Comment by speak_on
4 days 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.
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.
Absolutely! All these examples have imperfect audio paths - that is the point.
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.
5 replies →
Can you give any examples of people identifying these artifacts in a/b tests?
Who has the best ears? What can they detect?
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.
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.