[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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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]

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]

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.

[speak_on]

This is a more philosophical take… And I totally agree with you. I mix at 16/44.1 just for the record. I do not buy into the idea of gold plated connectors or 96 kHz mixing. My point was never about quality - I can hear the difference (the point!), doesn't mean for me personally > 44.1 is "better" or "worse".

To your main point: yes, all artifacts are just our learned, cultural, developed preferences. In the exact same way major/minor thirds were considered dissonant just a few hundred years ago - it's all a learned perception, not an absolute judgment.

I would go even further, doesn't matter whether people perceive aliasing as a major issue, it's no different from the U47 "warmth". You can't afford this, probably, as a software developer in a way, but at the most fundamental level any sound's - or artifact's - judgment is based on our our current diagram of "sounds nice" vs "sounds bad".