-=> Quoting Bonnie Goodwin to T Owen <=-
 
 -> > 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.
 BG> BS. Wordlength doesn't have a thing to do with frequency response, it
 BG> has to do with potential dynamic range. While it can be argued that 16
 BG> bits isn't enough, it is sufficient for most purposes.
Most purposes seems to imply average end users. For me, analog is still
the most musical choice, although expensive, and labour intensive. I have
no problems with "bang for the buck", and I *do* play CDs during setups
and intermissions, but that's because I don't want to lug around a big
1/2" 1/2 track, although I love mastering to that format with Dolby SR!
I have used ADATs on occasion, and they are easy to maintain, very in-
expensive, and don't need to be aligned every time they are used.
However, when it comes to resoloution, they just don't have what 15 or
30 IPS analog decks have. While I don't have the numbers right here now,
the resoloution of a good analog deck is around 9 or 10 times as high,
and the difference is audible, and affects the way we hear recorded
material. How many CDs sound as musical as fat analog? I get tired of CDs
after a short period of listening; not the case with high end analog.
I'll drop the digital gripes when the wordlength reaches 24 bits, and the
sampling frequency is around 10 times higher.  Picky huh? 
 BG> It is sampling rate that determines total possible frequency resposne
 BG> and is determined by the sampling frequency devided by the Nyquist
 BG> theorem, which is a total of about .47 of the sampling frequency is
 BG> the highest usable frequency, which at 44.1kHz should give about a  20k
 BG> (OK, 20,727Hz for those with calculators to check my math!) potential
 BG> top end limit, after which everything must be cut off sharply to
 BG> prevent antialiasing.
This is true, and I will not argue with the truth, but how does it
*sound* to someone that often listens to high end professional analog
recordings? To me, it doesn't sound anywhere near as good.
 -> 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.
 BG> Very true, and the noise floor is excruciating to anyone used to
 BG> digital anymore... all that ham and eggs frying on the frying pan sound
 BG> in the background of everything.
I never have had that problem with analog, unless I have bounced mulitple
times, or run without Dolby SR.
 -> 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*
 BG> ANAGOG?? That's funny, but probably unintentionally so.
Yes, I was short on coffee when I typed that; I an usually more careful.
 -> 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).
 BG> I admit that is true, but the noise floor in tape is bad also.
True, but this just requires a different approach to recording; when
tons of bouncing and mixing of tracks is required, you certainly can't
beat professional digital, but I still lay down the basic tracks on
analog machines when possible. Take care.
... Posted by the committee to outlaw BAD VENUES!
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
---------------