Beepster

John T
Sure, that's complete guff.

Sarcasm? Seriously I have no idea whether that's the case or not.
 

Not at all.
 
Let's suppose there is some interaction in sound waves, as described. So we play a note on a trumpet, and there's some stuff going on at, say, 40khz that's completely inaudible, but interacts with the other movements in the air and has some influence on what's going on at, say 5khz, which is audible.
 
As an aside, I can't imagine that this isn't the case. You're pushing air around, and it's a complex system.
 
However, if we're capturing all the audible range, then we are by definition capturing every effect that occurs in the audible range, even if we aren't capturing the cause.

John
Sound doesn't work that way. It does not create lower frequencies from higher frequencies. 

 
I hesitate to suggest that you need to do some reading:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation_distortion
 
The argument is that inaudible higher frequencies cause problems for amplifiers/speakers not designed to handle them.
 
The xiph.org article (http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)
has a footnote that links to a PPT presentation on this issue:
 
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt
 
[EDIT: forgot the link]
 

Perhaps you missed the word sound. Electronics are a different matter.

Ah, hang on, I misread Beepster's point there, and wandered off talking about something else.
 
 

John T
Ah, hang on, I misread Beepster's point there, and wandered off talking about something else.
 
 

I was a little confused about that. lol
 
I THINK we were agreeing... but I'm not sure because frankly I have no idea what I'm talking about or what exactly is going on here.
 
/derp

I was talking about whether you need to record in the inaudible range to capture how things sound, which you don't. But you were talking about the actual sampling methodology messing up the audible range, which it can, and is as drew described.
 
That is one of those "trust the designers to do their jobs" things, though. Are there any commercially available serious audio interfaces with nasty intermodulation distortion issues? I kind of doubt it.

John
Perhaps you missed the word sound. Electronics are a different matter.

OK (sorry), but in context that wasn't clear to me.

John TBut you were talking about the actual sampling methodology messing up the audible range, which it can, and is as drew described.
 
That is one of those "trust the designers to do their jobs" things, though. Are there any commercially available serious audio interfaces with nasty intermodulation distortion issues? I kind of doubt it.

Yeah, that's the question. It is alleged that IM distortion can mess things up, and I believe there is evidence that it can in laboratory style testing where special and unusual signals with very high ultrasonic content are used. But whether that actually applies to the real world is a different question.
 
But realistically, very few consumers are playing music recordings at higher sampling rates containing ultrasonic content anyway. So it's more a matter of recording/production/monitoring. And most sources have little ultrasonic content to begin with (and some common things that might have some, like hi hat/cymbals don't really have a distinctive pitch making the distortion harder to hear).
 
And of course you can just use your ears anyway.

Danny Danzi

Vab
Goddard do you actually think anybody here is going to bother to read posts that long? No one has an attention span on the internet.

Hey, ya never know who may be reading. I type long novels all the time and know of 5 people that always read my posts. LOL! :) That's ok though, I'm happy to have 5 friends on here. :)
 
Incidentally, I happened to have read this whole thread...some interesting stuff from quite a few people. Long reads are killer when they are done right. :)
 
-Danny

Your long posts are better received because at no point is there any doubt you are trying to help. I have never seen you enter a thread and act like an interactive Summers Eve ad.  Most of us look forward to your posts.  This guy just seems to like to argue for the sake of arguing.

drewfx1

John TBut you were talking about the actual sampling methodology messing up the audible range, which it can, and is as drew described.
 
That is one of those "trust the designers to do their jobs" things, though. Are there any commercially available serious audio interfaces with nasty intermodulation distortion issues? I kind of doubt it.

Yeah, that's the question. It is alleged that IM distortion can mess things up, and I believe there is evidence that it can in laboratory style testing where special and unusual signals with very high ultrasonic content are used. But whether that actually applies to the real world is a different question.
 
But realistically, very few consumers are playing music recordings at higher sampling rates containing ultrasonic content anyway. So it's more a matter of recording/production/monitoring. And most sources have little ultrasonic content to begin with (and some common things that might have some, like hi hat/cymbals don't really have a distinctive pitch making the distortion harder to hear).
 
And of course you can just use your ears anyway.

And that I think is bringing everything right back home again as to the whole point of the article (as I read it).
 
Theory vs. Practical Usage
 
I make music. Not measure waveforms under improbable circumstances.
 
That's the kind of thing we pay for when we drop coin on our gear. We assume someone somewhere along the line in the design process looked into these issues for us.
 
And my hat's off to them.
 
...oh and Danny is awesome.