Log in

View Full Version : RE: More on High-Resultion Digital Audio


Audio Empire
November 8th 10, 01:39 PM
I've been thinking further on Mr Kruger's statement that he e-mailed John
Vanderkooy of Waterloo University wrt to my report of the latter's oral
discussion of his latest paper fro the AES entitled "A Digital-Domain
Listening Test for High-Resolution (Audio)" and that Mr, Vanderkooy had
responded that I had (grossly) misquoted him.

I am wondering what, specifically, were Mr. Vanderkooy's objections? I hope
he's not objecting to my quoting him as having said that he had no doubt that
some people can hear the improvements wrought by high-resolution recordings
while others clearly cannot hear these differences. Because this statement is
at the heart of his paper. In fact, in his abstract, he states that this
fundamental debate is THE reason that he undertook to develop a methodology
for listening tests that can be undertaken wholly in the digital domain, thus
eliminating the need for relays or other compromising connectivity and
eliminating conversion differences by using the same high-resolution ADCs and
DACs at the same extended bit depths and high sampling rates.

Furthermore, I cannot see how he can object to the point I made where he
agreed with a respondent in the Q&A session after his presentation that 44.1
KHz was rather too hastily adopted as the digital standard and that the
industry would have done better to go with 48 KHz sampling. I have the
exchange right here before me on my little Zoom H2 recorder, and his words
are clear.

I also cannot see why he would take issue with my reporting of his statement
that when mastering for CD output, that 176.4 KHz would be better than 192
KHz because 176.4 is an exact multiple of 44.1 KHz, the sampling rate for
RedBook CD. Again, I have this exchange on my H2 and, again, Mr, Vanderkooy's
words are clear.

Since these are the only three statements I made about Mr. Vanderkooy's
words, it must be one (or more) of these three statements with which he
takes issue.

I urge Mr. Kruger to have Mr. Vanderkooy contact me directly at :

audio_empire @ comcast.net

and voice his objections to me personally. If , after an exchange with the
paper's author, I find that I have misconstrued something he said, I will be
happy to print a retraction.

I issue this challenge to Mr, Kruger, because, frankly, I have recently found
reason to doubt his honesty in some of these matters.

Therefore I would prefer to hear these objections from "the horse's mouth" as
it were, rather than through a two-way Kruger filter.

Arny Krueger
November 8th 10, 02:59 PM
"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> I issue this challenge to Mr, Kruger, because, frankly, I
> have recently found reason to doubt his honesty in some
> of these matters.

When there is a presumption of dishonesty on my part, there is simply no
reason for me to discuss the matter further.

Anything that I can say can predictably be dismissed as being a lie.

It therefore becomes senseless for me to respond further in any way.

I never raised the issue of anybody's honesty in this matter.

Everthing that I've said up until now on this topic should be considered to
be a discussion of a simple misunderstanding.

Audio Empire
November 8th 10, 08:00 PM
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:59:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I issue this challenge to Mr, Kruger, because, frankly, I
>> have recently found reason to doubt his honesty in some
>> of these matters.
>
> When there is a presumption of dishonesty on my part, there is simply no
> reason for me to discuss the matter further.
>
> Anything that I can say can predictably be dismissed as being a lie.
>
> It therefore becomes senseless for me to respond further in any way.
>
> I never raised the issue of anybody's honesty in this matter.
>
> Everthing that I've said up until now on this topic should be considered to
> be a discussion of a simple misunderstanding.
>
>

I think this speaks for itself. I'm done here.

Dave Cook
November 9th 10, 02:42 AM
On Nov 8, 12:00=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> I think this speaks for itself. I'm done here.

All this could be cleared up by an email to Mr. Vanderkooy instead of
going through this kabuki that the group seems to go through whenever
there's a dispute like this.

http://physics.uwaterloo.ca/people/john-vanderkooy

Dave Cook

Audio Empire
November 9th 10, 02:32 PM
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:42:02 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
(in article >):

> On Nov 8, 12:00=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> I think this speaks for itself. I'm done here.
>
> All this could be cleared up by an email to Mr. Vanderkooy instead of
> going through this kabuki that the group seems to go through whenever
> there's a dispute like this.
>
> http://physics.uwaterloo.ca/people/john-vanderkooy
>
> Dave Cook
>

I do have Mr. Vanderkooy's E-mail address. However, it would be easier, since
Mr. Kruger is playing "middle man" here for him to have Mr. Vanderkooy
contact me with his objections. I mean, if Mr. Kruger did, indeed E-mail the
man with this in the first place, then it's up to him to propose that Mr.
Vanderkooy contact me with his objections to my "reporting". If I contact Mr.
Vanderkooy out of the clear blue and it turns out that Mr. Kruger has not
really contacted him, then I'd look and feel like a fool bringing it up.

Arny Krueger
November 9th 10, 03:47 PM
"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:42:02 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On Nov 8, 12:00=A0pm, Audio Empire
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I think this speaks for itself. I'm done here.
>>
>> All this could be cleared up by an email to Mr.
>> Vanderkooy instead of going through this kabuki that the
>> group seems to go through whenever there's a dispute
>> like this.
>>
>> http://physics.uwaterloo.ca/people/john-vanderkooy
>>
>> Dave Cook
>>
>
> I do have Mr. Vanderkooy's E-mail address. However, it
> would be easier, since Mr. Kruger is playing "middle man"
> here for him to have Mr. Vanderkooy contact me with his
> objections.

Not true. Mr. Vanderkooy received an exact cut-and-paste quote of the RAHE
post that was attributed to his lecture, as well as to where it was posted.
Any remaining actions for him are up to him.

> I mean, if Mr. Kruger did, indeed E-mail the
> man with this in the first place,

The above is a reprehensible accusation for which its author has zero
supporting evidence.

> then it's up to him to
> propose that Mr. Vanderkooy contact me with his
> objections to my "reporting".

I fulfilled this responsility when I told Mr. Vanderkooy where the posted
information came from.

> If I contact Mr. Vanderkooy
> out of the clear blue and it turns out that Mr. Kruger
> has not really contacted him, then I'd look and feel like
> a fool bringing it up.

The above is yet another reprehesnible accusation for which its author has
zero supporting evidence.

If its author can't remain civil, then the moderators of RAHE may feel a
responsibility to end the posting related to this topic.

I invite any and all to communicate directly with Mr. Vanderkooy, now that
his contact information has been linked from of RAHE. I'm sure he will be
cordial and informative.