[dizzy]

Harry Lavo wrote:

b) his college ee textbooks citing that "96 db is enough",

I've never seen any such thing in a college texdtbook, but if Harry wants
to clear his name, he could cite one just to prove that he hasn't been
caught in yet another like.

I was being retorical. You've certainly cited the 96db dynamic range as
"more than adequate" often enough, and presented it as settled "science"
despite others who claim that audibility extends to -120db in the critical
ear-sensitive area that may be / probably is applicable to listening to
music. If you grant the -120, which will you will do on narrow frequency,
then you can't say that 96db is "more than adequate" to hear differences in
musical reproduction without direct proof.

96dB is enough. Anyone who says otherwise is a fruitcake.