I took the heralded "third toke" and let me tell you from first hand experience smoking as much of 40mg as quickly and stoically as my Ego would allow: HOLY SHIT!!!!! OH MY FUCKING GOD!! That was what I was screaming in my head as I closed my eyes and I started flying through what seemed like outerspace, for real, at the speed of light. The "carrier wave" came in and tore my entire soul apart (something I did not even believe in). It was the loudest thing I could ever have imagined, it sounded like an electronic torpedo of frequency starting low bending to the highest frequency possible that it just blew everything I was apart. I swore I either died, or I was coming out of this completely fucked up. Retarded. Seeing fractals and unable to speak.

To this day, as someone who is much more on the side of science and discovery, that seemed absolutely real, just on a level that humanity will not understand for a long while.

And last but not least, DMT is AMAZING taken in smaller more manageable doses. I've smoked out many people and everyone has been astonished by what happens. Taking just 10-15mg is brilliant, even that will be the most amazing, orgasmic, alien experience and will come back amazed at the Universe, your own life and feel just very happy to be apart of it all. Even though, what you just witnessed - is some sort of parallel dimension, alien, Gnostic, Kabbalah reality that exists in some 9th dimension. Even if it were your mind, if you have taken it you will wonder, why and how is this possible? It obliterates all status quo conceptions that have occurred for the last 1,000 years+ as it is completely unlanguagable/uneglishable.

Only take that 3rd hit if you want to see how far your brain can propel you into some sort of wormhole into some other dimension of reality that humans may never understand. It changed my life for the better but I thought it was quite terrifying and I have had many DMT sub-breakthroughs... nothing can prepare anyone mere flesh being for a breakthrough; because, at least to me and many other intrepid folks, it proves we are not JUST flesh beings and that the nature of existence is far more mysterious than most of us Westerners and cultures influenced by ages of oppression, could ever have supposed.

Thanks for posting this, the world has a right to know that this exists and to have a "first hand" experience with "it".

That was stupid, and I laughed at the creativity.
Upvote for having the exact frequency to make something inside my laptop reverberate.

vocal chords are an oscillation that creates a frequency, as is a guitar string or a sax reed. hence the waveforms are similar. then just fuck with it with delays, pitch shifting, compression, phasing, and all manners of eq.

naw, unlike most "drugs" that ruin lives as a property of their chemical interactions, cannabis is completely safe.

the only thing that will cause harm is exacerbating an existing medical condition that is prone to the hypertension, or actions taken while in an "unsafe" setting like toking up the first time while driving.

hardly a reason to worry about it, most therepeutically safe substance known to mankind, as well as the fact that even if medical use isnt the reason, recreational use with properly informed persons will result in no harm and possible benefit.

even if people started using it at the volume and frequency of alcohol, their lives would actually be made better because of the effects of the plant.

infuriating but the truth is finally coming out. the US has a patent on CBD since 2003 through the dept of health and human services for its antiinflammatory effects. .. and no one even knows about CBD, even really educated people who have the internet. its fucked up. See the TED sift about willful ignorance.

when it becomes easier to be informed then not, we will see a change. thats fucked up, but whatever im not like that. ill keep trying.

Every time I chime-in on this retarded phenomena (another in a long-line of developmental disabilities engaged in by modern-day peeps) the cringe releases another gush of acids into my already damaged sphincters-More and more idiots on the road who can't drive anyway with worthless device #836 in their hands letting their robot friends know whats in their heads instead of concentrating on the 3-ton beast they indenture themselves to be able to play moron roulette with.

On of the many reasons I stay pissed-off. Recently though, I must say that I have found a way to diminish the frequency of road-raging incidents. I keep a few cans of silly string from the dollar store in the glove box and instead of shouting at people, I engage them at a stop with an attention-grabbing insult, and quickly empty the can (into their face if I can) on and into their vehicle.

Not adverse to the occasional brake-check, the 1-minute-horn-loop, or bumper-tap, to wrest the head from a fellow-motorist's ass as well. Herding and sheep-dogging works wonders for cooling the cell-towers in the vicinity of my vehicle as well, oh there's all kinds of wonderful things to pay attention to whilst sharing the motorways with choggie.

Herzog has his appeal to idiots, I have mine.
Please make a law in my State with stiff penalties for cell phone use while driving, another monkey law like seat belts which becomes monkey habit...

