speak_on

Just to wrap this up. Is your professional opinion that techniques like antialiasing/oversampling/etc and any sample rate above 44.1 kHz are essentially an industry-wide scam and the perceived benefits are not true?

And since there are no double-blind studies supporting this tech, both using and adding any of these features to your software would only be propagating this scam further? I.e. far more than just lecturing "about stuff that isn't true" this actually physically implements features that are not true?.. OK, at least you are staying consistent.

(Also, looking forward to you discovering that there are not many double-blind studies supporting the "delusion" that the effect of a low pass filter is real and not just something we can measure but can't hear.)

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".

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.

Ha! OK I take that back.

Firstly, it's an amazing experience to randomly interact with people like you - I love and use your software. Hats off and thanks for what you offered to the industry!

But secondly, your statement makes even less sense to me: obviously artifacts do add up. Yes, not linearly, like any complex audio in general. But the more tracks with artifacts I have, the more artifacts I have overall. It's not like they cancel each other (outside of normal frequency cancellation).

I don't. Do you? I am not a researcher. Saying that, do you have a double-blind study handy on MP3 256 vs 320 actual audible differences? If not, can you yourself hear the difference? If you can - it might be an illusion.

Other than the top engineers in the industry. This is a discussion that always ends up in the "double-blind study" vs actual real engineers working in the industry.

Got it. Grammy voters love Collier's mixes. What about Tony Maserati? He can clearly tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2. If your argument is that these engineers can't hear the difference - you are going to be disappointed. They can. Even Dave Pensado who mixes at 16/44.1, does that because he rejects the idea, he can hear the difference according to him.

Ok dude, you obviously never recorded anything. Twelve mics on a drum kit, 60 tracks of rhythm guitars, several bass guitar layers, vocals, backing vocals, electric organ, percussions, saxophone solo. Do you think recording them at 44.1 somehow creates a shared "cloud-based" aliasing artifact that I store in S3?

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.

Genereally very low for a single track? What about 200 tracks? Badly written synthesis, or badly recorded live instruments, or bounced and re-bounced dozens of times... we are not talking about the quality-defining aspect here. You can produce an excellent mix on KRKs connected directly to a MacBook.

This space is not driven by a single precise formula. 48/96 kHz helps some engineers to produce better sounding mixes. Can everyone hear the extended range of Adam tweeters? Probably not. But some can, and they benefit from that. Even if there is no double-blind study to prove this in absolute terms.

Mixing process often involves hundreds of tracks, and if each introduces aliasing, this can become a problem. Some engineers do swear by "the final mix is 16/44.1 so why mix at a different resolution?" mantra - that's fine too.

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.

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

If you are looking for studies, this one comes to mind: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289039184_The_audib...

A quick search returned this PDF with a nice diagram of what aliasing looks like: https://download.tek.com/document/76W_30631_0_HR_Letter.pdf

To draw a design parallel: pixel-perfect design isn't something we are born with, noticing tiny details is a developed skill.

And yes, you are on point: oversampling is used extensively, but this just points at the exact issue: Nyquist theorem gave us a math algorithm, we still need to account for the electronic component imperfections. And then we are entering a different space of quality/precision/psychoacoustics/perception/etc. Meaning, not all converters, not all pre-amps, not all mics "sound" the same, even when they use same types of components on paper.

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.

The artifacts produced by pure 44.1 kHz convertion are aliased back down to lower frequencies. It's not about a theoretical human ear, it's about the actual physics of AD/DA conversion.

(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.

As I responded below, you are confusing math with physical reality. A true 44.1 kHz converter can't realistically capture frequencies ~18-20 kHz due to the limitations of filters used in the process. A perfect lowpass brick-wall filter just does not exist - they all introduce artifacts, which a trained ear can identify. You don't need to be a dog to hear the difference, just someone who does not assume that Nyquist theorem can be magically applied in the real world (and, ideally, someone who utilizes high quality converters with oversampling).

44.1 is "enough" only in theory. This assumes a physically impossible steep filter. Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing). So yes, a trained ear can tell the diffrenece between 44.1 and even 48 kHz. Like many other commenters in this thread, you are mixing up math theory with physical limitations of AD/DA converters. Oversampling is a common way to address this limitation, but strictly speaking 44.1 kHz is not as obviously "enough" as it seems.

The most impactful for noticing the difference? Again, I would argue it's the trained ear. If you have plenty of mixing experience then all these details add up, and a treated room becomes the most critical - agree with that.

At a minimum, anything above 16/44.1 requires far more than just files: monitors, a treated room, listening position, DAC, etc... but most importantly - a trained ear. That last one is the most uncomfortable truth.

Yes, it would flag an outbound connection from the Python process.

Worth mentioning the "supercollider-vscode" extension - makes Supercollider dev experience much smoother than it was a decade or so ago.

OF will be replaced before all the other jobs in this list. OF's main "product" is fantasies. A fast, local, uncensored, tunable video model will end it.

In my teens I was really into '60s and '70s counterculture and spent most of my nights looking up music from that era. Among all the lesser-known gems with surprising longevity (e.g. Tractor), there were hundreds - if not thousands - of bands with only one or two albums. A few times I was so fascinated by these short-lived bands that I looked up the musicians and reached out to them on Facebook (in its early days). All of them responded and were surprised and happy to chat about their band. And yeah... they just live "normal" non-musician lives now.

Oh wow, Crickets is an incredible track. Never heard of her before.

Fascinating! Did her music feel different from other musicians at the time? Listening to some of her songs now, it's hard not to feel like she was way ahead of her time. Though that could just be hindsight talking.

The parts where responses have schema-consistent types (OpenApi) and the same types can be used on the client without extra work (RPC) are outside of Zod.

Second this. Workers being non zone-based makes them less useful to me.

Looking at the first example - it's far less verbose. Although, seems to be suspiciously minimal, so I can't even tell from a single .tsp route definition what response content type to expect (application/json is the default most likely).