Fascinating thread. Wonder where I've seen this before.

I agree with dolph that what jitter "sounds" like is mostly indescribeable to a great extent, but I've always found jitter to manifest iteself in the harshness and edginess of the transonics generated by minute differences in digital clock signals. Jitter can to some (a great?) extent be corrected, but probably never entirely. It's akin to some people can see towards IR, and most of us can't. Those who can, can't decribe it to those of us who can't. If you can hear it, you know it. If you don't hear it, then digital music is just fine.

That is exactly the point i’m dealing with – and the question I posted - i mean, the dichotomy between what is measurable vs. what is audible.

....and because we're talking about hearing here's a good read:

http://aca.gr/paper40.htm

Nope.
The question you posted was:
"Please may somebody tell me or describe what it sounds like?"

In case you forgot ................ again.

"dolph"

Okey, i'll put it in simple terms:

I can't hear jitter. I know that it exists, it's mesurable, it's an evil thing but in reality i can't hear it. Hence - one more time - my simple question.

And I gotta admit dolph that I'm not sure you answered his question or at least in a understandable form. Your reply was "...music will be disguised" but to explain that to someone to go sit down and listen for disguised music is about as nebulous as it comes. Harsh, edgy tones on the edge of a violin bow, notes from a horn that make your tweeters scratch where an LP of the same music piece doesn't might be some better examples of how to phrase it. I don't know. I think we all are spiraling in on the right track, but perhaps the words are inhibiting our ability to describe it.