[Audio Empire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

audio_empire @ comcast.net

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

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

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