[sejsel]

I understand what he was saying, close to the field of my education but I question the relevance to music. Also making any transducer is a compromise but aiming for in my opinion musically unimportant frequency spectrum causes problems which are more disturbing musical spectrum (e.g. doppler distortion). As I said I am not so clear at the upper spectrum and time resolution issues.

Sound propagation - what he was describing - according to my understanding of the entire interview - has direct correlation with the music. And he was - in those two details (low and high frequency comprehension claims he mentions) talking about both sound propagation through some medium (air) as well as assessment of the human ability to perceive it in different manners.
He claims exactly (again, imo) the opposite, that even those higher and lower frequency spectrums have indeed musical importance. After all, he has been in the business all of his life, and the context of the interview (his statement) clearly tells that he was talking in context of music.

 

[jurumal]

Jurumal's CanJam SoCal 2018 Impressions

I know. Late. Like a week late, but as a fellow audiophile I feel obligated to contribute my (or just another) experience to my community. I will now be speaking as though CanJam just occurred last night.

I’ve been looking forward to this past weekend since September when I bought my tickets. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, I could not attend Saturday but was lucky to be able to literally catch THE LAST HOUR of CanJam on Sunday.

I arrive to JW Marriott at about 3:50pm and drop off my Civic at the valet in style and hustle down to the showroom floor. The show ends at 5:00pm! I stopped at registration and after verifying my ticket they tell me, “Hurry! Run!” Oh, you bet I did.

I promised Zach (ZMF Headphones) a couple months ago that when I make it to CanJam, his table was the first I would hit up. I finally reached his table and got ready to listen to the Auteur when I noticed Jude (Head-Fi) was nearby and I had to get a selfie. We’re both short! So awesome!

Anyways...

ZMF Auteur Blackwood
FYI Zach and his wife, Bevin, are the nicest people ever. I can finally confirm that for myself. The Auteur Blackwood was the first headphone I heard at the show. Not knowing what pads were on them I plugged them into my Chord Mojo and let it rip. They were warmer with that wooly bass I heard in the pre-production model at TSAV. They still were not the “neutral” sound that everyone has been raving about. That is, until I found out this pair had Eikon pads on. Pad change to Auteur pads and the sound shifted closer to neutral. While it had quite the heft to the bass section, I can see why this headphone is endgame. It’s detail and musicality. This headphone did have an inherently elevated bass region.

ZMF Auteur Teak
Zach offered to have me try the Teak and finally… Yes! This is where it’s at! The Auteur Teak are probably the most “neutral” headphones I now have heard. Now I understand this “neutrality” everyone’s been talking about (I’m looking at you, Tacos and DMS). The bass elevation I heard in the Blackwood leveled out on the Teak. Couple that with it’s wide soundstage and detail retrieval while maintaining ZMF style musicality and you’re pretty damn close to perfection. Compared to the Blackwood they have an etherial quality, where as with the Blackwood, the images had more immediacy and was “in your face”. I walked away from the table because there was so much more I needed to try in less than 1 hour, but I finally found “it”. Auteur Teak.

The Source AV
I had to stop by and say “hello” to my brothers at TSAV. If you never been to TSAV, then you need to make a mandatory trip there whenever you are in the LA area. Jason, Alan, and Wayne are always fun to hang with and are happy to help you find “your sound”. They often have AMAZING… I mean, not to shabby deals on audio gear to boot. These guys probably had the best table of the whole show. Among the multitude of gear at their table, I saw the whole Questyle DAC range, Sennheiser HD 820, Focal Clear, a special dealer exclusive Audeze LCD-3 with the new headband and maple wood ring which looked pretty sexy, and the Meze Empyrean.

Meze Empyrean with SPL Phonitor X
I’ve been looking forward to this guy since it’s announcement and it did not disappoint. I only listened to one song, “Tarova” by Snarky Puppy, that I was quickly able to choose from the SPL Phonitor X. If I could award Best of Show, I’d give it to the Meze Empyrean. The detail retrieval and speed of the headphone was reminiscent of an electrostat. On top of that, the Empyrean was the definition of non-fatiguing. And this thing was also musical. It was kickass! I wish I had stuck around longer to hear more from this system, but I had to say “wassup” to more peeps and get moving to try more things.

