...cables can make an audible difference. You may never encounter that difference, or you may encounter it every day, but that difference exists independently of your perception of it.

To me 96k seemed to capture more of the sound of a guitar for example than 48k did. More definition and clarity maybe describes it better. I don't understand a fraction of what you guys are talking about so I can't get technical. All I know is that to me it sounds better. I'm not saying I can't get a good recording at 48k I'm just saying for whatever the reason 96k sounds better to me. When I recorded a virtual instrument like piano etc. I heard a big difference in the sound quality compared to 48k. If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

Mosvalve
If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

No. If there is no difference technically, then it boils down to imaginary differences.
 
If you're hearing something real (and you may well be), then there is a technical explanation for it.

Mosvalve
To me 96k seemed to capture more of the sound of a guitar for example than 48k did. More definition and clarity maybe describes it better. I don't understand a fraction of what you guys are talking about so I can't get technical. All I know is that to me it sounds better. I'm not saying I can't get a good recording at 48k I'm just saying for whatever the reason 96k sounds better to me. When I recorded a virtual instrument like piano etc. I heard a big difference in the sound quality compared to 48k. If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

I believe you are hearing a difference with the virtual instrument context. There are two situations going on here. People seem to forget that. One is creating sessions at either 44.1K and 96K and recording from the outside into the DAW through a sound card. In this case we all seem to agree that they are both very similar. (although in your case you actually prefer 96K which is also interesting. I bet if I lived with 96K for a long period I would start to feel the same way too. That is why I am thinking now about a setup that can run entirely at 96K)
 
The second situation is driving a virtual instrument such as the piano you mentioned or Z3ta as Craig did right at the start and in my case working with 'Prism'. There are very real differences when using some virtual instruments at either 44.1K or 96K and in all cases it seems 96K is the preferred sound. Virtual instruments obviously pose a different set of circumstances to the digital medium and the higher sampling rates win and it sounds so.
 
Read my post #150. 'Prism' at 96K is producing harmonics right up to 48K. Interesting. I bet the piano VST is doing something similar too.
 
Some people here are just having problems coping with the fact that it is in this case (virtual instruments, to which maybe more Sonar users are not using) that the differences are so marked. It is interesting that it has taken a while for these things to be brought out into the light.

Putting aside the issues here I just want to say this has been one of the finest epic threads I can remember. All the participants deserve a pat on the back.