"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't hear
all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:20:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't hear
all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

Thanks, Arnie. I wouldn't hear it anyway as I don't own a turntable.
I'm not interested in analogue on convenience grounds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

No, Arnold, speaks of a mass experience of bad digital. I personally
think things are improving, but there are still too many harsh CDs out
there.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

You're a brave man, Arnold. There aren't too many who would seriously
claim that all is well in the world of digital. Even those totally
committed to digital, such as myself, rarely claim there's no room for
improvement, or that digital has gone as far as it can. They obviously
don't have your bionic ears or indomitable courage.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?

Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.

I think that qualifies as a "Snap!"

Don't worry, Arnii. Nobody in your church cares about your "pro" chops. As
long as the price is right, it's all good.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:02:03 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.


LOL!

You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

On Fri, 26 May 2006 14:26:23 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:02:03 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.


LOL!

You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

Hey, belt sander! I made a funny! Gee I'm amazing.

(paul packer) said:


You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

Hey, belt sander! I made a funny! Gee I'm amazing.


And so, paranoia is rampant.
Now people think even *I* belong to the "Evil Belt Empire".

SHP, if you hear this, you owe me yet another can of cream !

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

As I understand it, the reason digital doesn't sound as good as analogue is
as follows (simplified because I don't remember every exact technical
detail):

44.1 KHz (usual sampling rate), is enough to capture all frequencies that
the human ear can hear.

However, it doesn't capture those funny frequencies below and above the
hearing thresholds which many natural (and electronic!) instruments
generate.

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add something subliminal
to the way the music affects you. Difficult to put ones finger on.... but I
suppose its also true to say its difficult to put your finger on the reason
why you think a particular piece of music is so great... and for that reason
I don't think one should be so quick to dismiss this explanation as
un-scientific mumbo-jumbo .

Ro

PS Bet thats been said in this forum 50 times before. New here..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't
hear all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

"roke" wrote in message

As I understand it, the reason digital doesn't sound as
good as analogue is as follows (simplified because I
don't remember every exact technical detail):

44.1 KHz (usual sampling rate), is enough to capture all
frequencies that the human ear can hear.

However, it doesn't capture those funny frequencies below
and above the hearing thresholds which many natural (and
electronic!) instruments generate.

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit to the lowest frequency that can be accuratly
conveyed by a digital format. The practical limit relates to the length of
the recording. IOW if a recording is 10 minutes or 600 seconds long, then
the lowest frequency that recording can convey is 1/600 th of a Hz. This is
true for either digital or analog recordings. However there are practical
reasons why no analog recording comes anywhere near this.

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this is right if there
are no conscous affects?

Difficult to put ones finger on.... but I suppose its
also true to say its difficult to put your finger on the
reason why you think a particular piece of music is so
great... and for that reason I don't think one should be
so quick to dismiss this explanation as un-scientific
mumbo-jumbo .

What, just because your theory is unprovable unscientific, and full of
mumbo-jumbo?

LOL!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this is right if there
are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

You have proof he didn't measure brain waves?

Stephen

Arny Krueger wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Once again you're set on proving that what I said once was right:
you're responsable for much of what is wrong with RAO.
You really don't see what is obvious to anyone reading you: you
convinced yourself that this kind of 4th grade smart aleck answer is
good enough for posting here.
MNe quotes research from a Dept. of physiology and you "answer"
it as above.
You make one ashamed to participate
Ludovic Mirabel

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

It obviously does matter. While one ear is deaf to the effect of sound above
20kHz or so, two ears are differentially sensitive to 50 kHz or more From
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html, the ear is sensitive to
the difference of arrival time of a sound to each ear to 10 microseconds.
Quoting, "The brain is sensitive to differences in time of arrival of as
small as 10 microseconds, and can use this to pinpoint the location of the
sound." This corresponds to a steady state tone of 100,000 Hz.

No one can hear a 100kHz tone. However, when an impulsive sound occurs, the
difference in spatiality is noted as if the ears can jointly (not singly)
resolve a tone of that frequency. Simply put, ultrasonic components
influence how we localize sound. As spatiality is one of the most prized
aspects of the stereophonic experience, it is obvious that ultrasonics do
matter.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:04:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be well-aware of the
details, He's trolling, as usual.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they
add something subliminal to the way the music
affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

It obviously does matter. While one ear is deaf to the
effect of sound above 20kHz or so, two ears are
differentially sensitive to 50 kHz or more From
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html, the
ear is sensitive to the difference of arrival time of a
sound to each ear to 10 microseconds. Quoting, "The brain
is sensitive to differences in time of arrival of as
small as 10 microseconds, and can use this to pinpoint
the location of the sound." This corresponds to a steady
state tone of 100,000 Hz.

Inability to tell the difference between a well-documented fact and an
unsupported assertion, noted.

This is not a paper that has been referred or published in a professional
journal.

It's just a class report for an undergraduate class called "How Things
Work".

Here's the home page for the class:

http://web.mit.edu/2.972/OldFiles/www/body.html

It has no proper footnotes, just some broad references.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be well-aware of the
details, He's trolling, as usual.

You asked how one could show the affects of high frequencies. Oohashi
did that. Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll.

And you didn't dispute so much as reject the findings.

Stephen

paul packer said:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:45:18 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

You have proof he didn't measure brain waves?

