Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have kept
saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound above 22 KHz isn't
a problem. Here is one more example in a long series of scientific papers
that agree with this idea:

Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual Discrimination
between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components Given
at the 115th AES Convention in New York about a month ago. This paper can be
ordered from the AES web site: www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a series of
listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science & Technical
Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests compared the playback of
recordings with and without audio signals above 21 KHz.

19 different musical selections and one synthetic sound were used:

1 "Satsuma-Biwa" "Satsuma-Biwa"
2 Litha Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)
3 Meditation Vn, Pf
4 Romanian Folk Dances Vn, Pf
5 Intermezzo de "Carmen" Fl, Pf
6 Beethoven: Sym. No.9 4th Mov. Picc
7 Bach: Suite for Vc No.2 - Prelude Sax
8 Bach: Suite for Vc No.6 - Prelude Sax
9 Piece en forme de Habanera Sax, Pf
10 Partie Sax, Pf, Perc
11 Sednalo Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
12 TihViatar Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
13 Meditation+White Noise Vn, Pf, High frequency band consists of only white
noise.
14 Airs Valagues Fl, Pf
15 Tchaikovski: Sym. No.6 3rd Mov. Full Orchestra
16 Doralice Vo, Gt (Bossa Nova)
17 Chega de Sauadade Vo, Gt, Pf, Perc (Bossa Nova)
18 tiny rose Vo, Pf, Gt, Fl, Perc ("the birds")
19 butterfly Vo, Pf, Gt, Perc ("the birds")
20 Autumn Leaves Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)

"First, 36 subjects evaluated 20 kinds of stimulus, and each stimulus was
evaluated 40 times in total. The results showed no significant difference
among the sound stimuli, but that the correct response rate for three sound
stimuli was close to the significance probability (5% level). It is
concluded that one subject attained a 75% correct response rate which
constituted a significant difference. In order to make a strict statistical
test, we conducted a supplementary test with this subject who had attained
the best correct answer rate in the first test. This subject evaluated six
kinds of sound stimulus, and then evaluated each sound stimulus 20 times. As
a result, no significant difference was found among the sound stimuli, and
so this subject could not discriminate between these sound stimuli with and
without very high frequency components."

In other words, of 36 listeners, only one listener scored substantially
better than random guessing, and when retested, he could not duplicate his
earlier results. This indicates that they were due to luck. In fact a study
of statisitics and actual experience suggests that with a group of 36
listeners, it is pretty certain that one or more listeners will get good
scores due to luck, that they won't be able to duplicate when re-tested.

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to 24/96 and get pretty much the
same results, provided you hold all other relevant variables equal.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

“relevant variables”... you have not demonstrated that.
Without knowing the exact methodology, subject
screening and training, equipment used, et cetera...
the results are interesting but not conclusive or even
necessarily scientific. Given it’s a Audio Engineering
Society paper I suspect this study had a near zero
budget and no leadership prominence.

Powell said:

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

“relevant variables”... you have not demonstrated that.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy paws on any
pennies.

"Powell" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have kept
saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound above 22 KHz
isn't
a problem. Here is one more example in a long series of scientific papers
that agree with this idea:

Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual
Discrimination
between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
Given
at the 115th AES Convention in New York about a month ago. This paper can
be
ordered from the AES web site: www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a series of
listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science & Technical
Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests compared the playback of
recordings with and without audio signals above 21 KHz.

biiiiig snip

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Powell, since you seem to be very weak on the concept, let me advise you
that this is one of the things that happens when you read the paper that was
cited. Copyright laws and newsgroup rules prohibit posting the whole thing.

Without knowing the exact methodology, subject
screening and training, equipment used, et cetera...
the results are interesting but not conclusive or even
necessarily scientific.

That's why I gave a proper cite of the paper I quoted, including how to
quickly get your very own copy for a nominal fee.

Given it's a Audio Engineering
Society paper I suspect this study had a near zero
budget and no leadership prominence.

Big talk from a guy who just learned how to hook up XLR mic cables last
week, and is still struggling with trying to use a consumer sound card for
audio production purposes.

folks, I kid you not!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Powell said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have
kept saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound
above 22 KHz isn't a problem. Here is one more example in a long
series of scientific papers that agree with this idea:
Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual
Discrimination
between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency
Components Given at the 115th AES Convention in New York about a
month ago. This paper can be ordered from the AES web site:
www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a
series of listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science
& Technical Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests
compared the playback of recordings with and without audio signals
above 21 KHz.

big snip

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy paws on any pennies.

