Originally Posted by bigshot
... Every few days someone shows up on our doorstep with a chip on their shoulder insisting that the inaudible is audible. ...
You do me a disservice, sir. I am of the diametrically opposite opinion. (I may have a chip on my shoulder, but it is on the opposite shoulder.) I defer (and refer) to the conclusions of researchers who have performed properly controlled tests to determine the actual limits of perception of various effects.
Even then, the results have to be interpreted in context. For example, there's some disagreement about how much jitter is audible. I've seen results that differ by up to an order of magnitude. What is often glossed over is the the way the test was performed. Using jitter with a random distribution and a representative set of audio samples (speech, music of various types) will give a different answer than an artificially generated test signal. I believe the startlingly low figure often quoted by "inaudible is audible" proponents was generated by using a 0dBFS 20 KHz signal jittered by a 1 KHz tone. Hardly representative of real life...
As for providing links to references, I haven't bookmarked any lately because I read them and say "That's obvious and logical, why would anyone argue about it?" and move on instead of bookmarking. Also, much of the more authoritative work is behind paywalls, such as the JAES. But I'll get onto it, and you may hold my feet to the fire if I don't deliver within a couple of weeks.
Edited by Don Hills - 8/13/13 at 5:32pm