The person who runs a pedestrian down while texting? A tattoo of a cell-phone keypad on their fucking forehead and 10,000 hours of community service picking-up chewed bubble-gum off the pavement of AT&T cellular store parking-lots wearing a sandwich board.

Stand outside this address hurling feces at the windows-
9800 Savage Rd Fort Meade, MD 20755
(301) 688-6524

or, tie-up that switchboard asking Kenneth for the frequency....Prank call coordinated pizza delivery from every pizza haus within range...

Start building Faraday cages over all the houses on your block-

Flash-Mail thousands of envelopes to them stuffed with confectioner's sugar, baking soda, etc.

mail parcels filled with marzipan wrapped in aluminum foil with candy wires sticking-out...whole things edible-Big fun when they send the black SUV's to your front door and cordon off the block with swat-

Plant drugs in all the brass' cars them call the cops and the press at the same time...


*in Mr Roger's voice} "There's a lot you can do to make sure people are happy. What are some things you can think of to make those men in that concrete building happy?"

I'd take the suspension on principle, and drive without a license for a year on the same principle.

Here's the real: More fatal accidents occur in the U.S. now due primarily to distracted drivers and speeding. I would appreciate a scale of punishment befitting the crime committed based on the frequency and resulting loss-i.e., a distracted motorist causing an accident gets a harder hand-slap for using a cell phone than he/she would for drinking 3 shots of bourbon. and goin' to the store for a six-pack after.

A sobriety test should be quick and painless:
Smell breath-Been drinking
initiate breathalyzer-legally drunk

License suspended for a year, and if caught driving under suspension, complete loss of driving privileges for 2 years.
Caught under suspension after 2 years suspension, 5 years suspension and 180 days of supervised, community service on a dirty state highway during the middle of the summer, rounding-up garbage and carcass.

If a drunk under suspension kills or injures anyone while driving, 5 years on a chain gang whose job it is to walk the entire length of State highway 8-hours-a-day for the duration of their sentences, picking up trash and planting marijuana and indigenous flowering perennials.

Make a spectacle of a repeated drunk offender if there is no rehabilitating him. More so with text-drivers, that shits worse than crack and invariably more dangerous than drunks, who are primarily on the roadways when most peeps are ASLEEEEEP!

It's a very vaguely defined genre. According to Wikipedia, dubstep "generally features syncopated drum and percussion patterns with bass lines that contain prominent sub bass frequencies."

This definitely has syncopated drum and percussion. I don't think that machine can produce sub bass frequencies, but the sample he was using was probably as close as it'll get. It had the right BPM (somewhere around 140) and even contained the quintessential bass drop at around the 55 second mark of the song (32 measures in at 140 BPM).

Not saying it was good dubstep, but I think it falls within the broad category.

"Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A leaked top-secret order has revealed the Obama administration is conducting a massive domestic surveillance program by collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon Business customers. Last night The Guardian newspaper published a classified order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court directing Verizon’s Business Network Services to give the National Security Agency electronic data, including all calling records on a, quote, "ongoing, daily basis." The order covers each phone number dialed by all customers along with location and routing data, and with the duration and frequency of the calls, but not the content of the communications. The order expressly compels Verizon to turn over records for both international and domestic records. It also forbids Verizon from disclosing the existence of the court order. It is unclear if other phone companies were ordered to hand over similar information.

AMY GOODMAN: According to legal analysts, the Obama administration relied on a controversial provision in the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215, that authorizes the government to seek secret court orders for the production of, quote, "any tangible thing relevant to a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation." The disclosure comes just weeks after news broke that the Obama administration had been spying on journalists from the Associated Press and James Rosen, a reporter from Fox News.

We’re now joined by two former employees of the National Security Agency, Thomas Drake and William Binney. In 2010, the Obama administration charged Drake with violating the Espionage Act after he was accused of leaking classified information to the press about waste and mismanagement at the agency. The charges were later dropped. William Binney worked for almost 40 years at the NSA. He resigned shortly after the September 11th attacks over his concern over the increasing surveillance of Americans. We’re also joined in studio here by Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

