maybe off topic, but about the ppq issue:
I thought the stability of the clock was far more important than the ppq spec.

In other words a 96 ppq sequencer with high quality rock solid crystal clock, would be superior to a 960 ppq spec sequencer with a cheap varying resonator put in to save money.

Scott's was not a valid comparison because he quantised an existing recording. The test would be to play into a 1920ppq sequencer, and then play again into a 120 ppq sequencer of equal clock stability. If the clock was good enough I don't think you would hear the difference.

PC sequencers are another thing because there you divide down from a pc clock that might not be of best stability in the first place, so have more chances of error magnification maybe, and need high ppq never to notice? Some people still say their Atari's were the most rock solid sequencer of all...

If this is not the case, why have we not been talking for years about our sequencers not being capable of reproducing the exact nuances of our performances?

I have never read any perceptual studies that the human ear can devolve down to microseconds, which is the implication if this all were to be true?

Maybe this is more of a paper spec than real world issue?