Digital Clocks and the video chain

Its not the forum that's condescending so much as it is that certain people think they are going to save you from spending money foolishly. They can get frustrated when you don't see things their way. All sorts of personalities here, main option is to ignore people you don't want to talk to. There is also an ignore function in your account settings if you want to try using to block certain user posts from being readable by default (you can always do a one time override whenever you choose to). Other than that, its an audio forum not a video forum so most of us are not building/designing/modifying video equipment. Not much expertise in how clocks affect video gear, although there is a fair amount of knowledge about clocks and DACs for audio. Probably some of that carries over to video, but couldn't say to what extent.
 
I'll liken this to help with dynamics and how you 'appreciate' getting close to live music. Pull up outside a pub with a live band playing, you can here clues that tell you the event is live the impact, the transients etc, you sit in your car and turn your radio up and 'drown out' the live event. It doesn't sound live or dynamic just louder. We know the clues that tell us its live music. Walk past a trumpet player in the street, it sounds full vibrant and not thin, lean or ethched and harsh. These are just descriptive terms, its not a white paper with defined terms
But the question was in reproduction domain. The term hi-fi is what counts in such domain. If recording / mastering quality is low, then no amount of DAC, amp, cable, speakers and room acoustics quality will help. In such case, get a different album / file. The job of those reproduction equipment is to faithfully process what the recording / mastering engineer produced, higher fidelity the better.
And by the way I don't need to be more specific, my question was not about justifying my perceptions it was about which clocks are the most important in a video chain.
You claimed what we can hear but cannot be measured. I was just following up on it.
 
Any physical phenomena can in principle be measured. Its that typical AP spectral analysis techniques that most rely on the as the gold standard (or maybe the holy grail) only partially correlate with subjective perception. Also, some people are very skeptical about subjective perception, particularly so when spectral analysis only shows up small-ish numbers. People sometimes tend to ignore the possibility of things that don't show up well in such measurements. Not only a variety of personalities here, but also a variety of beliefs about audibility.