Yeah, but what you’re hearing is the effect of the high frequency tone on the sound waves in the audible range, you’re not hearing the high frequency tone itself (as it isn’t in the audible range). Just because you can hear a difference, doesn’t mean that you could ever blindly identify (detect) that the tone was there.

In any case, my point is that your post is poorly worded and it’s evident in all the replies of, “you’re just proving my point for me”. What you said and what you’re trying to convey are not aligned. The outcome is people telling you you’re wrong when you see it as them actually agreeing with you.

Enlighten me then

You cannot hear frequencies outside the audible range. You wrote that you can; the statement is wrong. Objective proof that you could, would require a blind test. Further, detecting a difference between two samples is not the same thing as detecting frequencies beyond the audible range. If you can detect a difference, but can’t discern which sample contains the high frequency tone, then you are not detecting the tone at all. This is why you need a blind test.

I have nothing to add regarding any effects a high frequency tone has on sound in the audible range or whether or not it matters, but your “objective proof” of “detecting” high frequency tones is misleading at best, and I don’t even think it’s the point you’re trying to make.

When you say one thing that is objectively wrong, it takes away from anything else you’re saying that is possibly correct or at the very least worth discussing.