And I’m fairly certain that any exported audio codecs that you’d use on final media typically throw those frequencies out when doing any form of compression. No point storing data for something it’s impossible (for a human) to hear.
20khz*
Most people above the age of 6 cant hear 20khz, most people never have. Saying that the human hearing range is 20hz - 20khz is sort of misleading as some has never had the ability to hear anything above 17khz from birth and some maybe heard 21khz as toddlers.
I found this out when Lockdown happened. All our meetings switched to virtual, and my plan was to blow a dog whistle during meetings to set off all of the other participant's dogs. One day technology will get us there, but sadly not today.
That's not really true. It's not especially optimized for in the generally quoted low-distortion range, but higher frequency response generally comes along for the ride at least to an extent. Tweeters are probably often only like -20 dB all the way up at 30 kHz. That's significantly reduced response, but luckily dogs have very good hearing and it's not like people are going to notice if the inaudible part is very loud to compensate for poor speaker response. But probably most people are watching over streaming, and you'd be lucky to get 48 kHz sampling (meaning 24 kHz audio at the top end) that way. But 23-24 kHz is going to be inaudible to people too.
88
u/IvoShandor 5h ago
Consumer grade electronics cannot reproduce frequencies that high.