Ironic Middius given that I'm quoting the paper, and you can't afford to get
your own copy of it.

"George M. Middius" wrote

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy
paws on any pennies.

Hehehe... right! Maybe that's also the reason
he can't 'scrape-up' the yearly $60 membership
fee, too.

"Powell" wrote in message

"George M. Middius" wrote

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy
paws on any pennies.

Hehehe... right! Maybe that's also the reason
he can't 'scrape-up' the yearly $60 membership
fee, too.

Powell, this doesn't exactly sqaure with the observable facts, now does it?

I know that your clearly-demonstrated technical ignorance embarrasses and
humiliates you every time it comes to light because of all your past
braggadocio, but why are you making up lies?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy
paws on any pennies.

Hehehe... right! Maybe that's also the reason
he can't 'scrape-up' the yearly $60 membership
fee, too.

Powell, this doesn't exactly sqaure with the
observable facts, now does it?

I don’t recall you ever saying (last seven years) that
you subscribed to any of the audio magazines. And
after your no-show with Atkinson you mentioned that
you intended to become a member of AES but you’ve
never done that either. You are not well read on the
periodicals of your hobby horse.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Powell, since you seem to be very weak on the concept,
let me advise you that this is one of the things that happens
when you read the paper that was cited. Copyright laws
and newsgroup rules prohibit posting the whole thing.

More excuses or should I say... quack, quack, quack.


Without knowing the exact methodology, subject
screening and training, equipment used, et cetera...
the results are interesting but not conclusive or even
necessarily scientific.

That's why I gave a proper cite of the paper I quoted,
including how to quickly get your very own copy for a
nominal fee.

You brought this subject to the floor... "stand and
deliver."


Given it's a Audio Engineering
Society paper I suspect this study had a near zero
budget and no leadership prominence.

Big talk from a guy who just learned how to hook
up XLR mic cables last week, and is still struggling
with trying to use a consumer sound card for
audio production purposes.

This is just another diversion tactic away from
the topic. You can run away now.

"Powell" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote

Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have
kept saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound
above 22 KHz isn't a problem. Here is one more example in a long
series of scientific papers that agree with this idea:
Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual
Discrimination
between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency
Components Given at the 115th AES Convention in New York about a
month ago. This paper can be ordered from the AES web site:
www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a
series of listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science
& Technical Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests
compared the playback of recordings with and without audio signals
above 21 KHz.

"First, 36 subjects evaluated 20 kinds of stimulus, and each stimulus
was
evaluated 40 times in total. The results showed no significant
difference
among the sound stimuli, but that the correct response rate for three
sound
stimuli was close to the significance probability (5% level). It is
concluded that one subject attained a 75% correct response rate which
constituted a significant difference. In order to make a strict
statistical
test, we conducted a supplementary test with this subject who had
attained
the best correct answer rate in the first test. This subject evaluated
six
kinds of sound stimulus, and then evaluated each sound stimulus 20
times. As
a result, no significant difference was found among the sound stimuli,
and
so this subject could not discriminate between these sound stimuli with
and
without very high frequency components."

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to
24/96 and get pretty much the same results,
provided you hold all other relevant variables
equal.

"relevant variables"... you have not demonstrated that.

Powell, since you seem to be very weak on the concept, let me advise
you
that this is one of the things that happens when you read the paper
that was
cited. Copyright laws and newsgroup rules prohibit posting the whole
thing.

Doesn't matter because Krooger can't lay his filthy
paws on any pennies.

Hehehe... right! Maybe that's also the reason
he can't 'scrape-up' the yearly $60 membership
fee, too.

Powell, this doesn't exactly sqaure with the
observable facts, now does it?

I don't recall you ever saying (last seven years) that
you subscribed to any of the audio magazines.

Why would audio magazine subscriptions be a reliable indicator of my
financial status?

Whether it makes financial sense or not, it's my preference to buy selected
issues of certain consumer audio magazines rather than subscribe to them. I
live within easy walking distance of a Barnes & Nobles bookstore, so its
easy for me to browse them before I buy. The economics of doing this are
questionable, given that for example I can subscribe to Stereophile or S&V
for about a year for about the same dollars as buying two issues over the
counter. I already subscribe to Time, Atlantic, Wired, Business Week,
Forbes, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Money, etc., and just handling the
weekly load of waste paper is getting to be a pain.

