Hi Scott,
no argument that ears are the final arbiter, but without double blind testing, ears are notoriously unreliable.

the logic test was again not a valid comparison because performed on a pc sequencer, as I have tried to explain I don't believe that this is directly comparable in such a simplistic sense to the keyboard case without taking all other factors into account. I'm not sure that a pc sequencer at 96 ppq would be much use at all?

the really good question would be what was the clock and ppq on the old atari to be as good subjectively as it was?

you make the common mistake of putting words and implications into my mouth which I did not state, I raised a series of questions, and did not make any of the absolute assertions that you reply to. I respect your opinions but you do yourself no favours by replying to assertions I never made...

I never stated that one value of ppq was sufficient, or did not need to be improved upon, or that future improvements were not neccessary, or that manufacturers should not increase resolution. In fact I gave no hint of what my stance on any of these subjects are.

The main reason resolutions are rising is because micros get faster for the same money and it is easily possible for the manufacturers with each new generation of chips at any given price point.

I merely made the perfectly valid point that the forums have not been full of complaints that keyboard sequencers before the days of 1920 ppq somehow had noticeable problems that meant a great many people felt they did not mirror the nuances of their original performances. If you made some posts about this subject in the past and no-one else was interested, you have provided the proof of exactly what I originally said.

Also that originally you drew a conclusion from an experiment that was totally flawed by quantising an existing recording. This still remains the case.

with respect,