Campfire Audio Atlas
I stopped by Campfire Audio’s table and had to try their latest and greatest, the Campfire Atlas. This thing’s low-end was thick! Tight and THICC! Yup, that sub-bass and mid-bass are unapologetically emphasized alright, I mean, compared to the rest of the frequency response. If you’re not a basshead, the plus-side is that this IEM’s low-end does not encroach on the mids or treble and produces a nuanced sound overall. Are you a audiophile and basshead? If “yes”, then this IEM may be for you. At this point, I had to compare this guy to the…

Campfire Audio Andromeda
The reigning champ of IEMs. IMO the Andromeda still retains the title by way of it’s evenness through it’s frequency response and satisfying balance of fun vs. analytical nature.

Audeze Mobius
I was able to hear this briefly and was able to experience the movie demo. They played a clip from “House of Flying Daggers” and man, was the experience visceral. I would have liked to confirm if the Mobius has selectable EQ settings but the inquiry did not come to mind at the time. Regardless, this thing was pretty impressive. Can’t wait for the production release. Also, I was able to snag a snazzy t-shirt from them. Thanks, Audeze!

Audeze LCD-4Z with Audeze The King MKII
Audeze’s new flagship system was impressive with it’s resolving ability and visceral impact. The 4Z comes with the carbon fiber headband and a new all-around more comfortable design. Personally, I found it too thick in the mid-bass to midrange region. This headphone could easily be endgame for many people, but it wasn’t for me.

Sennheiser HD 820 with Sennheiser HDV 820
This was another ‘phone I was only able to spend time with briefly. I was turned off by the fact that you couldn’t use your own source at this table but “Lose Yourself to Dance” by Daft Punk was playing and decided to stay for the 820’s rendition of this song. Yup, this thing is the punchiest of the 800 series headphones while remaining true to the 800 series sound and detail retrieval. The HD 820 adds the low-end without the expense of clarity *cough* 800S *cough*. However, don’t expect it to give you Audeze bass depth or Focal punchiness. That bass is extended and punchy but only just enough to balance the frequency spectrum.

Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000
Okay, I didn’t get to try this headphone. I stopped by hoping to but since it was close to “quittin’ time”, the necessary amps have already been packed and ready to go. The attendant at the table told me I probably wouldn’t have any gear on me that will be able to drive the ADX5000 properly. I unfortunately did not think to bust out the Micro iDSD Black Label I had in my backpack to test this claim. I later looked up the impedance of this headphone and yeah, 420 ohms is quite up there, but I think it would’ve been a nice challenge for my portable DAC/AMP. They said the ADX5000 will be available for demo at LA Audio Show. Maybe then we can find out if the Black Label has what it takes to be the portable amp champ or get “impeded” by the ADX5000.

Focal Clear
Unfortunately, the proper adapters weren’t available for me to try it on my Mojo, but this headphone is already a familiar one for me. At my very first CanJam last year, I went home with the Focal Elear. Man, was this an exciting headphone. It’s probably still the most resolving headphone I’ve owned to this day. After spending extended quality time with Elear, I’ve learned that it’s got a couple faults that kept it from being perfect IMO, namely the upper-midrange dip and lack of treble extension. It improved slightly over time after burn-in, but those qualities still persisted. Enter the Clear. Smooth, impactful and detailed. Pretty damn close to perfect. It’s new voice-coil fixed the aforementioned issues. Clear or Auteur? I may have my answer after returning to the next table.

ZMF Auteur (Pt. 2)
I returned to Zach’s table and I was fortunate enough to get a little more listening time with the Auteur. I reached for the Teak first and noticed it had a warmness to it this time. Zach told me it had the Eikon pads (THOSE pads again!) It is worth mentioning that there was another gentleman, Scott, who I met at the table that preferred the Eikon pads over the Auteur pads. Auteur pads had too much treble resonance for him. Not the case for me even though I, like many of you, consider myself treble sensitive. After a quick pad swap, I was back to “neutral”. It was great. However, now I was seeking a little more immediacy and a little more richness from the bottom-end. I donned the Blackwood for a second time and… perfection. Very odd that I found my “Goldilocks” sound in the Teak the first time, but now in the Blackwood. The temptation to go home with the Auteur Blackwood demo unit was real. But alas, that honor went to someone else that night. That’s okay. I didn’t exactly have the money to take anything of that caliber home tonight anyways. If tonight was any indication, I can always count on Zach and his team to continue to put out amazing sounding, beautiful pieces. When I’m ready, I’m sure I’ll find what I’ve been looking for at ZMF.