And after your no-show with Atkinson you mentioned that
you intended to become a member of AES but you've
never done that either.

Since this statement is contingent on an imaginary event, it's unworthy of
my time to discuss any further.

You are not well read on the periodicals of your hobby horse.

Powell, how does that square with the observable facts, being that I've
often posted direct quotes from various periodicals including the JAES and
AES conference papers, while you're a total no-show?

In other words, of 36 listeners, only one listener scored
substantially
better than random guessing, and when retested, he could not
duplicate his
earlier results. This indicates that they were due to luck. In fact
a study
of statisitics and actual experience suggests that with a group of
36
listeners, it is pretty certain that one or more listeners will get
good
scores due to luck, that they won't be able to duplicate when
re-tested.

Not to put too fine a point on it, if 36 people take a test, the odds
that at least one of them will get statistically significant results
due to luck alone (p=.05) is 5:1 in favor. I wouldn't call that
"pretty certain", but I'd go for pretty good.

Norm Strong

PD said:

Significantly, Mr Krueger has invested a great deal of time and energy
into "double blind" methodology, dating back to the mid to late
1970's, including designing apparatus and conditions to support his
beliefs, and associating himself closely with others of similar
narrow-minded persuasion. This provides him with sufficient motivation
to be biased with regard to the efficacy of double blind testing as
applied to audio subjects, particularly in the consumer orientated
arena.

Also noteworthy is that Mr. **** has apparently been auditioning for a
job -- any job -- in the audio industry for going on 30 years now, and
all he has to show for it is a large pile of outdated sound cards and
what may be the world's ****tiest Web sites.

Krooger kalls himself an "audio professional". However, the truth
tells a different story: Laughed at by electronics engineers, software
engineers, and testing engineers. Derided as ignorant and incompetent
by real music producers. Banned from a free, open-to-all newsgroup
whose virtues Turdy has trumpeted for years. Shunned by every human
being with any degree of social awareness.

Arnii Krooger is the definitive audio train wreck.

"Glans, I" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have
kept saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound above
22 KHz isn't a problem. Here is one more example in a long series of
scientific papers that agree with this idea:

Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual
Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High
Frequency Components Given at the 115th AES Convention in New York
about a month ago. This paper can be ordered from the AES web site:
www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a
series of listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science &
Technical Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests compared
the playback of recordings with and without audio signals above 21
KHz.

19 different musical selections and one synthetic sound were used:

1 "Satsuma-Biwa" "Satsuma-Biwa"
2 Litha Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)
3 Meditation Vn, Pf
4 Romanian Folk Dances Vn, Pf
5 Intermezzo de "Carmen" Fl, Pf
6 Beethoven: Sym. No.9 4th Mov. Picc
7 Bach: Suite for Vc No.2 - Prelude Sax
8 Bach: Suite for Vc No.6 - Prelude Sax
9 Piece en forme de Habanera Sax, Pf
10 Partie Sax, Pf, Perc
11 Sednalo Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
12 TihViatar Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
13 Meditation+White Noise Vn, Pf, High frequency band consists of
only white noise.
14 Airs Valagues Fl, Pf
15 Tchaikovski: Sym. No.6 3rd Mov. Full Orchestra
16 Doralice Vo, Gt (Bossa Nova)
17 Chega de Sauadade Vo, Gt, Pf, Perc (Bossa Nova)
18 tiny rose Vo, Pf, Gt, Fl, Perc ("the birds")
19 butterfly Vo, Pf, Gt, Perc ("the birds")
20 Autumn Leaves Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)

"First, 36 subjects evaluated 20 kinds of stimulus, and each
stimulus was evaluated 40 times in total. The results showed no
significant difference among the sound stimuli, but that the correct
response rate for three sound stimuli was close to the significance
probability (5% level). It is concluded that one subject attained a
75% correct response rate which constituted a significant
difference. In order to make a strict statistical test, we conducted
a supplementary test with this subject who had attained the best
correct answer rate in the first test. This subject evaluated six
kinds of sound stimulus, and then evaluated each sound stimulus 20
times. As a result, no significant difference was found among the
sound stimuli, and so this subject could not discriminate between
these sound stimuli with and without very high frequency
components."

