6 ms·

I would. It’s really simple. The human threshold-of-hearing curve intersects the threshold-of-pain curve at about 20 kHz. Above that frequency (or thereabouts

I would. It’s really simple. The human threshold-of-hearing curve intersects the threshold-of-pain curve at about 20 kHz. Above that frequency (or thereabouts) the sound has to be so loud that it will literally instantly damage your hearing before you can hear it. This has been replicated across many studies for more than 100 years. Flicker threshold is completely different. You can’t damage your vision by increasing the FPS, and it has always been commercially desirable to use a lower frequency because that is cheaper.

speak_on 3mo ago
Would you agree that a trained human could identify artifacts produced by an imperect conversion process? If you lean "yes", then that's your answer: AD/DA is not a Rust function perfectly implementing the Nyquist theorem, it's a collection of physical components many of which introduce artifacts into the audio path. This thread is not about the theory of human hearing, the electronic components are literally imperfect.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
  They're no more imperfect than the pickups on an electric guitar, the assembly inside the microphone, the circuit in the compressor and everything else in the analog signal chain that exists long before AD happens.
  - speak_on 3mo ago
    Absolutely! All these examples have imperfect audio paths - that is the point.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
      But the central point is that there's no reason to pick on the digital elements in any particular way. Recorded music in 2026 is a pretty good recreation of the original acoustic pressure waves when it is intended to be, but (a) not perfect, even in the pure analog domain and (b) it is frequently not intended to be.
      - speak_on 3mo ago
        The central point is that AD conversion can and will introduce artifacts. DA process wil intrduce more artifacts. The "imperfect" is a huge range and AD/DA converters play a role in that. We are not talking about "golden cables" bs here, conversion does introduce measurable artifacts in the audio path. The more tracks you record the more artifacts you have. Can everyone hear them? Definitely no. Can they be heard - yes, I can hear the difference between an old Digidesign interface and Grace Design interface.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
        No, the central point is that the analog signal handling before AD introduces vastly more "artifacts" than the AD or DA does. In addition, nobody cares about "measurable" artifacts (or rather, they should not). What matters are "audible" artifacts. We have measuring equipment that is vastly more sensitive than human ears (e.g. your recording equipment that can pick up signals far above 22kHz). What's measurable is not particularly interesting - what's audible is. Artifacts do not sum linearly, because they do not originate from correlated sources (unless you're doing something rather unusual). Glad you can hear the difference between two converters, but I trust you've tested it in a double blind setting?
        speak_on 3mo ago
        Hm, no. The discussion was never about analog artifacts vs AD conversion artifacts. Both are present. And not sure why you use "artifacts", do you not believe the artifacts are real? How can the lowpass filter not introduce artifacts? And absolutely - I blind tested coverters extensively. Mbox2, Black Lion Audio upgraded converters, UA, Prism.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
        Note: blind testing is not double blind testing. Scientists evolved double blind for a reason: blind testing doesn't remove bias. Yes, the discussion was "never about analog vs AD". But my point is that I see little point wasting time on one set of artifacts (in the digital realm) that are tiny compared to those introduced in the analog realm. If there's a mouse and an elephant about to enter your home, you focus on the elephant, no? The big difference, of course, is that "everyone" has convinced themselves that most/all of the analog artifacts, as big as they are, are somehow "tasteful" or "artistic", whereas the digital ones are just "math errors". I don't think is too helpful. And look, if lots of people could get through double blind tests and still show they can hear aliasing or whatever the digital artifact du jour is, then I'd say "yes, absolutely, we need to be very aware of this and do everything we can to reduce or eliminate it". But as far as I can tell, this just isn't the case.
- ses1984 3mo ago
  Can you give any examples of people identifying these artifacts in a/b tests? Who has the best ears? What can they detect?
  - speak_on 3mo ago
    OK, so we are entering the stage of "can you provide a double-blind study link". I can look it up, I am not a researcher. Here is one: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/13493/Reiss%20A%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20High%20Resolution%202016%20Published.pdf https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/134... I know from my 20-ish year mixing experience that I can hear the difference when mixing. Is it good evidence? No. So we can agree to disagree then.
    - ses1984 3mo ago
      This is my first time seeing any research like this, thanks for the link. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm really curious about the limits of what people can hear, what can be taught and what is rare.

