Hi T!
-> > If you want state of the art, stay clear of CDs. 16 bit wordlength
-> > and low sampling frequencies just don't cut it for anything above
-> > about 4Khz.
BS. Wordlength doesn't have a thing to do with frequency response, it
has to do with potential dynamic range. While it can be argued that 16
bits isn't enough, it is sufficient for most purposes.
It is sampling rate that determines total possible frequency resposne
and is determined by the sampling frequency devided by the Nyquist
theorem, which is a total of about .47 of the sampling frequency is the
highest usable frequency, which at 44.1kHz should give about a  20k
(OK, 20,727Hz for those with calculators to check my math!) potential
top end limit, after which everything must be cut off sharply to
prevent antialiasing.
-> GG> As Stewart Pinkerton would put it, this is utter rubbish.  The
-> GG> LP has an equivalent resolution of 12-bit digital and is
-> GG> completely and unequivocally INFERIOR in terms of ACCURACY to
-> GG> the CD.
Very true, and the noise floor is excruciating to anyone used to digital
anymore... all that ham and eggs frying on the frying pan sound in the
background of everything.
-> This is a common (and unfortunate) misconception. I have never been
-> a fan of LPs; let's face it, even a good pressing is only good for a
-> few plays. I was referring to anagog *tape*
ANAGOG?? That's funny, but probably unintentionally so.
-> 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).
I admit that is true, but the noise floor in tape is bad also.
 Bonnie *:>
--- HyperMail! v1.22
---------------