In other words, of 36 listeners, only one listener scored
substantially better than random guessing, and when retested, he
could not duplicate his earlier results. This indicates that they
were due to luck. In fact a study of statisitics and actual
experience suggests that with a group of 36 listeners, it is pretty
certain that one or more listeners will get good scores due to luck,
that they won't be able to duplicate when re-tested.

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to 24/96 and get pretty
much the same results, provided you hold all other relevant
variables equal.

Readers may wish to note that Krueger is resistant to data which does
not support his "orthodox" views on audio, derived from antiquated
research dating back to the 1930's.

I also promote my "orthodox" views about Calculus, dating back to Isaac
Newton and Gottfried Liebniz in the late 1600's.

;-)

Mr Krueger intentionally promotes *his* views on audio,

What's wrong with that?

suppressing opposing views,

How does one supress opposing views in a context of free speech?

rather than addressing the subject in an rational, objective, scientific
manner.

I suppose that this hysterical ranting of yours Dormer is supposed to be an
example of a rational, objective, scientific manner?

LOL!

Thus, we see the example above, a "failure to hear.." "again".


The results support his *expectations*,

It is true that if one does a variety of experiments in a variety of ways
and obtains similar results, one starts having expectcations. For example, I
take my shoes off, hold them a few feet off the ground, and drop them. I
have this silly expectation that they will drop to the floor. Silly me!

therefore he is gleefully willing
to post them in a public arena with his ridiculous, pompous,
overreaching assertions based on the outcome of a limited trial.

And the equally-valid contrary data is where?


Significantly, Mr Krueger has invested a great deal of time and energy
into "double blind" methodology, dating back to the mid to late
1970's,

Right, I took the Golden Ears side of the "Great debate" and well, kinda
sorta was proven wrong.

including designing apparatus and conditions to support his
beliefs,

Yup, I demanded that the listening tests be as fair and objective as
possible in hopes that they would support my beliefs that most amplifiers
sounded different. Look where all that fairness and objectivity got me!

and associating himself closely with others of similar
narrow-minded persuasion.

Yes, I thought the guys who thought all amplifiers sounded different were
kinda crazy. I was out to prove them wrong, so I demanded that every
relevant scientific control be used in the experiments that we performed.

This provides him with sufficient motivation
to be biased with regard to the efficacy of double blind testing as
applied to audio subjects, particularly in the consumer orientated
arena.

Me, the Federal Government, and zillions of other people who pursue science
seem to have this bias. Can it be cured? Should it be cured?

My experience based on a double blind testing trial for a drug
research facility, and views imparted by world leading experts who
worked on that program, illuminated the fact that audio double blind
testing methodologies are *typically* woefully inadequate, crude and
basic in their application.

I'm sure we are all awaiting a detailed critique of the referenced article
by Mr. Dormer...

When Mr Krueger was confronted with the
probability that these tests could be enhanced with the use of
technologies such as mFIR or similar objective means of assessment, Mr
Krueger and his cohorts reacted with hostility, disbelief or silence.

Being as this is the first I've ever heard of mFIR that had to be a really
impressive confrontation...

BTW, what does mFIR stand for and where can I read about it?

However, readers may wish to consider the implications of the
following report, and let's note for the record that Mr Krueger is
aware of this paper and has suppressed it in his pronouncements.

http://www.yamashirogumi.gr.jp/kumigashira/jnp-hse.pdf

Oh yes, the paper where the listening tests involved audible differences
below 20 KHz, and attributed the differences heard to only the differences
above 20 KHz.

Mr Krueger has failed to grasp the subtle intricacies and limitations
of double blind methodology for authoritative conclusion, has
disregarded it's inapplicability to the gestalt nature of consumer
audio, and rather chooses to employ what George M. Middius has
described as The Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method,
which I have duplicated below.

Yes, we have the writings of that well-known scientific maven George
Middius. Those who are so inclined might search google for "George Middius"
to find out more about his curriculum vitae.

If you want a real thrill, try searching on "Middius" at

http://www.infospace.com/_1_8GBTIC02...1/wp/index.htm

You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed phone
number. Try that with just about any other real-world last name you can
think of. Reach your own conclusions.

[Readers may also note that Mr Krueger has caused considerable
consternation with his twisted interpretations of audio subjects in
the moderated forum rec.audio.high-end, such that he is no longer a
welcome participant to that group.]

Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method by George M. Middius

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this at
the outset -- it simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need
for all that time-consuming hypothesizing.

