Well then you have other problems than just audio, if you can't have an open discussion about a topic that is in no way "settled science". And since when is the most distinguished author on the subject of jitter a "charlatan". Why is this "charlatan" quoted in the scientific literature by other authors on the subject, when they need to reference the first papers publicly discussing the audibility of jitter.
But maybe the 1980's are calling and you're yearning for the digititis of your old sony discman? Because in those 30-40 years the subject has come far, and they always quote the person you call a "charlatan" in subsequent academic papers because that's how academic attribution works. Maybe you're not familiar with academia and how academic papers are written because you've never written any yourself??
[SCHUT] – Schut, Peter; “Why jitter matters in high resolution digital audio systems.”
[ATKI90] – Atkinson, John; “Jitter, bits and sound quality”; December 1990.
The executive summary -- because nobody has the patience to actually read the articles i posted -- is that jitter is a form of intermodulation distortion and the fact that a sinewave shows jitter components below level of audibility has zero to do with whether you're going to hear the jitter in a real world situation (
@Veri ) -- which is why I made comments about you "objectivists" and your goalpost moving that consists of looking at sidebands off a sinewave and thinking that has anything to do with music.
Let alone your outrageously simplified non-model of the human hearing system perceiving this sound. In case you didn't notice, not a single human has an FFT, nyquist theorem, oscilloscope or Audio Precision device embedded in their heads, nor any of your sophomoric oversimplifications encoded into their neural networks that allows them to hear, let alone spatialize sound. That's like a bunch of newtonians imposing F=MA on a Quantum and Relativistic world -- again, it's nearly 2020, not 1800, so get off the horse-drawn buggy for your own sake.
Let alone the ability to use a thesaurus instead of all bleating "charlatan" simultaneously. As in you can't even come up with a different word between you... and With zero proof. No references even (like I always give) in counterargument. Basically wasting our time with BS and handwaving while posing as "objectivists" ... give me a break....
But as to audibility, since you've all probably never attended AES (HP Labs paid for me to go for a few years back when i was doing 3d audio as my f-ing job not some wankoff hobby). perhaps you also missed this, which refers to one such very old -- and most importantly for academia and academic publishing -- first -- such instance of audibility:
(
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1290jitter/index.html ) aka [ATKI90]
For further reading:
https://s3t.it/data/uploads/docs/di...-in-high-resolution-digital-audio-systems.pdf
aka [SCHUT]
PS Oh, and why exactly are you all worried about femtosecond clocks in your USB->DAC interface given that a "charlatan" said probably when some of you were in short pants or not even born (1990): "these results tie in with work by others that indicates that 16-bit data jitter of any kind needs to be less than 200ps". Why? Because jitter is THE MOST IMPORTANT MOST PERCEPTIBLE, MOST AUDIBLE & MOST NON-EUPHONIC THING IN A DAC OR DIGITAL AUDIO.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/adc-performance-what-s-jitter-got-do-it
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/AN-756.pdf
PPS: it's too bad jitter artefacts can't be better measured on this site, as it would probably drop plenty of "20 bit linear DAC" (tested on a single 1khz sinewave) down to like 12-16 bits. That is conjecture, but from the above papers you can get an idea of actual bit-depth reduction equivalent that jitter introduces. It's nasty.