Also, at least according to https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/145/1/458/638769/Small... smallest percieved time difference between ears is half the sample time of 44.1kHz

▲

danadam 7 months ago | parent [-]

That's unrelated. This difference is the inter-aural or inter-channel difference and 16/44.1k can capture that to much greater precision than microseconds.

Some math [1]

44.1k file containing pulses with sub-sample delays [2]

Something similar, but square wave, and nicely showing that timing precision actually depends on bit-depth and not the sampling rate [3]

Some practical experiments with capturing the playback of such files and verifying that the delay is preserved: pulse [4] and square [5]

[1] https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-...

[2] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/t...

[3] https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/58511-time-resoluti...

[4] https://www.head-fi.org/threads/can-you-hear-upscaling.97295...

[5] https://www.head-fi.org/threads/can-you-hear-upscaling.97295...

	▲	112233 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Super thanks! This is exactly the kind of non-handwavy math I have trouble coming upon myself. It gets much more complicated with more and modern speakers doing room calibration (at least Genelec and Neumann have their own, and Sonos also has some iphone waving trueplay thing). And just saying "Niquist!" does not help to understand, e.g., how precisely can phase be aligned by applying FIR filters, and what impact does the sample rate or bit depth have.