> 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). 
        Analog tape can't hold a candle to a digital 20 or 24-bit master.
 >GG> There is nothing wrong with the current red book CD format.
 > 
 > Unless you count the resoloution and the sound.
        Apparently you've never heard a good CD.  My best CDs are anything 
but harsh.  In fact, I'm making a WEB page devoted to CD recommendations with 
a rating scale for sound quality.
 > That's precisely the point. Why do you think that manufacturers try 
 > so
 > hard to keep the bandwidth wide? It isn't because we can *hear* 
 > those
 > frequencies below 20hz and above 20khz, but we can percieve them, 
        I'm not convinced I can perceive anything above 22kHz.
 > and
 > we can *hear* the artifacts of limited bandwidth, such as the phase 
 > shift
 > that starts a decade above the low cutoff frequency, and a decade 
 > below
 > the high cutoff frequency. An amplifier that has a bandwidth of 
 > 20-20k
 > sounds terrible. An amp that has a bandwidth of 5-200k sounds much 
        This is true of amplifiers, yes.  But you seem to be forgetting that 
CDs have digital filtering these days and ANYTHING above 22kHz is removed 
completely.  You'd have more of a square wave left with a CD at 20kHz at 
-80dB than you'd have a correlated signal on an LP at the same frequency.
        Psychoacoustics also state that phase shift in the upper octaves have 
no significant effect on perception.  Imaging clues are different for humans 
in different frequency regions.  At the VERY least, evidence of any benefits 
to extending the sampling rate of the CD format is circumstantial at best.  
As for dynamic range, I personally don't care very much because I never play 
a CD loud enough to get the full 96dB range above room noise, let alone 
120dB.  I personally have no desire to go deaf, so it wouldn't be such a 
great improvement.
        I think you'd see much greater improvements in overall CD sound if 
some of these recording engineers would get their acts together.  You should 
read an article posted on rec.audio.high-end from a recording engineer that 
wrote in to Stereophile about their recent Concert 2-CD set.  It was claimed 
to be a superior recording.  It is not in ANY way.  Some of the voices 
yelling the loudest about high-end sound apparently don't even know what it 
really is.  Some of the worst designs in audio hardware are in the highest 
price brackets.  If you don't read or get the rec.audio.high-end usenet 
group, I would highly recommend it.  They debunk most high end "claims" and 
get down to what really matters.
 > Opinion is one thing, but the fact is that the Carver amps simply do 
 > not have the rails that a Bryston has. I would take a Crown over a 
        Oh really?  You're going to tell me Carver's TFM-75 amp with 750 
watts into 8 ohms and over 1000 watts into 4 ohms doesn't have decent rails 
compard to a Bryston?  How about the Carver Lightstar with 300 into 8, 600 
into 4, 1200 into 2, and 2400 watts into 1 ohm?  Show me another amp that can 
do that (other than Bob Carver's own Sunfire at $2100) and I'll show you an 
$6000-8000 price tag or more.    
        So yes, I think you're still talking opinion, not fact.
 > all of them (but who can afford an FM?). AL-III? Never heard of that 
 > one.
        It's a hybrid ribbon speaker with a 48" ribbon that covers from 
150Hz-20kHz and a 10" woofer that covers from 30Hz-150Hz.  The ribbons used 
in the AL-III are the EXACT same ones that Genesis OEM's from Carver for 
their Genesis II.5 $20,000 speakers.  Genesis uses Carver's 60 inch version 
in their $80,000 Genesis I speaker.  At $2000 a pair, the AL-III is a 
rgain.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------