the many places timing exists

[Alrainbow]

On another forums a discussion was started on timing .
It was timing from a few places.
First it was speaker driver's. Further complicated by single or multi and line arrays
Then one I never have thoght about was brought up the devices. In a dac if one with a manufactured chip its on them . and I would hope the math was is done already . but in an fpga its all done from scatch each time if a new firmware is mADE .
While I don't know what good or bad timing sounds . does anyone here know and cAN EXPLin this to me please

[Bill Hart]

I don't know what the discussion you read focused on, Al, but one aspect of "timing" I think about in overall system performance has to do with how a system presents sound:
take a piano- fundamental/note of the key that is touched/pressed/attacked- depending on the the fingering technique of the pianist- there's that immediate sound (which is affected by the type and size of piano, the internals, including the hammer material of the key action, etc.), then, even without the "sustain" pedal pushed down, there are harmonics that linger.
How a system reproduces the attack and decay is part of timing- too much forward emphasis on the 'attack' tends toward a more analytical sound with less decay, leaning back too much on decay, a rounded, muddier sound- neither sound like the real instrument. Get it right (among other things, like tonality, size of image- which may also have to do with how the piano is mic'd), and you get a better sense of the real instrument in space. That's one aspect of timing that I listen for and am sensitive to-- it also has to be on the recording, the so-called 'natural acoustic'- to be heard. You can hear the difference between this and reverb, which has a different sound that is superimposed over the original sound.

[Alrainbow]

The discussion was on two types of timing.
One being speakers 🔊 a point source if made well allows a even flow of sound in all freq even in reaching our ears.
Then line arrays were discussed and it was said that they cannot be time aligned due to the placement of the drivers
at varying heights. This alludes me as to how much it matters then.

Next is digtal audio. Most kind of digtal audio is math being processed in real time. So if jitter is added to the equation we hear the sound change in highs being smeared or bass that's fuzzy. This is supposedly a time smearing not equal all across even evenly.

Now in digtal there is two kinds of dsd one is chped driven the second is chipless being done in filters. This also can easily be heard in comparison.
But to make it more complex there are also fpga types this is chip but not made perfect in math but driven by design firmware. Two that I owned had varying methods of handling dsd. Both I felt were failures in reproducing it well. Timing is being discussed as a way of improving the sound in better made formwares.
Having said all of the above where do we stand in best sound 🔊. I say analog and tape rule for me. But great digtal sourced from tape is also ruling but different empires

[Bill Hart]

The discussion was on two types of timing.
One being speakers 🔊 a point source if made well allows a even flow of sound in all freq even in reaching our ears.
Then line arrays were discussed and it was said that they cannot be time aligned due to the placement of the drivers
at varying heights. This alludes me as to how much it matters then.

Next is digtal audio. Most kind of digtal audio is math being processed in real time. So if jitter is added to the equation we hear the sound change in highs being smeared or bass that's fuzzy. This is supposedly a time smearing not equal all across even evenly.

Now in digtal there is two kinds of dsd one is chped driven the second is chipless being done in filters. This also can easily be heard in comparison.
But to make it more complex there are also fpga types this is chip but not made perfect in math but driven by design firmware. Two that I owned had varying methods of handling dsd. Both I felt were failures in reproducing it well. Timing is being discussed as a way of improving the sound in better made formwares.
Having said all of the above where do we stand in best sound 🔊. I say analog and tape rule for me. But great digtal sourced from tape is also ruling but different empires

I don't know enough (yet) about digital processing and sonic impact to provide anything meaningful.
With respect to point source, I can tell you that is what Peter Walker sought to do when he finally updated the original Quad with the '63. I still liked the original one better for coherence and clarity, though the '63 was overall a more useable speaker with fewer limitations.
My speakers, horns, are not time aligned. There have been various stabs at it- by physically moving the tweeter horn, which I never tried, and by various digital processing methods.
I know time coherence is an engineering/design factor, and an attribute that some listeners find critical. Others, who own speakers that are time aligned (and there is another angle to this, too, that escapes my feeble mind) should weigh in.