It was a pleasure hanging out with Alan from TSAV and Zach along with my other acquaintances, Scott and JD, at the close of the night. Not to mention, it was really cool to run into Jude and Warren from Head-Fi. My time at CanJam SoCal was very limited but a very quality experience. It was the HE-1 of CanJam experiences for me lol. Let’s all go next year! I already cannot wait!

Special thanks to @zach915m, @TSAVJason, @TSAVAlan, and @PacoTaco for making CanJam SoCal 2018 the one that lived up to the hype. And not to mention, another special thanks to @jude, @warrenpchi, and the rest of the Head-Fi team for arranging this fantastic show.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

^^Qick question about your excellent review, @jurumal , does Focal have a “new voice coil” for the Clear? If so, is it being made available to current owners?

 

[miceblue]

Headphones, as well as the speakers, are both transducers, both can be described as some sort of engine, if you like. Both have membrane, sound signature and technical characteristics of both can be tweaked and tuned.
Admittedly, Tim was talking about digital vs. analogue in conjuction/relatin to human hearing, and how much/little is known and published about it.

Tim de Paravicini knew very well what he was talking about and why he was saying that, I could believe that there was more to what he was saying in the interviews than it perhaps meets the eye, so to speak.

I, for one, do not subscribe to the notion that one transducer (headphone in this case) is deemed to be not capable of reproducing some of those sensations, or all of it, given that the source is of the certain character(istics) and quality, and given that all links in the audio chain (together with the transducer at the end of the chain) have the right technical characteristics.
I would bet that that it (transducer of sorts, happens to be the headphone) might actually be capable of it.
To me, it actually does not make sense that one membrane housed in the box or some sort of body, or suspended physically (speaker) can reproduce one thing, and at the same time - the headphone (membrane on contraption close to your ears) - cannot - and I am not discussing the resonance of the eye fluids (neither did De Paravicini, but bones and similar).
Why do you think he mentioned the ultrasonic cleaner and tinnitus, and how come that he mentioned just that (other end of the freq. spectrum) ? You mean that there are some other parts in the cleaner that have no relation to the sound propagation causing the effect he mentions ? What other parts ?

Since I have had brief contact with Tim recently on facebook (one facebook-, audio dedicated group) - we could perhaps ask the man himself, or first read the interviews with him prior to almost dismissing what he is (or anyone else, for that matter) saying on the subject ?

If the driver itself, or playback system, can't reproduce ultrasonic frequencies very well, then that potentially has negative effects on the sound quality in the audible range in the form of distortion or aliasing. That's still different than reliably detecting the ultrasonic signals.

I am strongly in favor of recording above 48 kHz sampling rates, but not so much on playback of ultrasonics unless a system properly handles those signals. This is partially why I was interested in the recording above 20 kHz seminar at CanJam. >.>

Ultrasonic cleaners use ultrasonic frequencies to clean things, but that doesn't mean the machine only makes sound of those frequencies. Even if you look on YouTube for videos of ultrasonic cleaners, you can hear when the machine is on, and YouTube's audio is limited to some 18 kHz of frequency data. They make high frequency sounds still that are audible. If you go to a dentist's office and they use an ultrasonic cleaner to blast off tartar from your teeth, you can still hear the high-frequency sounds it makes. That doesn't mean I can reliably detect its ultrasonic frequencies though. I don't know about those sounds causing tinnitus since its causes are still a mystery, but I do get annoyed by high frequency sounds, whether it be a CRT TV, the dentist's ultrasonic cleaner, noise from a wall adaptor plug, etc.

 

[x RELIC x]

^^Qick question about your excellent review, @jurumal , does Focal have a “new voice coil” for the Clear? If so, is it being made available to current owners?

I think he is referring to the solid copper voice coil in the Clear vs the copper clad aluminum voice coil of the Elear.

 

[sejsel]

If the driver itself, or playback system, can't reproduce ultrasonic frequencies very well, then that potentially has negative effects on the sound quality in the audible range in the form of distortion or aliasing. That's still different than reliably detecting the ultrasonic signals.