First, for your legal opinion, Shayana, can you talk about the significance of what has just been revealed?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Sure. So I think, you know, we have had stories, including one in USA Today in May 2006, that have said that the government is collecting basically all the phone records from a number of large telephone companies. What’s significant about yesterday’s disclosure is that it’s the first time that we’ve seen the order, to really appreciate the sort of staggeringly broad scope of what one of the judges on this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved of, and the first time that we can now confirm that this was under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which, you know, has been dubbed the libraries provision, because people were mostly worried about the idea that the government would use it to get library records. Now we know that they’re using it to get phone records. And just to see the immense scope of this warrant order, you know, when most warrants are very narrow, is really shocking as a lawyer.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, some might argue that the Obama administration at least went to the FISA court to get approval for this, unlike the Bush administration in the past.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. Well, we don’t know if the Bush administration was, you know, getting these same orders and if this is just a continuation, a renewal order. It lasted for only—it’s supposed to last for only three months, but they may have been getting one every three months since 2006 or even earlier. You know, when Congress reapproved this authority in 2011, you know, one of the things Congress thought was, well, at least they’ll have to present these things to a judge and get some judicial review, and Congress will get some reporting of the total number of orders. But when one order covers every single phone record for a massive phone company like Verizon, the reporting that gets to Congress is going to be very hollow. And then, similarly, you know, when the judges on the FISA court are handpicked by the chief justice, and the government can go to a judge, as they did here, in North Florida, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, who’s 73 years old and is known as a draconian kind of hanging judge in his sentencing, and get some order that’s this broad, I think both the judicial review and the congressional oversight checks are very weak.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, this is just Verizon, because that’s what Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian got a hold of. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other orders for the other telephone companies, right?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Like BellSouth, like AT&T, etc.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: As there have been in the past.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Yeah, those were—those were companies mentioned in that USA Today story in 2006. Nothing about the breadth of this order indicates that it’s tied to any particular national security investigation, as the statute says it has to be. So, some commentators yesterday said, "Well, this order came out on—you know, it’s dated 10 days after the Boston attacks." But it’s forward-looking. It goes forward for three months. Why would anyone need to get every record from Verizon Business in order to investigate the Boston bombings after they happened?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, William Binney, a decades-long veteran of the NSA, your reaction when you heard about this news?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, this was just the FBI going after data. That was their request. And they’re doing that because they—if they want to try to get it—they have to have it approved by a court in order to get it as evidence into a courtroom. But NSA has been doing all this stuff all along, and it’s been all the companies, not just one. And I basically looked at that and said, well, if Verizon got one, so did everybody else, which means that, you know, they’re just continuing the collection of this kind of information on all U.S. citizens. That’s one of the main reasons they couldn’t tell Senator Wyden, with his request of how many U.S. citizens are in the NSA databases. There’s just—in my estimate, it was—if you collapse it down to all uniques, it’s a little over 280 million U.S. citizens are in there, each in there several hundred to several thousand times.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, let’s go to Senator Wyden. A secret court order to obtain the Verizon phone records was sought by the FBI under a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that was expanded by the PATRIOT Act. In 2011, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden warned about how the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

SEN. RON WYDEN: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the PATRIOT Act, they are going to be stunned, and they are going to be angry. And they’re going asked senators, "Did you know what this law actually permits? Why didn’t you know before you voted on it?" The fact is, anyone can read the plain text of the PATRIOT Act, and yet many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified. It’s almost as if there were two PATRIOT Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters. Our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. Members of the public have no access to the secret legal interpretations, so they have no idea what their government believes the law actually means.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Ron Wyden. He and Senator Udall have been raising concerns because they sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee but cannot speak out openly exactly about what they know. William Binney, you left the agency after September 2001, deeply concerned—this is after you’d been there for 40 years—about the amount of surveillance of U.S. citizens. In the end, your house was raided. You were in the shower. You’re a diabetic amputee. The authorities had a gun at your head. Which agency had the gun at your head, by the way?

WILLIAM BINNEY: That was the FBI.

