Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I'm mentioning isn't about the fidelity of the sample, but of the samples themselves. There are an infinite number of frequencies between two points - point 'a' and point 'b'. What I'm talking about are the "steps" you hear as you move across the frequency range.
Of course there is a limit to the frequency resolution of a sampling method. I'm skeptical you can hear the steps though, at 44.1 kHz or better sampling rates. Let's say that the shortest interval at which our hearing has good frequency acuity (say, as good as it can be) is 1 second. In this interval, we have 44100 samples. Let's imagine the samples graphically: a "44K" pixel wide image. We have some waveform across…
Suppoise we sample a precise 10,000.00 kHz analog signal (sinusoid) and speed up the sampled signal by 0.0023 percent. It will have a frequency of 10,000.23 Hz.
The f2 - f2 difference between them is 0.23 Hz, which means if they are mixed together, we will hear beats at 0.46 Hz: a little slower than once in every two seconds.
So in this contrived way, where we have the original source and the digitized one side by side, we can obtain an audible effect correlating to the steps in resolution of the sampling method.
I'm guessing Deadmau5 might have set up an experiment along these lines.
Musicians tend to be oblivious to something like 5 cent errors in the intonations of their instruments, in the lower registers. E.g. world renowned guitarists play on axes that have no nut compensation, without which you can't even get close to accurate intontation.