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent
rationalizations to show that these data are "better" than the rest.
Also, if time permits, jot down some notes on why data reported by
people with whom you disagree shouldn't be considered in your
"experiments".

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is
already known, so go on to the experiments.

4. Set up an experiment that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Make sure
to fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as
obnoxiously as possible. Be especially thorough in shouting down and
ridiculing anyone who criticizes your hypothesis (chuckle), your
method, or your conclusion. Experience has shown that you can usually
deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded it is in reality, by
impugning the motives of your critics.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that
you've "proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought
to bear on this issue.

Interestingly enough this procedure, if diligently applied fully justifies
the use of sighted evaluations of audio gear...

"Glans, I" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Whether it makes financial sense or not, it's my preference to buy
selected issues of certain consumer audio magazines rather than
subscribe to them. I live within easy walking distance of a Barnes &
Nobles bookstore, so its easy for me to browse them before I buy.

Yet, on 22nd October 2003 Mr Krueger wrote :

Please explain. AFAIK the consensus points at a time that coincides
with the charter issue of TAS.

Substitute "Stereophile" and you might be right.

"Speaking as a charter subscriber to both magazines, I don't think so.

Weil, could you have even read the charter issue of Stereophile when
it first came out, let alone been allowed to have enough money to
subscribe to it without an adult's involvement?"

The youngest of the two magazines I was a charter subscriber to, The
Absolute Sound was founded in 1973. It should be no surprise to anybody,
that in 30 years, I have changed my preferences vis-a-vis audio magazine
subscriptions.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

PD said:

Significantly, Mr Krueger has invested a great deal of time and
energy into "double blind" methodology, dating back to the mid to
late 1970's, including designing apparatus and conditions to support
his beliefs, and associating himself closely with others of similar
narrow-minded persuasion. This provides him with sufficient
motivation to be biased with regard to the efficacy of double blind
testing as applied to audio subjects, particularly in the consumer
orientated arena.

Also noteworthy is that Mr. **** has apparently been auditioning for a
job -- any job -- in the audio industry for going on 30 years now,

That's a laugh!

and all he has to show for it is a large pile of outdated sound cards and
what may be the world's ****tiest Web sites.

BTW Middius, what do you have to your credit except thousands of posts that
inpugn your intelligence?

Krooger kalls himself an "audio professional".

Darn that Krooger chap. Never met him!

However, the truth
tells a different story: Laughed at by electronics engineers, software
engineers, and testing engineers. Derided as ignorant and incompetent
by real music producers. Banned from a free, open-to-all newsgroup
whose virtues Turdy has trumpeted for years. Shunned by every human
being with any degree of social awareness.

Yes, that's the reason why I've been elected as an officer of several
good-sized fraternal organizations over the years.

Arnii Krooger is the definitive audio train wreck.

Darn that Krooger chap. Never met him!

George,

You're wrong.

There is a permanent job offer for Mr. Krueger to be the head producer
at Coral Seas Studios if he'd care to fill out the immigration papers as
a first step towards employment.

I believe he and BWRIAAWHINE would make a splendid team working together!

The Big Cheese

George M. Middius wrote:

PD said:


Significantly, Mr Krueger has invested a great deal of time and energy
into "double blind" methodology, dating back to the mid to late
1970's, including designing apparatus and conditions to support his
beliefs, and associating himself closely with others of similar
narrow-minded persuasion. This provides him with sufficient motivation
to be biased with regard to the efficacy of double blind testing as
applied to audio subjects, particularly in the consumer orientated
arena.


Also noteworthy is that Mr. **** has apparently been auditioning for a
job -- any job -- in the audio industry for going on 30 years now, and
all he has to show for it is a large pile of outdated sound cards and
what may be the world's ****tiest Web sites.

Krooger kalls himself an "audio professional". However, the truth
tells a different story: Laughed at by electronics engineers, software
engineers, and testing engineers. Derided as ignorant and incompetent
by real music producers. Banned from a free, open-to-all newsgroup
whose virtues Turdy has trumpeted for years. Shunned by every human
being with any degree of social awareness.

Arnii Krooger is the definitive audio train wreck.

"The Big Cheese" wrote in message

George,

You're wrong.

There is a permanent job offer for Mr. Krueger to be the head producer
at Coral Seas Studios if he'd care to fill out the immigration papers
as a first step towards employment.

