Mini Monitors - Dynaudio and JM Labs

Everybody: This question of whether or not we can hear very low frequencies (say 15 Hz) keeps confusing many people.

I hope I am giving away no secrets when I reveal that music is a complex superposition of many frequencies. :) To understand the basic physics involved, let's take a simple example, when there are just two frequencies present: 100 Hz, 15 Hz.

So you start with 100 Hz and that you can hear. Now, adding 15 Hz you might think that being inaudible it would make no difference to what you hear. However, the way physics of waves works, the mutual interaction (or superposition) of the two frequencies also produces 85 Hz and 115 Hz (difference and sum), and these extra frequencies are audible!

(In a somewhat different context, had the two frequencies been close to each other, the brain would perceive the difference as a "beat", which is why musicians are always tuning their instruments to one another's)

So, even if you cannot hear 15 Hz by itself, you can hear its interaction with other frequencies. The frequency is not audible, but its presence is. It is like "seeing" the air because you can see the leaves move. I hope that makes some sense.

Aktchi - We are not talk about low frequencies, we are talking about high frequencies above 25khz. I certainly agree with you about the low frequency point - through many trials I have my system flat to around 20hz, and certainly have learned that the bottom octave is essential for soundstage development.

I would argue though, that in the grand scheme of all things audio, and what is important vs non-important, that high-frequency extension above 25khz is trivial in significance.

Washline - Point 5 in that article is irrelevent to our discussion. The point is that increased time-domain resolution increases brain activity, not that increased frequency extension increases brain activity.

"Though the frequency-domain benefits of ultrasonic-captured information are at best dubious, time-domain advantages may be more compelling"

Note 5:

"Recent studies indicate increased brain activity in response to high-resolution audio, even when listeners don't report any audible difference between that audio and more conventional music formats "

Even if this writer agreed with your point (which he doesn't - he contradicts it) it would be theoretical as opposed to practical anyway. There are 10,000,000 more important things to optimize in your sound playback system than high-frequency extension above 25khz.

i think you are correct aball,i was in the music industry for 35 yrs playing clubs and what ever payed,it diminishes at the age of thirty five is what i heard....golden ears are gone,just kidding...but your point is strong one,imho!

Goatwuss, he cited the study, not me. I cited his citing of the study. And in doing so, I don't necessarily endorse his conclusions, so whether or not he seems to "contradict" what I say, he has admitted this study in his paper.

"I would argue though, that in the grand scheme of all things audio, and what is important vs non-important, that high-frequency extension above 25khz is trivial in significance."

How would you know if you can't hear it?

I just listened to Dynaudio C1's once again this past weekend. My opinion hasn't changed. Sorry to say. The Micro Be's mop the floor with these monitors.

"I just listened to Dynaudio C1's once again this past weekend. My opinion hasn't changed. Sorry to say. The Micro Be's mop the floor with these monitors."

I'm assuming you listened to these two pairs of speakers back to back, within the context of the same room and the same system? Because otherwise, your evaluation would be meaningless.