Can DOS 2 Phantoms reproduce acoustic programme above 24kHz?

[struts]

I should also say that wide bandwidth is not only about amplitude, it's also about timing. The following was written by Morten Lindberg of 2L records. I had a brief email conversation with him on the merits of Redbook (16/44) vs high(er) rez. Translated from Norwegian: "Sample frequency: 44.1kHz is OK if you only evaluate frequency bandwidth. If we also look at the time domain we need higher bandwidth to give us an impulse response that can reproduce transients without pre and post ringing."

Yes, the focus of the majority of the debate (will add some links when I have more time) about the audible effects of high resolution are focused on the time domain.  

The problem is that afaik we don't fully understand why these effects are audible despite the fact that, although they are time domain-related, they lie in a frequency band that neither the microphones recording them, the loudspeakers reproducing them nor the ears hearing them "should" be able to process.

[ogs]

I think a transient with ringing due to limited bandwidth will also affect sound in the audible range. A mid range transient can have overtones beyond the hearing limit that, if squashed by limited bandwidth, will be audible. This may be a bigger problem during recording than playback though. I'm not sure.

[Jean-Marie]

I should also say that wide bandwidth is not only about amplitude, it's also about timing. The following was written by Morten Lindberg of 2L records. I had a brief email conversation with him on the merits of Redbook (16/44) vs high(er) rez. Translated from Norwegian: "Sample frequency: 44.1kHz is OK if you only evaluate frequency bandwidth. If we also look at the time domain we need higher bandwidth to give us an impulse response that can reproduce transients without pre and post ringing."

Yes, the focus of the majority of the debate (will add some links when I have more time) about the audible effects of high resolution are focused on the time domain.  

The problem is that afaik we don't fully understand why these effects are audible despite the fact that, although they are time domain-related, they lie in a frequency band that neither the microphones recording them, the loudspeakers reproducing them nor the ears hearing them "should" be able to process.

The crux of the problem lies in providing the scientific evidence that they are audible. 

I don’t know of any other means than ABX or DBT (Double Blind Tests) with proper level matching to eliminate any possibility of expectation bias. 

There are two major problems there:
1) ABX/DBT is not recognized by most if not all the proponents advocating for better than Red Book for reproduction (production is a totally different topic)
2) I’m not aware of any generally accepted study demonstrating the audibility or non audibility of those effects above the earring threshold. To my knowledge, every ABX/DBT study came back with the result that you could not distinguish between them while the one showing that you could make a distinction are not satisfying the requirements of the “objectivists”. 

To add even more complexity, if you have a ‘sub par’ system with non linear distortion, content outside the audible band will create IMD in the audible band, possibly giving the illusion that there is an effect. 

Last but not least, let’s keep in mind that nature and physics do not care what is performing the filtering. Therefore, if my hears are stopping at 15kHz (which I wished given my age, I must be closer to 12kHz now) that means that I have 120 dB of attenuation at 15kHz, and this will create in my own ears all the ‘ringing’ and other artifacts discussed there. 
I personally have high doubts that a 24kHz reconstruction filter (for 48kHz sampling rate) will have any discernible effect compared to my 15kHz ear filter. 

Jean-Marie

[daibaron]

This is very well explained without a doubt but if it's not audible it still exists.
The emitted inaudible frequencies can enter in resonance with your body or the environment.
This is another aspect you should consider.
the environmental noise surrounding us is also participating to reduce what our hearing could sens.

[Jean-Marie]

This is very well explained without a doubt but if it's not audible it still exists.
The emitted inaudible frequencies can enter in resonance with your body or the environment.
This is another aspect you should consider.
the environmental noise surrounding us is also participating to reduce what our hearing could sens.

There is no doubt that the environmental noise is a big limiting factor.

If we accept the hearing threshold of pain and danger at 120 dB SPL as well as what is considered a very silent listening room at 30 dB SPL, Good at 40 dB SPL and average at 50 dB SPL, that's eating a significant portion of the usefull dynamic range of our earring, leaving only 60 to 90 dB to play with.

Jean-Marie

[ogs]

The most important here is after all @struts ' plan to get measurements from Phantoms. I'm exited about this and really looking forward to see some graphs!

[streamy]

The most important here is after all @struts ' plan to get measurements from Phantoms. I'm exited about this and really looking forward to see some graphs!

Indeed for me the most important question here is what gets out to these wonderful speakers. Depending on this I most probably will adjust what I’m feeding in. The rationale about that is that I love everything I get from them in terms of frequency range, dynamics, compactness, ease of use (even better with RAAT), WAF, reliability (5years old and playing at 100+ dB without having to be concerned about damaging them), I could name much more... I’m asking myself should I continue to buy hires, pay more for 24/192k than for 24/96k or 24/48k when I’m fine with the latter. I checked and saw that I purchased in the last years on Qobuz around 500+ albums with a resolution higher that 24/48k.

[Jean-Marie]

The most important here is after all @struts ' plan to get measurements from Phantoms. I'm exited about this and really looking forward to see some graphs!

Indeed for me the most important question here is what gets out to these wonderful speakers. Depending on this I most probably will adjust what I’m feeding in. The rationale about that is that I love everything I get from them in terms of frequency range, dynamics, compactness, ease of use (even better with RAAT), WAF, reliability (5years old and playing at 100+ dB without having to be concerned about damaging them), I could name much more... I’m asking myself should I continue to buy hires, pay more for 24/192k than for 24/96k or 24/48k when I’m fine with the latter. I checked and saw that I purchased in the last years on Qobuz around 500+ albums with a resolution higher that 24/48k.

Even if your system would not reproduce above red book or if our ear could not hear beyond red book, buying high res could still make sense since most of the time, they are using a different master, very often with higher dynamic range than their red book equivalent.

In my opinion, the different master is the highest difference contributor between high Rez and red book.

Jean-Marie

[ogs]

@Jean-Marie Agree. That is the reason I started buying high res many years ago. I wanted a copy of the studio master, not the red book distribution.

[streamy]

Even if your system would not reproduce above red book or if our ear could not hear beyond red book, buying high res could still make sense since most of the time, they are using a different master, very often with higher dynamic range than their red book equivalent.

In my opinion, the different master is the highest difference contributor between high Rez and red book.

Jean-Marie

Yes I fully agree to this. But somehow I prefer the white light or the purple light in Roon’s signal path than the green light when it downsamples 192k to 48k