In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

Of course it could. If the listener was a moron, like my son Bob, or any
other inexperienced listener (also known as bull**** artist).

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police, FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS



PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
.. .

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

Of course it could. If the listener was a moron, like my son Bob, or any
other inexperienced listener (also known as bull**** artist).
As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what
he had imagined for himself.
"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

snip the rest of the regurgitated rantings of one sick puppy, whoever you
are.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
wrote:

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

Of course it could. If the listener was a moron, like my son Bob, or any
other inexperienced listener (also known as bull**** artist).

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Thanks, Brian, for using my post as an excuse for yet another (totally
redundant) dig at Robert. I think we get the message by now, but if by
chance you feel the urge to reiterate it (please don't), I'd be
grateful if you'd start your own post rather than using mine.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
wrote:

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

Of course it could. If the listener was a moron, like my son Bob, or any
other inexperienced listener (also known as bull**** artist).

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, none of it is what he
had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Thanks, Brian, for using my post as an excuse for yet another (totally
redundant) dig at Robert. I think we get the message by now, but if by
chance you feel the urge to reiterate it (please don't), I'd be
grateful if you'd start your own post rather than using mine.

Geez, it's almost like the person doing this is using Robert's own methods
against him.
What a prick.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
wrote:

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?

Robert Morein wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?



To the masses, compressed IS better.

Dance music is habitually recorded that way (or so it sounds to me).

Uncompressed bass for instance is something that many "subwoofers" don't
even manage to reproduce, but it does yield more apparent bass.

More bass, interpreted as "better bass" is all many listeners have heard.

Nearly all FM radio is compressed, sometimes heavily and it lends a
lively warm and woolly feel to the "enhanced" bass, doesn't it now?

If you have a compression feature on your HT receiver (Sony call it
'night mode', and theirs reduces low bass I think) have a play around
with what it does to the sound.

Er . . . don't forget to turn it off again

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:11:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
wrote:

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.

I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?

Never heard that one, Robert. The theory as I understand it is simply
that removing so much of the signal allows the amp and speakers to
operate more within their parameters--takes the strain off, in other
words. No, I've never heard minidisc sound BETTER than the original,
but then I've never heard it sound worse either. Personally I think
the medium was undersold by manufacturers and undermined by critics
who couldn't accept that a compressed medium could sound so good.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:09:03 GMT, M i c k wrote:

Robert Morein wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?



To the masses, compressed IS better.

I think we're talking about two different "compressed", Mick. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:09:03 GMT, M i c k wrote:

Robert Morein wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content
that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never
bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?



To the masses, compressed IS better.

I think we're talking about two different "compressed", Mick. :-)

Yes, I didn't mean volume compression.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:11:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
wrote:

In article , "paul packer"
wrote:

When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could
indeed.

I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never
bought
this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.

Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?

Never heard that one, Robert. The theory as I understand it is simply
that removing so much of the signal allows the amp and speakers to
operate more within their parameters--takes the strain off, in other
words. No, I've never heard minidisc sound BETTER than the original,
but then I've never heard it sound worse either. Personally I think
the medium was undersold by manufacturers and undermined by critics
who couldn't accept that a compressed medium could sound so good.

I have made mpeg compressions. Even at maximum bitrate, a male voice could
be differentiated. Since mpeg and ATRAC are similar, I am inclined to be
skeptical.

Thanks for admitting... wrote:
M i c k wrote:


To the masses, compressed IS better.

Dance music is habitually recorded that way (or so it sounds to me).


What you catch on the radio when channel skipping? Many dance stations
compress at broadcast

Many 'dance' artists use compression judiciously, so you can't tar
them all with the same brush. Some of what you may hear is simply the
low dynamic range of crude electronics, bass emphasis, etc.

True, but 'habitually' does not mean 'all', neither does 'nearly all',
so I'm not tarring them 'all' with the same brush.

