This is a serious subject, even if not widely known, but the sound your car makes, the sound
a plane makes or a ship makes has a bearing on whether we like it or not.
It is a whole profession unto itself at least it was.
 
Definitely discovered by appliance manufacturers when washing machines became automated. Some just didn't sell for no apparent reason. LOL keep it clean!
Okay, it might be more to the sub harmonics than ultra harmonics; they can't be heard either, more felt.
 
But it is a known fact a 50hz vibration can send most to sleep, especially if you have low blood pressure.
Ever take your baby in the car as easier to get off to sleep?
Ever heard of someone falling asleep at the wheel in a crash. Anyone studying this today? You could save lives. Earn a living.
Ever sleep at the mix board while the tracks are playing at a healthy volume?

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

mike_mccue
Aren't there numerous examples of detection of activity in the brain where the test subject has no idea that anything is happening?
 
 

It doesn't much matter. The folks in question did a second series of tests but using headphones instead of speakers and got completely different results. From this they speculated that the ultrasonics didn't get into the brain via the ears but by some other path. But others have speculated that there was IM distortion in the first test (or whatever).
 
Basically with 2 tests and different results - and neither of them independently confirmed - things are at a dead end until there is some further credible evidence of some kind, which I am unaware of.
 
Which unfortunately allows people to try to pass their speculation off as fact (or something approaching it) in the mean time.

.

I didn't even have to read Mike's response, I already sensed he was going to say that. :-)

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.
 
 

kennywtelejazz
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 .

 
But note that the frequencies vary with temperature (among other things).

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.

I had to take a couple of aspirins after reading this thread. I am really enjoying this. 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. You guys seem to be having a lot of fun trying to get there. Awesome thread.

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.