I am strongly in favor of recording above 48 kHz sampling rates, but not so much on playback of ultrasonics unless a system properly handles those signals. This is partially why I was interested in the recording above 20 kHz seminar at CanJam. >.>

Ultrasonic cleaners use ultrasonic frequencies to clean things, but that doesn't mean the machine only makes sound of those frequencies. Even if you look on YouTube for videos of ultrasonic cleaners, you can hear when the machine is on, and YouTube's audio is limited to some 18 kHz of frequency data. They make high frequency sounds still that are audible. If you go to a dentist's office and they use an ultrasonic cleaner to blast off tartar from your teeth, you can still hear the high-frequency sounds it makes. That doesn't mean I can reliably detect its ultrasonic frequencies though. I don't know about those sounds causing tinnitus since its causes are still a mystery, but I do get annoyed by high frequency sounds, whether it be a CRT TV, the dentist's ultrasonic cleaner, noise from a wall adaptor plug, etc.

Well, all of this is interesting, and we obviously have rather contradictory opinions / assumptions, which is also interesting.
I still do not agree nor I am convinced that we cannot reliably (however you choose to define this) detect those frequencies - in some manner, since there are obvious claims otherwise, stated earlier on, and hardly proven otherwise here.
The claim was also that tinnitus is possible to induce in the manner stated earlier, and person who claimed that sounded certain of it (and it is someone who was tinkering with sound, electronics, and made a name for himslef and a living of it), and also certain about what frequency does what in that regard.
Now, reliably detecting the ultrasonic signals is one thing (humans being able or unable to do so), but there was also claim from you earlier that headphones as transducers were not capable of doing so... Well, there are specs of the headphones that actually go out of the 20-20000hz in freq range, (and I have read number of times that we cannot hear anything above or under that freq. range, so what is the point of manufacturers doing just that - it can't be only aliasing or disto) as well as the argument "transducer as transducer... " - not really steadily proved here to be otherwise either.
Tim de Paravicini's statements are rather clear on this matter, and on a good deal of other things, for those interested is easy to find the interviews and read on about subject(s).

 

[jurumal]

^^Qick question about your excellent review, @jurumal , does Focal have a “new voice coil” for the Clear? If so, is it being made available to current owners?

You’re too kind. What @x RELIC x mentioned is exactly what I’m talking about. If you are a current Clear owner, you already have that new solid copper voice coil! And I envy you very much

 

[miceblue]

Well, all of this is interesting, and we obviously have rather contradictory opinions / assumptions, which is also interesting.
I still do not agree nor I am convinced that we cannot reliably (however you choose to define this) detect those frequencies - in some manner, since there are obvious claims otherwise, stated earlier on, and hardly proven otherwise here.
The claim was also that tinnitus is possible to induce in the manner stated earlier, and person who claimed that sounded certain of it (and it is someone who was tinkering with sound, electronics, and made a name for himslef and a living of it), and also certain about what frequency does what in that regard.
Now, reliably detecting the ultrasonic signals is one thing (humans being able or unable to do so), but there was also claim from you earlier that headphones as transducers were not capable of doing so... Well, there are specs of the headphones that actually go out of the 20-20000hz in freq range, (and I have read number of times that we cannot hear anything above or under that freq. range, so what is the point of manufacturers doing just that - it can't be only aliasing or disto) as well as the argument "transducer as transducer... " - not really steadily proved here to be otherwise either.
Tim de Paravicini's statements are rather clear on this matter, and on a good deal of other things, for those interested is easy to find the interviews and read on about subject(s).

Erm I think my original quotes got jumbled together. I never meant to say headphones can't produce those frequencies, rather the way I've read about people detecting those frequencies is not capable via headphones. e.g. headphones don't make sound to impact your chest nor eyes. Most research done with subsonic or ultrasonic detection is with loudspeakers. I whole-heartily agree that we're able to detect those types of sounds in that kind of situation, just not headphones.

Do you have any scientific sources for this extended detection range of 3-50000 Hz? I have yet to see another source outside of Paravicini's 1995 interview that has this range. I mean, he even changes up his range a bit in this 2007 Stereophile interview:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tim-de-paravicini-king-tubes-page-2
"And they never did enough analysis of the human hearing mechanism to realize that we don't stop hearing at 20kHz—people can discern and detect sound up to 45kHz."

Different than the quote you had posted before:
http://www.ear-usa.com/tim-de-paravicini/
"We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz."