speak_on 3mo ago

Would you agree that a trained human could identify artifacts produced by an imperect conversion process? If you lean "yes", then that's your answer: AD/DA is not a Rust function perfectly implementing the Nyquist theorem, it's a collection of physical components many of which introduce artifacts into the audio path. This thread is not about the theory of human hearing, the electronic components are literally imperfect.

PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
They're no more imperfect than the pickups on an electric guitar, the assembly inside the microphone, the circuit in the compressor and everything else in the analog signal chain that exists long before AD happens.
- speak_on 3mo ago
  Absolutely! All these examples have imperfect audio paths - that is the point.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
    But the central point is that there's no reason to pick on the digital elements in any particular way. Recorded music in 2026 is a pretty good recreation of the original acoustic pressure waves when it is intended to be, but (a) not perfect, even in the pure analog domain and (b) it is frequently not intended to be.
    - speak_on 3mo ago
      The central point is that AD conversion can and will introduce artifacts. DA process wil intrduce more artifacts. The "imperfect" is a huge range and AD/DA converters play a role in that. We are not talking about "golden cables" bs here, conversion does introduce measurable artifacts in the audio path. The more tracks you record the more artifacts you have. Can everyone hear them? Definitely no. Can they be heard - yes, I can hear the difference between an old Digidesign interface and Grace Design interface.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
        No, the central point is that the analog signal handling before AD introduces vastly more "artifacts" than the AD or DA does. In addition, nobody cares about "measurable" artifacts (or rather, they should not). What matters are "audible" artifacts. We have measuring equipment that is vastly more sensitive than human ears (e.g. your recording equipment that can pick up signals far above 22kHz). What's measurable is not particularly interesting - what's audible is. Artifacts do not sum linearly, because they do not originate from correlated sources (unless you're doing something rather unusual). Glad you can hear the difference between two converters, but I trust you've tested it in a double blind setting?
        speak_on 3mo ago
        Hm, no. The discussion was never about analog artifacts vs AD conversion artifacts. Both are present. And not sure why you use "artifacts", do you not believe the artifacts are real? How can the lowpass filter not introduce artifacts? And absolutely - I blind tested coverters extensively. Mbox2, Black Lion Audio upgraded converters, UA, Prism.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
        Note: blind testing is not double blind testing. Scientists evolved double blind for a reason: blind testing doesn't remove bias. Yes, the discussion was "never about analog vs AD". But my point is that I see little point wasting time on one set of artifacts (in the digital realm) that are tiny compared to those introduced in the analog realm. If there's a mouse and an elephant about to enter your home, you focus on the elephant, no? The big difference, of course, is that "everyone" has convinced themselves that most/all of the analog artifacts, as big as they are, are somehow "tasteful" or "artistic", whereas the digital ones are just "math errors". I don't think is too helpful. And look, if lots of people could get through double blind tests and still show they can hear aliasing or whatever the digital artifact du jour is, then I'd say "yes, absolutely, we need to be very aware of this and do everything we can to reduce or eliminate it". But as far as I can tell, this just isn't the case.
ses1984 3mo ago
Can you give any examples of people identifying these artifacts in a/b tests? Who has the best ears? What can they detect?
- speak_on 3mo ago
  OK, so we are entering the stage of "can you provide a double-blind study link". I can look it up, I am not a researcher. Here is one: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/13493/Reiss%20A%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20High%20Resolution%202016%20Published.pdf https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/134... I know from my 20-ish year mixing experience that I can hear the difference when mixing. Is it good evidence? No. So we can agree to disagree then.
  - ses1984 3mo ago
    This is my first time seeing any research like this, thanks for the link. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm really curious about the limits of what people can hear, what can be taught and what is rare.