About as close as Coral Sears Studios will ever get to having a head
producer is if they move to a boat.

;-)

Well I'm certain you would qualify for the job of head cleaner instead
of head producer and given your employment history (or lack thereof) I'm
certain you'd do a bang up job, Arny.

You ARE EXTREMELY qualified for this position as you would neither
require nor need cleaning tools or cleaning chemicals, so go for it, big
boy. You can probably raise the one-way airfare from many of us here in
the group.

The Big Cheese

Arny Krueger wrote:
"The Big Cheese" wrote in message


George,

You're wrong.

There is a permanent job offer for Mr. Krueger to be the head producer
at Coral Seas Studios if he'd care to fill out the immigration papers
as a first step towards employment.


About as close as Coral Sears Studios will ever get to having a head
producer is if they move to a boat.

;-)

Arny said:

BTW Middius, what do you have to your credit except thousands of posts that
inpugn your intelligence?

There is no such word as inpugn. Apprantly you forgot to use your spell
checker.

Boon

Marc Phillips said to ****-for-Brains:

There is no such word as inpugn. Apprantly you forgot to use your spell
checker.

Arnii has a world-class turd checker, but there's no market for it.
What a shame that is.

Arny lives out to the sticks, in the boonies of redneck country
Michigan. I hear tell the boy don't even have indoor plumbing (probably
don't have none of his own, either). Thas probably why hiz system sound
like crap! Heh Heh.

The boy don't know whut a speal checkup is, I reckon.

The Bad Spealer Cheeesee

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:


BTW Middius, what do you have to your credit except thousands of posts that
inpugn your intelligence?


There is no such word as inpugn. Apprantly you forgot to use your spell
checker.

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Over the years various people on RAO have berated me because I have kept
saying that the fact that the CD format removes all sound above 22 KHz
isn't
a problem. Here is one more example in a long series of scientific papers
that agree with this idea:

Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5876: Perceptual Discrimination
between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
Given
at the 115th AES Convention in New York about a month ago. This paper can
be
ordered from the AES web site: www.aes.org .

This paper describes the test methodology and the results of a series of
listening tests performed by researchers at NHK Science & Technical
Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. These tests compared the playback of
recordings with and without audio signals above 21 KHz.

19 different musical selections and one synthetic sound were used:

1 "Satsuma-Biwa" "Satsuma-Biwa"
2 Litha Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)
3 Meditation Vn, Pf
4 Romanian Folk Dances Vn, Pf
5 Intermezzo de "Carmen" Fl, Pf
6 Beethoven: Sym. No.9 4th Mov. Picc
7 Bach: Suite for Vc No.2 - Prelude Sax
8 Bach: Suite for Vc No.6 - Prelude Sax
9 Piece en forme de Habanera Sax, Pf
10 Partie Sax, Pf, Perc
11 Sednalo Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
12 TihViatar Bulgarian Chorus (SACD ARHS-1002)
13 Meditation+White Noise Vn, Pf, High frequency band consists of only
white
noise.
14 Airs Valagues Fl, Pf
15 Tchaikovski: Sym. No.6 3rd Mov. Full Orchestra
16 Doralice Vo, Gt (Bossa Nova)
17 Chega de Sauadade Vo, Gt, Pf, Perc (Bossa Nova)
18 tiny rose Vo, Pf, Gt, Fl, Perc ("the birds")
19 butterfly Vo, Pf, Gt, Perc ("the birds")
20 Autumn Leaves Drums, Bass, Pf (Jazz Piano Trio)

"First, 36 subjects evaluated 20 kinds of stimulus, and each stimulus was
evaluated 40 times in total. The results showed no significant difference
among the sound stimuli, but that the correct response rate for three
sound
stimuli was close to the significance probability (5% level). It is
concluded that one subject attained a 75% correct response rate which
constituted a significant difference. In order to make a strict
statistical
test, we conducted a supplementary test with this subject who had attained
the best correct answer rate in the first test. This subject evaluated six
kinds of sound stimulus, and then evaluated each sound stimulus 20 times.
As
a result, no significant difference was found among the sound stimuli, and
so this subject could not discriminate between these sound stimuli with
and
without very high frequency components."

In other words, of 36 listeners, only one listener scored substantially
better than random guessing, and when retested, he could not duplicate his
earlier results. This indicates that they were due to luck. In fact a
study
of statisitics and actual experience suggests that with a group of 36
listeners, it is pretty certain that one or more listeners will get good
scores due to luck, that they won't be able to duplicate when re-tested.

