-=> Quoting Gordon Gilbert to T Owen <=-
 > I was referring to anagog *tape* The resoloution is so far beyond 16
 > bit digital at today's low sampling rates that it makes CD look like
 > a bad joke (it is really just a marketing problem). 
 GG> Analog tape can't hold a candle to a digital 20 or 24-bit
 GG> master. 
 
 >GG> There is nothing wrong with the current red book CD format.
 > 
 > Unless you count the resoloution and the sound.
 GG> Apparently you've never heard a good CD.  My best CDs are
 GG> anything but harsh.  In fact, I'm making a WEB page devoted to CD
 GG> recommendations with a rating scale for sound quality. 
 

 GG> wouldn't be such a great improvement. I think you'd see much
 GG> greater improvements in overall CD sound if some of these recording
 GG> engineers would get their acts together.  You should read an article

The way I see it here, we've got 2 discussions going
on here:
1.  Media used in the studio:
I really don't care WHAT the studio used, as long as
they can make it sound good on whatever I buy it on.
Go listen to something from the Opus3 or Mapleshade
catalogs for some killer analog if you don't think
analog is alive and well in the studio.
My point is, no matter how good the equipment is
technically, its gotta be properly utilized for any
benefit.  Like anything new, it takes time to get
good at it.
2.  Consumer CDs
I listen to CDs almost exclusively, and have heard
wonderful CDs made from both analog and digital masters.
And I have heard a TON of terribly sounded CDs, many
of which were early digital releases, when the studios
were still learning what works and doesn't work.  Why
today's releases can't sound as good as Janis Ian's
1992 _Breaking Silence_ release, for example, is lost
on me. 
--- Blue Wave/386 v2.20 [NR]
---------------