BTW, for certain applications, even in the hands of an expert, a Hassleblad is a very poor choice. In sports action photography for example, an autofocus SLR with a fast f2.8 300mm lens (sometimes called a "baseball lens") is far perferable to a Hassleblad which is a slow large and cumbersome machine by comparison. And you really do have to be fairly familiar with photography and medium format cameras to use it. In the hands of a tyro, it is virtually useless because he woudn't have the skill to operate it. Unlike a point and shoot supermarket checkout counter camera, 30 seconds of instruction won't be sufficient.

Clearer doesn't necessarily mean more accurate in sound systems? Huh? Has skeptic finally lost it? (Some of you probably thought he lost it a long time ago while others think he never had it.) Actually that is correct. Anyone who is familiar with communications systems such as short wave know that there are special "speech microphones" which deliberately have a frequency response peak at about 4 khz to give them punch. This makes them more intelligable in marginal reception conditions because the silibant and explosive parts of speech occur in this region. By concintrating more rf energy transmitting these frequencies, speech is more intelligable meaning clearer but less accurate. The propensity to choose audio equipment that sounds clearer is used to advantage by some manufacturers knowing full well that it can also mean less accurate if clarity is achieved at the expense of frequency response distortion. This is a mistake people who are not very familiar with the sound of live acoustical instruments can easily make. When clarity is achieved by extending high end response linearly or reducing harmonic and intermodulation distortion, it is valuable. When it is achieved by peaking the frequency response in one region or reducing it in another, it does not serve the purpose of improved accuracy but improved sales and profits.