So, you can flip pennies or compare 24/44 to 24/96 and get pretty much the
same results, provided you hold all other relevant variables equal.



more bad science.
What differences 'could' the group hear, all other variable being equal?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Powell" wrote in message
...

Powell says to Arny:

. You are not well read on the
periodicals of your hobby horse.



http://www.hazards.org/toiletbreaks/

http://www.usaweekend.com/02_issues/...ousesmart.html

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/co...enterprise.htm





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

big snip

Yes, we have the writings of that well-known scientific maven George
Middius. Those who are so inclined might search google for "George Middius"
to find out more about his curriculum vitae.

If you want a real thrill, try searching on "Middius" at

http://www.infospace.com/_1_8GBTIC02...1/wp/index.htm

You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed phone
number. Try that with just about any other real-world last name you can
think of. Reach your own conclusions.


You won't find "George Middius at Locate America, either:

http://www.locateamerica.com

So we all pretty much know that "George M. Middius" is an alias. The
question is: Why does "George" insist that it is his 'real' name and
call others using aliases "anonymous coward", "YACA", etc.?

"tor b" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

big snip

Yes, we have the writings of that well-known scientific maven George
Middius. Those who are so inclined might search google for "George
Middius" to find out more about his curriculum vitae.

If you want a real thrill, try searching on "Middius" at

http://www.infospace.com/_1_8GBTIC02...1/wp/index.htm

You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed
phone number. Try that with just about any other real-world last
name you can think of. Reach your own conclusions.

You won't find "George Middius at Locate America, either:

http://www.locateamerica.com

So we all pretty much know that "George M. Middius" is an alias. The
question is: Why does "George" insist that it is his 'real' name and
call others using aliases "anonymous coward", "YACA", etc.?

It's all about telling the biggest lie.

The difference isn't in the end-product but that 24/96 makes the
engineering almost idiot-proof and raised dynamic range to more
realistic levels.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Yes, that's the reason why I've been elected as an officer of several
good-sized fraternal organizations over the years.


Should we congratulate you on your election to the board of the
Detroit chapter of NAMBLA?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Yes, that's the reason why I've been elected as an officer of several
good-sized fraternal organizations over the years.

Should we congratulate you on your election to the board of the
Detroit chapter of NAMBLA?

I have a feeling Krooger boasts of these great achievements because
he's willing to do something nobody else wants to. Like my condo board
-- most of the members are busybodies with too much time on their hand
and not enough victims to boss around.

On 14 Nov 2003 16:14:21 -0800, (tor b) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...



You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed phone
number. Try that with just about any other real-world last name you can
think of. Reach your own conclusions.


You won't find "George Middius at Locate America, either:

http://www.locateamerica.com

So we all pretty much know that "George M. Middius" is an alias. The
question is: Why does "George" insist that it is his 'real' name and
call others using aliases "anonymous coward", "YACA", etc.?

Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?

Dogma4e said:

Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?

I wonder why Big **** and Little **** are obssessed with me. I thought
'03 was to be their Year of the Boon.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news
The difference isn't in the end-product but that 24/96 makes the
engineering almost idiot-proof and raised dynamic range to more
realistic levels.

This article is not about dynamic range. It is about frequency response.

"Dogma4e" wrote in message

On 14 Nov 2003 16:14:21 -0800, (tor b) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed
phone number. Try that with just about any other real-world last
name you can think of. Reach your own conclusions.


You won't find "George Middius at Locate America, either:

http://www.locateamerica.com

So we all pretty much know that "George M. Middius" is an alias. The
question is: Why does "George" insist that it is his 'real' name and
call others using aliases "anonymous coward", "YACA", etc.?

Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?

A quick look at what?

From: (Dogma4e)
Date: 11/15/2003 3:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Nov 2003 16:14:21 -0800, (tor b) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



You'll find that there is no Middius in the entire US with a listed phone
number. Try that with just about any other real-world last name you can
think of. Reach your own conclusions.


You won't find "George Middius at Locate America, either:

http://www.locateamerica.com

So we all pretty much know that "George M. Middius" is an alias. The
question is: Why does "George" insist that it is his 'real' name and
call others using aliases "anonymous coward", "YACA", etc.?

Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?