AMY GOODMAN: You were not charged, though you were terrorized. Can you link that to what we’re seeing today?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, it’s directly linked, because it has to do with all of the surveillance of the U.S. citizens that’s been going on since 9/11. I mean, that’s—they were getting—from just one company alone, that I knew of, they were getting over 300 million call records a day on U.S. citizens. So, I mean, and when you add the rest of the companies in, my estimate was that there were probably three billion phone records collected every day on U.S. citizens. So, over time, that’s a little over 12 trillion in their databases since 9/11. And that’s just phones; that doesn’t count the emails. And they’re avoiding talking about emails there, because that’s also collecting content of what people are saying. And that’s in the databases that NSA has and that the FBI taps into. It also tells you how closely they’re related. When the FBI asks for data and the court approves it, the data is sent to NSA, because they’ve got all the algorithms to do the diagnostics and community reconstructions and things like that, so that the FBI can—makes it easier for the FBI to interpret what’s in there.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re also joined by Thomas Drake, who was prosecuted by the Obama administration after he blew the whistle on mismanagement and waste and constitutional violations at the NSA. Thomas Drake, your reaction to this latest revelation?

THOMAS DRAKE: My reaction? Where has the mainstream media been? This is routine. These are routine orders. This is nothing new. What’s new is we’re actually seeing an actual order. And people are somehow surprised by it. The fact remains that this program has been in place for quite some time. It was actually started shortly after 9/11. The PATRIOT Act was the enabling mechanism that allowed the United States government in secret to acquire subscriber records of—from any company that exists in the United States.

I think what people are now realizing is that this isn’t just a terrorist issue. This is simply the ability of the government in secret, on a vast scale, to collect any and all phone call records, including domestic to domestic, local, as well as location information. We might—there’s no need now to call this the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Let’s just call it the surveillance court. It’s no longer about foreign intelligence. It’s simply about harvesting millions and millions and millions of phone call records and beyond. And this is only just Verizon. As large as Verizon is, with upwards of 100 million subscribers, what about all the other telecoms? What about all the other Internet service providers? It’s become institutionalized in this country, in the greatest of secrecy, for the government to classify, conceal not only the facts of the surveillance, but also the secret laws that are supporting surveillance.

AMY GOODMAN: Thomas Drake, what can they do with this information, what’s called metadata? I mean, they don’t have the content of the conversation, supposedly—or maybe we just don’t see that, that’s under another request, because, remember, we are just seeing this one, for people who are listening and watching right now, this one request that is specifically to—and I also want to ask you: It’s Verizon Business Services; does that have any significance? But what does it mean to have the length of time and not the names of, but where the call originates and where it is going, the phone numbers back and forth?

THOMAS DRAKE: You get incredible amounts of information about subscribers. It’s basically the ability to forward-profile, as well as look backwards, all activities associated with those phone numbers, and not only just the phone numbers and who you called and who called you, but also the community of interests beyond that, who they were calling. I mean, we’re talking about a phenomenal set of records that is continually being added to, aggregated, year after year and year, on what have now become routine orders. Now, you add the location information, that’s a tracking mechanism, monitoring tracking of all phone calls that are being made by individuals. I mean, this is an extraordinary breach. I’ve said this for years. Our representing attorney, Jesselyn Radack from the Government Accountability Project, we’ve been saying this for years and no—from the wilderness. We’ve had—you’ve been on—you know, you’ve had us on your show in the past, but it’s like, hey, everybody kind of went to sleep, you know, while the government is harvesting all these records on a routine basis.

You’ve got to remember, none of this is probable cause. This is simply the ability to collect. And as I was told shortly after 9/11, "You don’t understand, Mr. Drake. We just want the data." And so, the secret surveillance regime really has a hoarding complex, and they can’t get enough of it. And so, here we’re faced with the reality that a government in secret, in abject violation of the Fourth Amendment, under the cover of enabling act legislation for the past 12 years, is routinely analyzing what is supposed to be private information. But, hey, it doesn’t matter anymore, right? Because we can get to it. We have secret agreements with the telecoms and Internet service providers and beyond. And we can do with the data anything we want.

So, you know, I sit here—I sit here as an American, as I did shortly after 9/11, and it’s all déjà vu for me. And then I was targeted—it’s important to note, I—not just for massive fraud, waste and abuse; I was specifically targeted as the source for The New York Times article that came out in December of 2005. They actually thought that I was the secret source regarding the secret surveillance program. Ultimately, I was charged under the Espionage Act. So that should tell you something. Sends an extraordinarily chilling message. It is probably the deepest, darkest secret of both administrations, greatly expanded under the Obama administration. It’s now routine practice.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Shayana, I’d like to ask you, specifically that issue of the FISA court also authorizing domestic surveillance. I mean, is there—even with the little laws that we have left, is there any chance for that to be challenged, that the FISA court is now also authorizing domestic records being surveiled?