 

[greenmountain]

Well, all of this is interesting, and we obviously have rather contradictory opinions / assumptions, which is also interesting.
I still do not agree nor I am convinced that we cannot reliably (however you choose to define this) detect those frequencies - in some manner, since there are obvious claims otherwise, stated earlier on, and hardly proven otherwise here.
The claim was also that tinnitus is possible to induce in the manner stated earlier, and person who claimed that sounded certain of it (and it is someone who was tinkering with sound, electronics, and made a name for himslef and a living of it), and also certain about what frequency does what in that regard.
Now, reliably detecting the ultrasonic signals is one thing (humans being able or unable to do so), but there was also claim from you earlier that headphones as transducers were not capable of doing so... Well, there are specs of the headphones that actually go out of the 20-20000hz in freq range, (and I have read number of times that we cannot hear anything above or under that freq. range, so what is the point of manufacturers doing just that - it can't be only aliasing or disto) as well as the argument "transducer as transducer... " - not really steadily proved here to be otherwise either.
Tim de Paravicini's statements are rather clear on this matter, and on a good deal of other things, for those interested is easy to find the interviews and read on about subject(s).

I worked a lot with different ultrasonic gear (even used some old tube powered ones) in my career as a scientist and one can not hear anything when on or off (never any tinnitus). Many of these sonicators where tunable and one could generate in specific volumes, frequency and power combinations resonances which generated some sounds (mostly in low kHz). Some of the older gear the power supplies were noisy. The sound power of the devices were much higher than the ultrasonic content from any musical instrument. Presently I have an ultrasonic toothbrush which works at 100kHz and I can not notice if it is on or not except for its led.

 

[sejsel]

Quote from one interview with Tim De Paravicini:

"Q : If analog tape sounds so much better than digital, what improvements should be made in A/D, D/A converters?

A: First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound."

I think this post (above) should be re-read.

Perhaps. I'm not too convinced those all can be detected from a headphone system though. Sub 20 Hz signals are felt through the body (i.e. chest or bone conduction), which a headphone on your ears can't really reproduce, but speakers most certainly can. I've read a paper that the resonant frequency of the fluid of your eyes can be resonated at high frequencies and can thus be detected, but again headphones don't affect your eyes, speakers can. Ultasonic cleaners have other parts that make lower frequency sounds that we can hear, but that doesn't mean we can hear ultrasonic frequencies.

Regarding the bolded, well, as I have said earlier, headphone is a transducer as well, your premise is that because of the sound propagation through the air and the nature of the speaker vs. the nature of the headphone (sound propagation made by one vs. the other transducer) the human body (chest, bones, etc.) cannot feel those sensations outside of the 20-20000 freq. range.
You are repeating this claim, I have understood that, but I have my own doubts about the whole concept you are advocating, for several reasons, some of them mentioned earlier by me.

Erm I think my original quotes got jumbled together. I never meant to say headphones can't produce those frequencies, rather the way I've read about people detecting those frequencies is not capable via headphones. e.g. headphones don't make sound to impact your chest nor eyes

Again, both speakers and headphones are transducers. You claim that one transducer is capable of producing those sensations, based on some alleged (real) experiments, I am really not sure if this is absolute truth. To me the whole reasoning there is highly questionable.

Most research done with subsonic or ultrasonic detection is with loudspeakers. I whole-heartily agree that we're able to detect those types of sounds in that kind of situation, just not headphones.

Why? Are there any firm scientific research and result(s) confirming this ?

Do you have any scientific sources for this extended detection range of 3-50000 Hz? I have yet to see another source outside of Paravicini's 1995 interview that has this range.

Probably as much as your (other, above mentioned) claims , but I (without putting mr. Paravicini on any unquestionable position or piedestal) choose here to stick to his claims, for number of reasons.
I have, otherwise, never bought into 20-20000 thing, since I have started listening to the music and following the audio technology.

I mean, he even changes up his range a bit in this 2007 Stereophile interview:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tim-de-paravicini-king-tubes-page-2
"And they never did enough analysis of the human hearing mechanism to realize that we don't stop hearing at 20kHz—people can discern and detect sound up to 45kHz."

Different than the quote you had posted before:
http://www.ear-usa.com/tim-de-paravicini/
"We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz."