Compression makes the signal easer to receive in fringe areas, or so the
chief engineer at a local station told me. Makes sense - less silence
to percieve the noise.

paul packer wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:09:03 GMT, M i c k wrote:

....
I think we're talking about two different "compressed", Mick. :-)
Agreed, but still a loss of fidelity, though probably not as bad as a
compression algorithm working its so-called 'magic', Paul.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: "paul packer" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:36:42 -0700, "Sylvan Morein, DDS"
: wrote:
:
: In article , "paul packer"
: wrote:
:
: When minidisc first began to be taken
: seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
: sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
: taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
: the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.
:
: I believe the spin on this was that the compression removed content that
: confused the brain, allowing it to concentrate on the music. I never bought
: this, but I didn't fool around with it enough to refute it.
:
: Paul, did you have subjective experiences that supported this?
:

Here's a spin:
Dormer delivering some rough tracks..
Packer reducing the tracks to ever lower bitrates
Setting: the old folks home where 'Sylvan' lives
McKelvy doing a sideline DBT with hearing aids
and Bob's your uncle :-)

the idea being that really old folks would find the
reduxed to the max setting the most palatable.
R.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:20:07 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Never heard that one, Robert. The theory as I understand it is simply
that removing so much of the signal allows the amp and speakers to
operate more within their parameters--takes the strain off, in other
words. No, I've never heard minidisc sound BETTER than the original,
but then I've never heard it sound worse either. Personally I think
the medium was undersold by manufacturers and undermined by critics
who couldn't accept that a compressed medium could sound so good.

I have made mpeg compressions. Even at maximum bitrate, a male voice could
be differentiated. Since mpeg and ATRAC are similar, I am inclined to be
skeptical.

Well, doesn't matter now anyway. Such skepticism killed the medium,
much to my everlasting regret. I just wish fewer had thought about the
theory and more had actually used it.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:07:26 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:
Here's a spin:
Dormer delivering some rough tracks..
Packer reducing the tracks to ever lower bitrates
Setting: the old folks home where 'Sylvan' lives
McKelvy doing a sideline DBT with hearing aids
and Bob's your uncle :-)

the idea being that really old folks would find the
reduxed to the max setting the most palatable.

Oh Ruud, what are you rambling on about? You really must ask the nurse
for your meds earlier in the day. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:07:26 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
: Here's a spin:
: Dormer delivering some rough tracks..
: Packer reducing the tracks to ever lower bitrates
: Setting: the old folks home where 'Sylvan' lives
: McKelvy doing a sideline DBT with hearing aids
: and Bob's your uncle :-)
:
: the idea being that really old folks would find the
: reduxed to the max setting the most palatable.
:
: Oh Ruud, what are you rambling on about? You really must ask the nurse
: for your meds earlier in the day. :-)

Heh, "wie vraagt, wordt overgeslagen" as the dutch saying goes.
If you have to ask, you've yet to earn your ~RAO regular badge~, Paul.
I spun some elements of past threads into a possible scenario here.
Humor aside, it _is_ about your idea that psychoacoustical research
based datareduction, as in .ogg or .mp3 files, leads to a lower cognitive
dissonance in the listener, 'easier listening'. If that's the case, it could
be tried out in a setup as described :-)
R.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:07:26 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:
: Here's a spin:
: Dormer delivering some rough tracks..
: Packer reducing the tracks to ever lower bitrates
: Setting: the old folks home where 'Sylvan' lives
: McKelvy doing a sideline DBT with hearing aids
: and Bob's your uncle :-)
:
: the idea being that really old folks would find the
: reduxed to the max setting the most palatable.
:
: Oh Ruud, what are you rambling on about? You really must ask the nurse
: for your meds earlier in the day. :-)

Heh, "wie vraagt, wordt overgeslagen" as the dutch saying goes.
If you have to ask, you've yet to earn your ~RAO regular badge~, Paul.
I spun some elements of past threads into a possible scenario here.
Humor aside, it _is_ about your idea that psychoacoustical research
based datareduction, as in .ogg or .mp3 files, leads to a lower cognitive
dissonance in the listener, 'easier listening'. If that's the case, it
could
be tried out in a setup as described :-)
R.

With voice, it doesn't seem that way. Even at max mpeg bitrate, it
introduced just a trace of a burble in the subject's voice. Subject was
male.