AMY GOODMAN: FISA being Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. I mean, you know, two things about that. First, the statute says that there have to be reasonable grounds to think that this information is relevant to an investigation of either foreign terrorist activity or something to do with a foreign power. So, you know, obviously, this perhaps very compliant judge approved this order, but it doesn’t seem like this is what Congress intended these orders would look like. Seems like, on the statute, that Congress intended they would be somewhat narrower than this, right?

But there’s a larger question, which is that, for years, the Supreme Court, since 1979, has said, "We don’t have the same level of protection over, you know, the calling records—the numbers that we dial and how long those calls are and when they happen—as we do over the contents of a phone call, where the government needs a warrant." So everyone assumes the government needs a warrant to get at your phone records and maybe at your emails, but it’s not true. They just basically need a subpoena under existing doctrine. And so, the government uses these kind of subpoenas to get your email records, your web surfing records, you know, cloud—documents in cloud storage, banking records, credit records. For all these things, they can get these extraordinarily broad subpoenas that don’t even need to go through a court.

AMY GOODMAN: Shayana, talk about the significance of President Obama nominating James Comey to be the head of the FBI—

SHAYANA KADIDAL: One of the—

AMY GOODMAN: —and who he was.

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. One of the grand ironies is that Obama has nominated a Republican who served in the Bush administration for a long time, a guy with a reputation as being kind of personally incorruptable. I think, in part, he nominated him to be the head of the FBI, the person who would, you know, be responsible for seeking and renewing these kind of orders in the future, for the next 10 years—he named Comey, a Republican, because he wanted to, I think, distract from the phone record scandal, the fact that Holder’s Justice Department has gone after the phone records of the Associated Press and of Fox News reporter James Rosen, right?

And you asked, what can you tell from these numbers? Well, if you see the reporter called, you know, five or six of his favorite sources and then wrote a particular report that divulged some embarrassing government secret, that’s—you know, that’s just as good as hearing what the reporter was saying over the phone line. And so, we had this huge, you know, scandal over the fact that the government went after the phone records of AP, when now we know they’re going after everyone’s phone records, you know. And I think one of the grand ironies is that, you know, he named Comey because he had this reputation as being kind of a stand-up guy, who stood up to Bush in John Ashcroft’s hospital room in 2004 and famously said, "We have to cut back on what the NSA is doing." But what the NSA was doing was probably much broader than what The New York Times finally divulged in that story in December ’05.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, will Glenn Greenwald now be investigated, of The Guardian, who got the copy of this, so that they can find his leak, not to mention possibly prosecute him?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Oh, I think absolutely there will be some sort of effort to go after him punitively. The government rarely tries to prosecute people who are recognized as journalists. And so, Julian Assange maybe is someone they try to portray as not a journalist. Glenn Greenwald, I think, would be harder to do. But there are ways of going after them punitively that don’t involve prosecution, like going after their phone records so their sources dry up.

AMY GOODMAN: I saw an astounding comment by Pete Williams, who used to be the Pentagon spokesperson, who’s now with NBC, this morning, talking—he had talked with Attorney General Eric Holder, who had said, when he goes after the reporters—you know, the AP reporters, the Fox reporter—they’re not so much going after them; not to worry, they’re going after the whistleblowers. They’re trying to get, through them, the people. What about that, that separation of these two?

SHAYANA KADIDAL: Right. I’ll give you an example from the AP. They had a reporter named, I believe, John Solomon. In 2000, he reported a story about the botched investigation into Robert Torricelli. The FBI didn’t like the fact that they had written this—he had written this story about how they dropped the ball on that, so they went after his phone records. And three years later, he talked to some of his sources who had not talked to him since then, and they said, "We’re not going to talk to you, because we know they’re getting your phone records."

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us. Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights. William Binney and Thomas Drake both worked for the National Security Agency for years, and both ultimately resigned. Thomas Drake was prosecuted. They were trying to get him under the Espionage Act. All of those charges were dropped. William Binney held at gunpoint by the FBI in his shower, never prosecuted. Both had expressed deep concern about the surveillance of American citizens by the U.S. government. You can go to our website at democracynow.org for our hours of interviews with them, as well." - Democracy Now!

I had to read this article in huffpo :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/video-half-second-high-frequency-trading_n_3245999.html

Great video, but id like to see him expand this into digital modulation, ala QPSK / QAM, and how we use it to deliver data streams of whatever the hell we want.