Yes, he does. But I again fail to see how that detail (and I was well aware of that "discrepancy") changes the whole story here.
If we turn things a bit around, he makes some strong claims, and I am not really convinced that he is wrong, based on your claims or presumptions. And again, the whole stance about speaker vs. the headphone to me is, well, let's say, an interesting subject, and far from something very conclusive.

 

[sejsel]

Quote from one interview with Tim De Paravicini:

"Q : If analog tape sounds so much better than digital, what improvements should be made in A/D, D/A converters?

A: First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound."

I worked a lot with different ultrasonic gear (even used some old tube powered ones) in my career as a scientist and one can not hear anything when on or off (never any tinnitus). Many of these sonicators where tunable and one could generate in specific volumes, frequency and power combinations resonances which generated some sounds (mostly in low kHz). Some of the older gear the power supplies were noisy. The sound power of the devices were much higher than the ultrasonic content from any musical instrument. Presently I have an ultrasonic toothbrush which works at 100kHz and I can not notice if it is on or not except for its led.

Again, interesting; needless perhaps to mention that Tim de Paravicini has actually the degree - I believe in Electrical engineering, and has been tinkering with the sound (with wide acclaim) since he was like 10-11 ?
He has had quite lengthy career, so... well, I presume I am putting myself on the line here or whatever, but it looks to me that yours and his claims are in good contrast.

It would be really interesting to establish the truth. Incidentally, de Paravicini claims himself that he sees himself as an engineer and academic person in his approach to the sound, amplifiers, tape recorders, electrical circuits vs. sound, solid state vs. tubes, analogue vs. digital, etc.

Nice to see that ther can be a good (?) debate surrounding the issues here, but I am not entirely convinced that he did not know what he was talking about.

 

[greenmountain]

I am quite sure that Tim de Paravicini knows much much more about electronic circuits than me and I appreciated some of his designs sound wise but I think that does not make him an expert in psychoacoustic. I really value that a few people in the audio electronics field like him are thinking about what it is really required in terms of equipment performance to reproduce music that is approaching the real musical event but frequency past the audible range is not determining parameter.

 

[sejsel]

It seems that it is, at least contributing, if not determining parameter, according to him (read the interview btw - he did not used the word "determining", but put the audible freq. range in the context found in the interview) and he sounds confident in his own claims about frequencies and audible range regarding the AD-DA digital vs. the analogue.
All of that is clearly stated by him, not only once, so we could agree that You are in disagreement with his statements (if I am interpreting correctly what you are stating here), and leave it at that.
I am also sure that he did not said those things without any reason.

 

[sejsel]

Love my new unit. Full textured mids and bass, altho no treble roll-off detected yet.

EDIT: Love it even more with Philips/Mullard ECC35 tubes and out of my TH900 cans. What a lush full sound, and with a bass bottom that feels more like a pressure wave than an audible cue.

I'm as happy right now as a pig in a wallow.

Incidentally, this is the quote about Tim de Paravicini headphone amp, made long time ago, and held in high esteem by many head-audiophiles.

 

[miceblue]

It seems that it is, at least contributing, if not determining parameter, according to him (read the interview btw - he did not used the word "determining", but put the audible freq. range in the context found in the interview) and he sounds confident in his own claims about frequencies and audible range regarding the AD-DA digital vs. the analogue.
All of that is clearly stated by him, not only once, so we could agree that You are in disagreement with his statements (if I am interpreting correctly what you are stating here), and leave it at that.
I am also sure that he did not said those things without any reason.

So other than this one interview you keep quoting from, do you have any links to actual designed experiments to back up his claims? It seems like you're really siding with his claims, yet there's no evidence for them other than his own words. I did a Google Scholar search for any peer-reviewed work he's done and nothing relevant comes up, not even from the AES library.


I use some freely available LessLoss tracks as a test for timbre; they're really well-mastered tracks.
https://www.lessloss.com/drums-drums-drums-p-203.html

Tracks 5 and 6 are great examples of why recording above 96 kHz sampling rates might have some benefits. The drums in these tracks have actual frequency content above 48 kHz.




Listening to these tracks on headphones like the HE1000, Utopia, HD800S, or my own SR-207 which all have claimed frequency responses above 40 kHz yields a really nice sense of spacial separation between the notes of the drums. However I get that effect even when downsampling to 48 kHz. What would be the reason for this other than we simply can't detect supersonic frequencies in a headphone system?