Yep:

infospace.com: no results
anywho.com: no results
switchboard.com: no results
locate america: no results

The lack of results on Locate America is most telling, as this site uses
results from the state DMVs (i.e., drivers license) and other public records,
such as voter registration rolls.. Unlike some of the interenet directory
sites, one can't put their own info into this site. So, either "George M.
Middius" doesn't exist, or he does exist but has no family, has no drivers
license, has never owned a home, has never registered to vote, etc. Which
scenario is more likely? ;-)

Arny,

Another quick plunge to the depths of my Hershey highway would help you
locate him.

After all, you DO spend a great deal of time there already, mate.

How's the view through the glass navel?

Heh heh.

The Big Cheese

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dogma4e" wrote in message

Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?


A quick look at what?

From: (Dogma4e)
Date: 11/15/2003 1:30 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

snip

I wrote:

So, either "George M.
Middius" doesn't exist, or he does exist but has no family, has no drivers
license, has never owned a home, has never registered to vote, etc. Which
scenario is more likely? ;-)

He rents. Is the construction across the street finished, George?

No family (no one with the last name "Middius" to be found)? No drivers
license? No automobile registration? Never registered to vote?

gOnZo, Jr.

Seems appropriate.

From: (Dogma4e)
Date: 11/15/2003 1:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

snip

I asked:

No family (no one with the last name "Middius" to be found)? No drivers
license? No automobile registration? Never registered to vote?

I really hate to point this out, but the "answer" is almost painfully
obvious.

Yes, it is. In fact, it can be found in the title of this very thread. ;-)

Dogma4e said:

The lack of results on Locate America is most telling, as this site uses
results from the state DMVs (i.e., drivers license) and other public records,
such as voter registration rolls.. Unlike some of the interenet directory
sites, one can't put their own info into this site. So, either "George M.
Middius" doesn't exist, or he does exist but has no family, has no drivers
license, has never owned a home, has never registered to vote, etc. Which
scenario is more likely? ;-)

He rents. Is the construction across the street finished, George?

Isn't it a little flaky for an anonymous Usenet rodent-geek, whose
persona is that of a ravening, Kroopologizing pit-bull, whining about
others' supposedly false identities?

I don't know which past address of mine you found that is adjacent to
a construction site, but I will say that two addresses ago, where I
had a listed phone number, there was a time when I received several
anonymous harassing calls. The callers used profane language and were
infantile in demeanor. Verizon let me change to an unlisted number for
free. Where I live now, the phone is in somebody else's name. These
are the measures a real person has to take in order to shield himself
from the anonymous vermin of Usenet.

I suggest that trying to have a rational discussion with The Thing is
pointless, just as much so as with Krooger. It doesn't want to learn
anything, and it certainly has nothing worthwhile to impart to others.
It is in love with the Krooborg, and that should tell you all you need
to know about it.

But if you're really interested in dealing with it, see if you can get
it to tell you what its name is. Then it will have some standing for
accusations that others are lying about their own identities. Until
then, The Thing is nothing more than a ****-stained sewer rat.

"Dogma4e" wrote in message


Hate rain on your parade, but a quick look shows George has a phone
number, address, etc. I'm suprised you *couldn't* locate him. Did
you even look?

Yep:

infospace.com: no results
anywho.com: no results
switchboard.com: no results
locate america: no results

These sources are to locating what script kiddies are to hacking.

Talk is cheap.

The lack of results on Locate America is most telling, as this site
uses results from the state DMVs (i.e., drivers license) and other
public records, such as voter registration rolls.. Unlike some of
the interenet directory sites, one can't put their own info into
this site. So, either "George M. Middius" doesn't exist, or he does
exist but has no family, has no drivers license, has never owned a
home, has never registered to vote, etc. Which scenario is more
likely? ;-)

He rents.

So you say.

Is the construction across the street finished, George?

Talk is cheap.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Where I live now, the phone is in somebody else's name. These
are the measures a real person has to take in order to shield himself
from the anonymous vermin of Usenet.

Isn't it ironic that for all the claims you make George, that I'm the most
hated person on the web, the only person who has ever called me was a RAO
regular, and that has been very infrequent. If you're more hated than I am,
what does that make you?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:52:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Isn't it ironic that for all the claims you make George, that I'm the most
hated person on the web, the only person who has ever called me was a RAO
regular, and that has been very infrequent.

Damn, why even have a phone if only one person has ever called you?

chuckle