myths and facts about aliasing

A recent trend in the audio producer scene seems to be to judge an audio effect plug-in just by analyzing the harmonic spectrum, which is usually done by throwing a static sine-wave right into the plug-in and then look at the output with a FFT spectrum analyzer afterwards. In this article I’m going to talk about what this method is capable of and where its limitations and problems lie and that aliasing gets confused with a lot of other phenomenons quite often. I’m also clearly showing that this method alone is not sufficient enough to judge an audio plug-in’s quality in a blackbox situation.

a spectrum plot showing noise, harmonic distortion and aliasing

a harmonic spectrum plot showing quantization noise, harmonic distortion and aliasing effects

So, what do we actually see in such a spectrum plot?

All kinds of noise in general
The quality of noise is its random distribution over time and frequency. It usually does not correlate to other artifacts and so it appears in the spectrum rather uncorrelated to the input signal.

Quantization errors
Which is a special case of noise. Though, this kind of noise relates and depends on the DSP math which is used (floating point versus integer) and the according bit depth. Its algorithm dependent too and in general most feedback structures are sensitive to quantization errors. A specific example are the different Biquad implementations and how they are affected by the bit resolution which is used. Some show more noise in the low-frequency spectrum than others (which busts another myth that all Biquads are the same but I’m not going further into this one here – if you are interested just read this short but excellent overview).

Harmonic distortion
The quality of this kind of distortion is that it is always related to the original input signal in a harmonic sense. So the distortion might appear as the third or the fifth harmonic from the original (or both) – just as an example. Harmonic distortion always occurs if a system shows nonlinear behaviour and this is not limited to digital systems, of course.

Under certain conditions, aliasing might appear. The aliasing effect is a pure digital effect and is always related to a frequency bandwidth limit. If a digital algorithm produces frequencies which are actually higher than the Nyquist frequency of the system, then aliasing artifacts are generated which usually folds back into the supported bandwidth and so gets visible in the spectrum. The usual method to avoid this is to increase the sample rate. Sometimes, aliasing is hard to spot in the visible spectrum and that is when it’s masked by harmonic distortion.

Intermodulation distortion
This often gets confused with aliasing but is a completely different thing and not only appears in the digital domain. E.g. a typical woofer in a loudspeaker system produces intermodulation distortions. This already implies, that oversampling of the system can’t be the cure in this case. IM distortion is always created if one part of the spectrum modulates another one. A typical example is a dynamics processor where the lower frequency content impacts the overall frequency response. Frequency band splitting is a usual technique to reduce such artifacts. In a digital system, IM distortion can imply aliasing as well but only if the Nyquist frequency gets exceeded by the new and additionally created frequencies.

In fact, there is quite a lot going on in a typical spectrum plot and one should expect to see a mixture of the afore-mentioned phenomenons and not just one single. Especially, you’ll never ever see aliasing alone in a spectrum plot.

What you see is what you get?

Unfortunately: No. There are indeed some problems and limitations with such a simple measurement method. Some are arising from psycho acoustics while others are lying in the solely static approach of the measuring method itself.

The human hearing system in general
“Historically distortion has been measured using specific signals sent through a system and quantified by the degree to which the signal is modified by the system. The human hearing system has not been taken into account in these metrics.” [1] And so Geddes and Lee already in 2003 proposed a new approach for a THD [2] measurement system which takes the hearing into account, since the hearing itself is non-linear and especially loudness perception is frequency dependent (Fletcher-Munson [3]).

Special masking effects
As with any ordinary frequency in a broadband audio signal, a harmonic can also be masked as well. As an example, a simple phase shift of the harmonic can lead up to a 6dB lower level impression of its distortion effect while the spectrum analysis shows the very same level, visually.

The lack of time/memory
The lack of memory in the discussed measurement method makes its inability to reflect what actually is perceived by human hearing even worse. E.g. if we have a DSP system which applies harmonic distortion based on audio transient information, the spectrum measurement is completely lost. For example, if harmonic distortion is only applied to the transient itself it might look much worser than it actually is perceived by human hearing. The other way around, if the distortion is not applied instantaneous, the analyzer does not see it at all but we can hear it of course.


