Oh, I have been there because it is a companion site to the book from the authors. Seeing how you link to the web site instead of quoting the text, I am confident you have not read the book. I can tear your arguments to shreds from the book itself but it is not worth the effort. So I leave you with this introduction to the text:
More & more hand waving & boasting about your prowess - I always find that those who have to boast about their abilities seldom, if ever, have any real abilities
So, he is listening to CD music using a portable player. Suffice it to say, it doesn't have the kind of clock phase noise you advocate. Yet, he is one with the music. Ultimate joy is being conveyed to him. Nowhere in there with all of this knowledge of "auditory scene analysis" does he say, "oh wait, there is this roughness and stereo image problem due to that close-in phase jitter!"
If that doesn't nail your argument to the wall, I don't know what will. BTW, the starting chapters are excellent read as far as concepts of sound.
And again you demonstrate how little you understand or even follow a technical discussion. If you understood anything about ASA & about the streaming I talked about you would realise how absolutely foolish your comments are - it's the same sort of comments that you trot out when modulating noise is discussed - you can't hear any noise therefore you dismiss it. As I said many times, Amir, you have 1st order thinking & can't get beyond simplistic,1st order, linear thinking about the concepts (if you even understand the concepts)- to you noise is something heard & if not heard then it doesn't exist. You don;t understand 2nd order effects where the noise itself isn't heard per se but it's effects are. Why do you think this is? It's explained by ASA but you have no idea of what ASA is. You have been told this many times but you are beyond learning & will forever remain in ignorance
The later chapters are not meant to teach you about psychoacoustics but to explain the "why" and not the "what." Audiophiles are only concerned about the "what." Why the brain does what it does is secondary. Hence the reason that book is not a remote substitute for Fastl and Zwicker. It is much better written though.
Again you show no knowledge of what ASA is about - your statement "why the brain does what it does" shows how lost you are - the brain does what it does because this is the seat of auditory processing & defines what we hear - it's the processing engine that is the sense of hearing, not the ear, nor cochlea, nor tympanic membrane - these are all just the transducers & signal handlers
Again you dodge the question I asked. So let's examine your understanding of the book 'you have read' - what is your explanation for comodulated masking release (CMR) & how does it have a bearing on your simplistic understanding of masking?
Anyway, let me summarize where we are:
1. You used a sighted test, full of bias to convince yourself that a better clock sounds better. Audio science easily explains that as placebo effect and elasticity of hearing. Not replacing the clock but keeping that knowledge from you would have resulted in the same outcome. So you completely violate audio science including everything the above book is about (i.e. correct experimentation).
2. You have never, ever measured and post the performance of any audio device. As such you have no idea if improving the clock oscillator noise indeed happened and actually made the output of the DAC more performant. Combined with #1, you have no reliable subjective or objective data that anything has happened to the soundwaves coming out of your DAC
3. You are violating the most fundamental aspects of psychoacoustics and hang your hat on lay misunderstanding of what close in phase noise does to the signal. Your own link above shows the power of masking and how the tone disappears in the noise even when the noise is modulated.
4. Thousands and thousands of subjectivists who enjoy analog formats are you direct enemy here. None hear orders of magnitude more timebase errors than even the worse digital system. Your fantastical and stream of consciousness technical arguments based on googled snippets don't amount to anything.
5. You have not offered any shred of evidence outside of your mind that such audible problems exist. No paper that documents such listening tests. Nothing. In contrast I have posted careful studies that investigate these errors and they demonstrates what subjectivists already know: that speed variations once small enough, are not an audible problem.
Again, you have such a basic understanding of all the above - your first mistake -painting all audible improvements as a result of removing a pre-existing problem - it's not, as you have been told many times before - people can hear their system & think "it can't sound any better than this" & yet at some point discover a new element that improves their sound & makes it much more real & believable (could be cable, isolation device, ground treatment, etc, etc.) Does it mean that they were sitting there before this improvement thinking "how do I solve my audible problems"? No, they weren't. Were they thinking "the sound is optimal"? Well if they have any experience in this hobby they will know that this is probably mistaken as it is often the case that it will improve. The only ones who never experience this are the ones who have closed themselves off from experience & learning anything - who have no inquisitiveness
This is one of your main problems - it seems you have never had such an experience based on your postings & therefore you claim everyone else is imagining such improvements as "you don't have an audible problem". You then try to put forth the argument which is easily seen through, that others don't have an audible problem to resolve & therefore, I'm wrong.
All you are demonstrating is your linear thinking & lack of experience in matters audio.
You act as if I'm the only one who has reported this audible improvement with audio clocks that exhibit low close-in phase noise - Bruno Putneys, Grimm Audio & others report the same - I'm just putting some analysis & thinking into what might explain this.
Your objections are wild & all over the map - you don't deal with any of the technical aspects of what I outlined but instead general hand-waving attacks on anything I say. We al lget it - you don;t lik eme & therefore anything I say you will try to demean, in any way you can.
But you think you know it all & therefore are beyond learning anything.
.
