Well I'm a drummer with a pretty well-trained sense of timing and rhythm. As you agree that the music cannot be faster, the only difference has to be in your perception of the music. Perhaps my training as a drummer makes me less likely to perceive differences in timing that we all agree aren't actually there. *shrug*
While you may be correct, this can just as easily (in fact more plausibly) be explained by expectation bias. It is difficult to believe that these tiny machine measureable differences are so apparent that they can be perceived as easily detected differences like that. Sorry, but until we have blind listening data demonstrating such things we need to be quite skeptical. The very notion that DAC architectures can change rhythmic perception is quite hard to fathom. I also play drums and have fairly good rhythm (that's what she said) and I just can't imagine how DACs can alter rhythmic accuracy so much so that it is audible. No disrespect meant.
yes its fun reading the twisting of logic to "explain" PRaT as a audiophile quality - and especially how digital audio isn't superior in PRaT to all analog recording/playback tech
another interesting factoid from a lecture by a recording engineer that bridged the analog tape to digital transition is that he believed the younger generation of professional studio musicians he records that learned by listening/comparing to much more time stable digital playback now have much superior timing skills themselves over previous generations that had only mag tape an vinyl playback for reference, comparison
This is just the 'great cable debate', only about a different component.
Our expectations, realisations, perceptions, beliefs and understandings surely all differ. Actually, we don't really understand how reality works, or even what it is; never mind how we perceive it.
Sure, properly done, bb tests will help to get closer to some kind of conclusion. But I don't believe they can ever be absolute.
i.e. How would you prefer to make an important assessment?
Spend years becoming totally familiar with one experience, in the comfort of your own home, alone and in your own time, being totally relaxed and absorbed in the experience, many times, over a prolonged period, before being introduced to the alternative.
Or would you be more comfortable and perceptive when doing quick comparisons, in the company of others and under some pressure to find
a result, whether it be proof of a difference or proof of no difference.
In which situation would any possible differences, if they existed, be more apparent to you?
Yes; I've missed numerous mitigating factors, in this comparison. But these are factors for both sides.
My guess is that this possible phenomenon is perceptible, not because we can hear it, but more because we can hear a difference caused by its effects on the output signal and ultimately to our perception of the music (or mine and many others perception). E.g. As someone has mentioned, we cannot hear jitter. Be we
can hear the effects of jitter. What if the effects of jitter are more widespread than we currently understand? This is just one example, that I can think of. I'm sure there are others that I could use, if I had a better understanding of the subject.
What exactly is 'audiophile' anything? I'm sorry, it's just one of those words that I'm reluctant to associate myself with. I guess it's like calling yourself a connoisseur or a gourmet. Does anyone (or anything) have an 'audiophile' certificate? I'm just a music lover who's into hifi. Like most of us, I guess. Please, let's not try and continue to discuss how this word relates to......anything.
Regarding the importance of PRaT: I'd say that it's one of the (perhaps the) key fundamentals of music; timing effects not only when a note is reproduced, but the pitch of the note itself. Actually, I'm not really suggesting that pitch is a factor, between dac technologies (although it could well be). But the timing of musical notes is surely what makes them musical. And musical is what myself, and a growing number of others, find R-2R is when compared to D-S. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has a pretty good idea of why!
I thought that analog timing variations are usually quite obvious and easily explainable. It would be interesting to compare the prat abilities of analog and digital. But maybe that's for another.....discussion.
(programmer's inside). 
