[move-on-by]

I don’t have great hearing, so I’m not sure I can really weigh in here (thanks punk concerts in my teens). I remember similar arguments around screens and 60Hz vs ‘the human eye’. I think a lot of people, myself included, can easily perceive the difference between 60Hz and something higher- given the right conditions. I would not be so quick to disregard claims of more sensitive hearing.

[speak_on]

(I commented on this topic above/below in more detail.) Even with not-so-great hearing you would still be able to identify the difference (ie artifacts are pushed down, not up). Look up articles on the practical limitations of AD/DA converters and why the seemingly counter-intuitive claim that the difference between 44.1 kHz and above is noticeable, is actually a fully industry-accepted practical reality: aliasing, AD/DA lowpass filters, etc.

[labcomputer]

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]

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]

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]

Absolutely! All these examples have imperfect audio paths - that is the point.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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]

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.

[ses1984]

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]

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/123456789/134...

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]

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.