And so it came to pass, on 11-15-96 17:48,
   that T Owen spake unto Gordon Gilbert:
 TO> That's precisely the point. Why do you think that manufacturers try so 
hard to keep
 TO> the bandwidth wide? It isn't because we can *hear* those frequencies 
below 20hz and
 TO> above 20khz, but we can percieve them, and we can *hear* the artifacts 
of limited
 TO> bandwidth, such as the phase shift that starts a decade above the low 
cutoff
 TO> frequency, and a decade below the high cutoff frequency. 
This is a very good point that don't think I've ever considered before 
(although I have always agreed that there are good reasons NOT to limit 
bandwith to exactly within audible limits).  Given than a CD's sampling rate 
of 44.1kHz allows a theoretical maximum frequency of ~22.05kHz, that means 
you need a "brick wall" filter (a few dozen orders for at least a couple 
hundred dB per octave) at around 20kHz, and this causes hideous amounts of 
phase shift and other ugliness.  If one can increase the sample rate by, say, 
a factor of four (to 176kHz), the "steepness" of the filter can be reduced 
dramatically, with a matching decrease in the problems it causes.
 TO> Opinion is one thing, but the fact is that the Carver amps simply do not 
have the
 TO> rails that a Bryston has. I would take a Crown over a Carver, a Crest 
over a Crown,
 TO> a Bryston over a Crest, and an FM Acoustics over all of them (but who 
can afford an
 TO> FM?). AL-III? Never heard of that one.
Carver "Amazing Loudspeakers", their 7-foot-tall ribbon jobs.  Talk about 
comparing 
apples and oranges :-)
-------------------------------------------
Love, luck, and lollipops...
Matt


--- Sqed/32 1.10/unreg
---------------