He didnt focus enough on fundemental frequency noise products either, carrier tripple beat / second+ order distortions. Pretty important because a single band can cause noise in heaps of places across the spectrum.

....I work in telecoms, this audio video seems like fundementals to me

I am still going through his last video which I think he takes on compression, but I can tell you right now as for mp3, it is cd-quality, but it is not cd. Even at high bitrates, the high frequencies get hit hard. It is pretty sad we continue to let our music suffer with a lot of people still compressing to mp3. If you look hard enough though you will find people using FLAC, and apples high bitrate AAC files are great. Anime fansubs which are probably more fickle about quality and standards then the Hollywood movie pirate scene are now all using AAC in their mp4 file instead of bad old mp3. Although in its defense, MOST movie rips are AC3/DTS, or at least offer it aside long its MP3 stereo track.

Going from 16 bits, to 24 bits will lower the noise floor which, if you have the audio turned up enough, you can hear it ever so slightly. It's not a huge difference and you're not going to hear it in a typical song. It's definitely there, but it's already insanely quiet at 16 bits. An "Audiophile" on pristine gear may notice the slight change in hiss in a moment of silence, with the speakers cranked up - but that's about it.

As for pushing up the sampling rate, when you get beyond 44.1kHz, you're not really dealing with anything musical anymore. All you're hearing, if you're hearing it at all, is "shimmer". or "air". It sounds "different" and you might be able to tell which is which, but it's one of those differences that doesn't really matter in effect. A 44.1khz track can still make ear-piercingly high frequencies - the added headroom just makes it glisten in a really inconsequential way.

This is coming from 17 years of music production. I've gone through all of this, over and over again, testing myself, trying to figure out what is and isn't important.

At the end of it all, I work on everything in 16bit 48kHz - I record audio files in 24 bit 48 kHz - then export as 16 bit 44.1kHz. I don't enable dither anymore. I don't buy pro-audio sound cards anymore. I don't use "studio monitors" anymore. I just take good care of my ears and make music now.

I'm still worried about phase. The argument is that he can represent any phase he wants. I challenge him to represent different phases of his Nyquist frequency without the reconstruction losing power. He keeps saying "band limited", which I don't believe to be exactly true. I agree, the ear can only detect powers at frequencies below 22.1k, I'm not convinced it's ability to detect phase shifts is limited in the way you would expect with a digital signal with a cutoff at that frequency. For instance, the human ear can localize an impulse with accuracy down to about 10 microseconds. I can't see how a Dirac function can be localized that accurately by a sampled wave unless the system acted like a 100K sampled system. The latter, IMHO, is supported by the neuro-anatomy. There are different mechanisms for identifying pitch and onset. The quote-unquote Calyx of Held neurons carry the phase information, and are designed to fire with astonishing precision. Much more temporal precision than would be predicted from the "nyquist frequency" of the place coding subset of 8th nerve ganglia. I understand that this is what he was trying to address with his bit at the end, but he kept insisting on "band limited" inputs. Pressure waves aren't band limited dodge-rammit.

This goes beyond my knowledge level of signals and waveforms, but it was very interesting anyway.

That being said, OK, I'm sold on the concept that ADC and back doesn't screw up the signal. However, I'm pretty sure that real audiophiles could easily listen to several copies of the same recording at different bitrates and frequencies and correctly identify which ones are higher or better quality with excellent accuracy. I bet that is true even for 16bit vs 24bit, or 192kHz vs 320kHz -- stuff that should be "so good it is impossible to tell the difference".

Since some people that train themselves to have an ear for it CAN detect differences (accurately), the differences must actually be there. If they aren't artifacts of ADC issues, then what are they? I'm guessing compression artifacts?

In a visual version of this, I remember watching digital satellite TV around 10-15 years ago. The digital TV signal was fine and clear -- almost certainly better than what you'd get from an analog OTA antenna. BUT, the satellites used (I believe) mpeg compression to reduce channel bandwidth, and that compression created some artifacts that were easy to notice once somebody pointed them out to you. I specifically remember onscreen people getting "jellyface" anytime someone would nod slowly, or make similar periodic motions. I've got a feeling that some of the artifacts that we (or at least those of us that are real hardcore audiophiles) can notice in MP3 audio files are similar to an audio version of that jellyface kind of issue.