-=> Quoting T Owen to Matt Ion <=-
 TO> The dynamic range of CD is more than adequate for any normal
 TO> program material. In fact, most Rock and Blues CDs only use a
        Ok, so you agree 16-bit is fine and we don't really need 20 or
24 bit CDs in the home.  We're halfway there....
 TO> use the maximum resoloution of the medium. Dynamic range is not
 TO> the problem with CD; it is the lack of resoloution.
        What do you mean by resolution exactly?  The CD handles the
1Hz -> 21.8kHz region just as well as it could if the sampling rate
was 100,000 times the current rate.  You would only gain frequency
response.
 TO> Precisely what I would have said if my brain was working
 TO> properly! One of my gripes with CD is that there is musical
 TO> information above 22.05K, and while we may not *hear* it, it does
 TO> affect the way that we percieve the music. Take care.
        Show me a scientific study that proves this is true.  Pointing
at a square wave at 20kHz does not constitute adequate proof.  No one
plays square waves through their system (if they do and if it'll pass
it, they're probably looking at some blown drivers).  Also, most
speakers have little or no response beyond 28kHz or so anyways.  
        At what point is there enough frequency response?  48kHz?
100Mhz (do radio waves affect our listening experience outside of
tuning it in with a radio?)   At what point should we call it
adequate?  You suggested 10 times in a previous message.  That would
mean response to over 200kHz.  Do you seriously think sounds in that
range affect our hearing?  Do you seriously think we have microphones
that will accurately record that range?  There are *very* few that
will record flat to 20kHz, let alone 48kHz or beyond.  
        Frankly, short of scientific evidence (double blind tests or
other scientific tests) that prove this is needed, I don't think this
is the way to improve digital sound.
 * AmyBW v2.14 *
... I saw Elvis.  He sat between me and Bigfoot on the UFO.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------