Oohashi's experiments are intriguing but not conclusive. I have not
read them in years but there are procedural problems and I also had
some objections to his conclusions.

Kal (speaking as a neuroscientist, not an audiophile)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
[snip]

It's just a class report for an undergraduate class called "How Things
Work".

Here's the home page for the class:

http://web.mit.edu/2.972/OldFiles/www/body.html

It has no proper footnotes, just some broad references.


Look at: http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

"When the source moves off of the center axis (sources B and C), these
differences (as small as 10 microseconds) are interpreted by the brain as
localization cues."

and the bibliography,
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?a...e=bibliography

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .

Forgery

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:45:18 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

[snip]

How about this:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10 us,
this implies some discrimination of higher frequencies, not by the mechanism
that senses tone, but by something else. Mathematically, as I am sure you
are aware, this is because there is no such thing as a 20 kHz sine wave that
starts up from nothing. The Fourier series of the startup of a perfect tone
includes higher order coefficients that die away as t -- infinity.

The only mathematical artifacts that are available to discriminate a 10 us
difference are these transient Fourier coefficients. We can't hear the
tones, but somehow, these coefficients get into the brain with the
recognition by neural circuitry that they represent ultrasonics.

BTW, I asked JA to give you a CD of a street recording.

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 23:45:18 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

You have proof he didn't measure brain waves?

Oohashi's experiments are intriguing but not conclusive. I have not
read them in years but there are procedural problems and I also had
some objections to his conclusions.

Kal (speaking as a neuroscientist, not an audiophile)

"Intriguing but not conclusive" seems to be the consensus. I guess we
wait for the next study.

Stephen

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .

Forgery

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .

Forgery

Hi Brian.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


paul packer said:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because
there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk like a
Valley Girl?

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk like a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

And they all lived miserably ever after.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be well-aware of the
details, He's trolling, as usual.

You asked how one could show the affects of high frequencies. Oohashi
did that. Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll.

And you didn't dispute so much as reject the findings.

Stephen

Yes, and Arny has to deal with this, too:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10 us,
this implies some discrimination of higher frequencies, not by the mechanism
that senses tone, but by something else. Mathematically, as I am sure you
are aware, this is because there is no such thing as a 20 kHz sine wave that
starts up from nothing. The Fourier series of the startup of a perfect tone
includes higher order coefficients that die away as t -- infinity.

The only mathematical artifacts that are available to discriminate a 10 us
difference are these transient Fourier coefficients. We can't hear the
tones, but somehow, these coefficients get into the brain with the
recognition by neural circuitry that they represent ultrasonics.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.

In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.


Sorry guys, Forgery.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
.. .


In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to
talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn
asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.


Sorry guys, Forgery.

Brian, you're spoiling my joke. On the other hand, I have worldjazz.tv for
three more years. I'm winning.

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:16:38 +0700, Robert Morein
wrote:



In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.


Sorry guys, Forgery.

Gee, I'm sort of vaguely disappointed. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:16:38 +0700, Robert Morein
wrote:



In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to
talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was
all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn
asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.


Sorry guys, Forgery.

Gee, I'm sort of vaguely disappointed. :-)

At not seeing a bunch of balding guys in ass-tight jeans? Why?

On Sat, 27 May 2006 23:17:48 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:16:38 +0700, Robert Morein
wrote:



In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:38 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it
away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to
talk
like
a
Valley Girl?

Arnii was like, "That's totally awesome." And Dr. Kroomacher was
all,
"Dewd, yer such a booorg." And Mikey was like, "Swine **** damn
asshole
pig crap bitch turd."

Like, fer sure

George's sendup is bitchin.

Do you all wear the clothes as well?

Paul, I'm free tonight.


Sorry guys, Forgery.

Gee, I'm sort of vaguely disappointed. :-)

At not seeing a bunch of balding guys in ass-tight jeans? Why?

No, that you're not free tonight after all. :-)

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
[snip]

It's just a class report for an undergraduate class
called "How Things Work".

Here's the home page for the class:

http://web.mit.edu/2.972/OldFiles/www/body.html

It has no proper footnotes, just some broad references.


Look at:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3
"When the source moves off of the center axis (sources B
and C), these differences (as small as 10 microseconds)
are interpreted by the brain as localization cues."

No footnote provided at this point.

Conclusion - someone doesn't know what a proper footnote looks like.

and the bibliography,
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?a...e=bibliography

Note that this is mostly a list of references, and not a list of footnotes:

a.. Eargle, John M. Handbook of Recording Engineering: 3rd Edition, Chapman
& Hall, New York (1996).

A rather large book, not a footnote

a.. Everest, F. Alton. The Master Handbook of Acoustics; 3rd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York (1994).

ditto

a.. Holman, Tomlinson. 5.1 Surround Sound, Up and Running, Focal Press,
Boston (2000).

A smaller book (208 pp), but still not a footnote

a.. Lennie, Peter. Lecture; The Auditory System,
http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/bcs/programs
/courses/info/245/ARCHIVES/S96/auditory _where.html (1 November 2000).

Not available to the public.

a.. Moss, David. Diagram of ear, http://www.ulster.net/
~mycoman/eyeear1.html (4 November 2000).

Broken link

a.. Simon Frasier University. http://www.sfu.ca/sca/
Manuals/ZAAPf/t/the_ear.html (1 November 2000 TMH Corporation (6/21/99).

Broken link.