[sdiy] jitter analysis

[Cornutt, David K]

From: Richard Wentk [mailto:richard at skydancer.com]
> A 
> pair of ears are capable of localising transients to a higher 
> resolution 
> than you'd expect from the standard 20-20k argument. 

I'm not too sure about this.  A psychology professor
once challenged me on this very thing, and demonstrated
it on me and a few other guinea pigs in the class.
He used a "clicker" (a children's toy that produces
a very short transient) to make transients that we
had to locate while blindfolded.  In the accoustically
deadened classroom, none of us could locate the transients
worth a darn.  The only time I got one right was when
he clicked the clicker under a desk.  That one I was
able to localize because of the reverberation that
occurred in the space under the desk.  The instructor's
point was that sound localization in general, and
transients in particular, depends heavily on reverb.

I also have trouble accepting that the human ear can
perceive any kind of event whose duration is in the
nanosecond range (is that what you really meant to say,
Magnus?).  This is in the UHF range, and the atmospheric
absorption at that frequency is tremendous -- it's
unlikely that anything that short ever reaches our ears.
Here's a philosophical question: mechanical filter
systems obey Nyquist with respect to transients.
What property does the human ear possess that can make
it invulnerable to the Nyquist limitation?