[Simple answer. We know your post/information is false J_J.
Pathetic. You've been shown to be absolutely wrong, yet you persist in attempting to use your conclusion in order to justify your conclusion. Surely you know what a circular argument is.
You can see the results with your own eyes. You did see it. You have no argument to offer, yet you deny. You argued about "dithering" which is irrelevant. You argued about "smoothing", not realizing it meant filtering.
Now you attempt to muddy the water by trying to confuse a 5 microsecond pulse with 5 microseconds of INTERCHANNEL TIME DELAY. The two issues are very nearly separate. The context and discussion in this thread is about a 5 microsecond INTERCHANNEL TIME DELAY, and you know that from your own involvement in the thread.
Nobody has claimed you can jam a 5 microsecond pulse through anything with a 20kHz bandwidth and KEEP THE WIDTH AT 5 microseconds. Your claim otherwise is false, sir, and you've run to this falsehood to defend your original claim that one could not reproduce a 5 microsecond interchannel delay inside of 20kHz, which one can, and which I have demonstrated incontrovertably here.
I can't cure deliberate ignorance, nor shifting the goalposts at 120 miles an hour while telling falsehoods about the original goal. That's your problem.
If you bothered to go back about a page, you'd find me telling you that you can't jam a 5 microsecond pulse through a 20kHz system. Now you're claiming that I said that I can.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
You claimed that one can see 5us from a 16/44 machine, now you are changing your story?
Of course a 44.1kHz/16 bit system can resolve time to well under 5 microseconds. So something has gone wrong and as quoted, without surrounding context, the quote looks fundamentally ignorant of the basics of sampling theory.
Secondly, your little math/graph example tells nothing about whether the graph is actually true. We have caught others he manipulating room graphs, then changing setups from two speakers to one speaker, then claiming that the mic, which was close to two 1k reference mics, was suddenly 19db off etc. So we don't know if your graph is accurate or manipulated. But we do know something from the picture below, courtesy of Pyramix.
As far as your propagation comments, the recording mics are usually near the instruments, not 20 feet way, although this can occur. Enough said.
I do have a pix to show the audience/public, courtesy of Pyramix. Here is comparison picture with a 3us input pulse applied to various machines. Next to the analog input pulse is a 16/48khz cd analog output.
Notice the 16/48khz is severly lacking in reproducing a 3us pulse. Since a filter is not 100% effective the narrower tip, a little output of some higher frequencies. The wider body portion (most of the pulse output, most of which is below 20khz) are lower frequency artifacts not present in the original 3us analog input pulse. 5us will give a little more output but not much. Don't expect 40us to be that accurate either. Notice the higher samplings to the right are better, but only DSD was able to replicate the original input pulse. So the machines produced the artifacts plus, artificial, ringing.
Anyone in the audience think 16/44 is enough for music and is the highest fidelity?
Not surprising why you refuse to sign your own name to your own posts.