I tested my hearing with a tone generator and can only hear about 14.5kHz. I am in my mid 30's. Cool, now I don't have to worry about equalizing anything above that frequency range. Now, if my vision would just get worse, the ScreenPlay 4805 would look even better.

Perhaps I should provide some research to back up my claims. However, it would appear that above 20kHz, or 22kHz, or 18kHz, or whatever high point you accept as the top of normal human hearing, those extra high frequencies aren't detectable unless by direct contact with the source.

Whether or not you would consider air to be a suitable direct contact source, you might accept the idea of non-detectable fluid pressure having a physiological or psychological effect on the human body. The same way infrasonics can be used as a weapon against humans, and is the reason for "spookiness" in old houses.

High frequencies are also very important for localization, hence the bat's hearing and "speech" range. One might argue that _if_ humans can perceive higher frequencies, whether or not they consciously realize it or not, then localization would improve. Thus improving imaging in audio reproduction.

Ultra Hearing Fetus
Ultrasonic Hearing in Humans: Applications for Tinnitus Treatment

I've actually seen that paper on tinitus before (wear hearing protection at the rifle range folks!). It's really only relevant for bone conduction. So a transducer would have to be physically touching you and the paper still says that it's not nearly as perceptable nor as accurate as the frequency discrimination in the audible range.

Cheers,

Yeah, so I'm still skeptical, but figure it can't hurt since the speakers I would like to get go high but I'm not interested in them for the super high response.

The 7100 is already 20Hz-20kHz at +/-0.1dB, so I figure it might go way up at +/-3dB. But I have no idea since I don't have measurement equipment myself.

I have a HF loss that starts at 2.5 KHz, as well as tinnitus (the Army didn't issue me ear protectors in basic training 53 years ago), but I could easily hear the difference in HF clarity when I changed from my Adcom TPA500 to the 990. I'm skeptical of any sweeping claim that the absence of signal above 20 KHZ is undetectable by humans, especially if they have a chance to compare it with similar material that has ultrasonic signal content. I think there would be a difference in subharmonics or beat tones down in the directly audible range. I'd like a chance to blind-compare the sound of my Maggie 1.6QR's (- 3db at 24 KHz) with the 3.6R's, which go up amost another octave: I would be surprised not to hear a difference.

Harman Kardon used to publish specs in the 1980s that went to 100 kHz, not because anyone could hear that high, but 'theory being that an amp needed to be able to handle frequencys far above the hearing range to ensure that some HF performance defect didn't cramp any frequencies just within the range of hearing. 'Not sure about their exact theory or if I buy it...just throwing it out there.