Looking at a spectrum plot gives just a glimpse in the very same way that a simple map is just a snapshot and not the real deal. Or, does the nutrition fact list on your meal tells you how the meal is going to taste? (Not at all and even worse: That list can be faked with artificial nutrition supplies no human body actually can absorb – which actually is done by some manufacturers). I see the spectrum analysis rather as a developer tool where the developer has enough insights about the circuit and knows what to look for in the spectrum (e.g. for debugging). Due to its limitations, such method is not sufficient enough to use it in a blackbox situation as the one and only tool for judging audio quality. The actual hearing is not properly reflected and therefore the results might be completely misleading.


[1] L.W. Lee and E.R. Geddes, “Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion,” presented at the
115th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, (October, 2003)

[2] THD – Total Harmonic Distortion

[3] The Fletcher-Munson effect


  1. Great article.

    Should be read by a lot of people that mix with their eyes…

  2. Good read, Cheers for taking the time to share your knowledge and BS free unbiased way of going about it. Jay Key, Yes for sure…In an ideal world dude!

    Thanks and all the best


  3. Actually aliasing is not a pure digital effect, it is a sampled data system effect. An example of analogue aliasing is a bucket brigade delay (BBD) typically used in older guitar effects. These are analogue charge coupled devices (basically a line of capacitors). The analogue/digital distinction is orthogonal to the continuous time / sample data distinction. Whereas you cannot have a digital continuous time system, you can have an analogue sampled data system as stated above.

    • As in the old days when we first had the old L.E.D. spectrum analyzer sitting up on the middle of the board, I always take it with a grain of salt. What the machine “sees” and what I hear can be totally different. Simply put; A mix is a mix, is a mix. I started out in tape with all of its inherent hiss and warmth, and as the digital age took over, I saw more and more people ignoring their ears and following some readout and taking it as gospel. It’s easy to get caught up in one isolated frequency that the machine says is out of spec. and spend hours wandering down the garden path. Sometimes it’s best to just say; “If it sounds good, print it.”

  4. the wavees PAZ preset 68band favorite, resembles the way i grew up watching the leds on my pops spec anylyzer. it helps me mostly for finite problem mastering, but i like mixing by ear as close as i LIKE it. then ill take a glance what PAZ is reading as well. this article doesnt even touch using these spec anylyzers for finite eq popping, making sure the bass is actually hitting the trunk because the octave you played is so low its “almost” quiet in the studio till you print the disk and blow the amp in thiier car. LOL. But honestly I can mix and master without these tools, yet yield faster more accurate mixes for my clientswhen i use them. If they invent the tools, we are fools not to use them for mastering. HINT play some favorite tunes of the genre you are emulating/imitating. get a basic feel/look, kinda average of what you are seeing. then match up your song that is a similar genre, and see how far off you are from the INDUSTRY standard. Lets not knock the tools if they work. Better yet, Lets make a Booty version, with the Bootsy twist that address these concerns in the article as well as new ideas on old patents(WAVES PAZ) that need to be outdone. Faster more accurate and of course Visually more appealing and intelligle tool, with a perfect clipper, digital limiter built in could eq everything into the Bootsy Anylyzer and it would limit and show you exactly what you are hearing. It could be Mid-side, dynamic and frequencies bands ,possibilites are endless. but the anylyzer would be a nice touch on your set of tools youve provided the community. it would b like the final master output plugin… with other plugins in different parts, mixes, and submixes, busses etc.. Dreaming of this plugin. …. Love your posts and plugs. You rock

    • Matt Dobany says:

      The article is not about using spectrum analyzers in aid of your mixing process, but using plugin analyzers to judge their quality based on a static impulse

  5. Reblogged this on Variety Of Sound and commented:

    Written 10 years ago, more relevant than ever.

    • Good article and indeed still very relevant.

      I would like to know: How do you measure the efficiency of anti aliasing techniques in the context of dynamics processors, e.g. limiters which have a nonlinear (producing harmonic content) behavior for short time frame only? A static analysis with sine waves is not practical. And judging by your ears only must be a myth 😉

  6. Paramite says:

    Well, it’s also fun to throw plugins into Plugin Doctor. Especially when devs advertise their plugins as some sort of magic and put a ridiculous price tag on free lines of codes wrapped in a shiny UI.


  1. […] few. The so-called IMD (inter modulation distortion) is even worse in the digital domain since also aliasing gets introduced. This occurs when the additionally created distortion content exceeds the Nyquist […]

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: