Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
Richard Crowley wrote:
Im_Beta_00 wrote: I just want to erase the roar of the car, You simply cannot remove wideband noise without doing significant damage to the wideband signal of interest. Dunno how many different ways we have to say this before you can understand it? I'm used to mixing lots of stuff in with the Boolean XOR function; everything that can be mixed in, can be mixed out, you just have to remember which sequence you did it. But that's video data. The same thing ought to apply to sound, too. But your adamant opposition to this, implies I am missing something really obvious. (As for losing bits of precision, that's another thing altogether; it's probably really annoying to people with perfect hearing.) or at worst, detect the moment of the roar, and replace the relevant snip with a snip from a different microphone (one that is not pointed in the direction of the roar.) Lot of work for absolutely nothing. But apparently you will need to do the experiment for yourself since you refuse to learn from the mistakes of others. Good luck. If you have another mic picking up the signal of interest, but without the noise, then why not just use that one and dump the intrigue? Well, that *is* something I have been wondering about- Whether the microphones (I have many more than I mentioned previously) are better used for recording the "signa"l as opposed to the "noise." It is not simple subtraction, and it isn't simple ANDing off the noise and ending up with some miraculously "clean" track. If you thought that was what I was getting at, I apologize. You have not mentioned any viable methodology of doing what you say you want to do. I was planning on using the Boolean XOR function to extract the noise; performing the function twice, just happens to return the sound to its original state: A=Input#1 (mic pointed north) is the cast's dialog, up close from a boom B=Input#2 (mic pointed directly east) is the cast's dialog from a cross-direction, about 10 feet away C=Input#3 (mic pointed directly west) is the noise of the traffic I am relying on the following formula: D = B XOR C and once you have done that, the following formulas will work: B = C OR D C = B OR D One of the problems I am facing, is the sampling rate. That cheap recorder only samples at 48K. The other problem is the amplitude (or "loudness"). None of this bit-twiddling will be automatic. Attentive listening to each of the files is in order. I want A to be the loudest, B the second loudest, and C the quietest. Unfortunately, a car driving by with a really bad muffler is going to wash out everything, and there is nothing that can be done about that. But otherwise, if it is just a reasonably well-tuned car driving in an ordinary manner, the noise recorded at 'C' is going to be a whole lot quieter than A and B. If you have any experience normalizing 80 bit integers so they can be juggled around in floating point operations, you'll understand what I was talking about, when I said I had to adjust their volumes (amplitudes) before I attempt performing the B XOR C function..... The bits have to be the same "widths" before you do Boolean stuff with them. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
You're so far off the track it is pointless to respond.
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/24/2009 4:19 PM Im_Beta_00 spake thus:
I was planning on using the Boolean XOR function to extract the noise; performing the function twice, just happens to return the sound to its original state: A=Input#1 (mic pointed north) is the cast's dialog, up close from a boom B=Input#2 (mic pointed directly east) is the cast's dialog from a cross-direction, about 10 feet away C=Input#3 (mic pointed directly west) is the noise of the traffic I am relying on the following formula: D = B XOR C and once you have done that, the following formulas will work: B = C OR D C = B OR D Ah, I can see you've been seduced by an elegant, simple, "foolproof" construct. A totally theoretical one. First of all, I don't see where you get this XOR nonsense. I believe the "formula" whose spell you've come under is this: [S + N] - N = S where S is the signal you want and N is the noise you want. In theory--in *theory*--you can take the first term (the recording of the signal with the background noise), subtract the second term (the background noise), and end up with a perfect recording of the signal only. [And technically, you wouldn't XOR the data: you'd use a simple subtraction operation to remove the noise (or an inversion and addition if you prefer).] In your dreams, unfortunately. As Mr. Crowley and others have been trying to express to you, this simply won't work. Has been attempted by many with more knowledge, experience and $$$ than you, and failed. The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. Do you understand this now? -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. You forgot to mention perfectly time & phase aligned as well! I once had this argument with someone who had confused the speed of sound with the speed of light, and didn't realise how much of a problem that is. :-) MrT. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"Dick Pierce" wrote ...
Im_Beta_00 wrote: If you have any experience normalizing 80 bit integers so they can be juggled around in floating point operations, you'll understand what I was talking about, when I said I had to adjust their volumes (amplitudes) before I attempt performing the B XOR C function..... The bits have to be the same "widths" before you do Boolean stuff with them. Do we have Radium ne Green Xenon back in a different goofy costume? The notion that you need 80 bit integers is but one leg of the many legs of this technically absurd stool. The troll is throwing around scientific-sounding words without any concept of what they mean. 80 bits of dynamic range is several orders of magnitude greater than "The Big Bang" theory of the origin of the univrese. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Rom 1:22 |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/25/2009 12:54 AM Mr.T spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. You forgot to mention perfectly time & phase aligned as well! By "perfect" I meant *exactly the same signal*. I once had this argument with someone who had confused the speed of sound with the speed of light, and didn't realise how much of a problem that is. :-) Not much point in pursuing an argument like that, is there? -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2009 4:19 PM The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" and, naturally, the first thing I'd do, is get rid of that proverbial pin dropping on the floor, as I would never be able to hear it, even if it actually exists. That's part of the normalization process. Getting rid of the real quiet stuff that I doubt exists anyway. (As I said before, my hearing is far from perfect.) If we are working with 80 bit integers, we just do a bunch of logical shift rights to get rid of the bits that represent the inaudible quiet stuff. Then shift the integers back left till we get to the left we were looking for, that is, for the purpose of normalizing. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Some loose "carries" floating around will ruin everything! But then you wouldn't know about that if you were doing this with 'C' (instead of assembler.) Do you understand this now? It sounds like you are complaining about which bits of information I am throwing away. Geeze, the only bits I am discarding, are the ones I can't even hear. -- To send me email, change Triple to Beta, and spell out 1 as "one" |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...] That's just the *point*, you nimrod. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction using the formula I gave: [S + N] - N = S where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is the noise. How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]? I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good. Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or are you posting this stuff in earnest? -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
Plonked for boorish, troll-like behavior.
And now nymshifting. Welcome to my killfile. You will find good troll fellowship with the likes of Green Xenon, Radium, Industrial 1, Allison and Roberto. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...] That's just the *point*, you nimrod. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction using the formula I gave: [S + N] - N = S where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is the noise. If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]? I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good. Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or are you posting this stuff in earnest? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene
wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...] That's just the *point*, you nimrod. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction using the formula I gave: [S + N] - N = S where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is the noise. If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]? I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good. Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or are you posting this stuff in earnest? The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes [S + N1] - N2 = ? And the answer is? If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't d |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"Dick Pierce" wrote...
3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in in anything approaching a constructive discussion: your only interest is in being disruptive. You have wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any real substantive contribution, want to make your mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture. The nymshifting along makes a strong case for #3. Trolls are unable to understand facts or follow logic. It just annoys them and makes them think we are all out to get them. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:32:50 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 10/27/2009 12:18 AM Don Pearce spake thus: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...] That's just the *point*, you nimrod. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction using the formula I gave: [S + N] - N = S where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is the noise. If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]? I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good. Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or are you posting this stuff in earnest? The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes [S + N1] - N2 = ? And the answer is? If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't Well, for the sake of argument I (not the nym-shifter) proposed to assume the same N, while taking pains to point out that this was strictly a theoretical construct that would in no way exist in the real world. So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I don't know.) Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about now. d |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/27/2009 12:18 AM Don Pearce spake thus:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an *absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible. When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...] That's just the *point*, you nimrod. I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better. Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction using the formula I gave: [S + N] - N = S where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is the noise. If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]? I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good. Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or are you posting this stuff in earnest? The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes [S + N1] - N2 = ? And the answer is? If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't Well, for the sake of argument I (not the nym-shifter) proposed to assume the same N, while taking pains to point out that this was strictly a theoretical construct that would in no way exist in the real world. So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I don't know.) -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/27/2009 9:46 AM Don Pearce spake thus:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:32:50 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I don't know.) Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about now. My guess is that he (assuming the nym-shifter is male) is used to working with digital graphics, where XOR is often used, for instance, to remove transparent backgrounds from images and such. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I don't know.) Wouldn't have thought so. XOR is not a subtraction process in any discipline that I am aware of. Unless he has redefined XOR, I suppose. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on round here right about now. XOR is equivalent to subtraction (and addition!) in a modulo-2 number field. Useful in many cryptographic operations. Not at all useful in audio, at least not for the original poster's stated purpose of removing noise. Even if the audio is being represented in the commonest numerical form (e.g. linear PCM, two's complement), even the slightest amount of error in measuring or quantizing the noise will usually result in *multiple* bits being different between the "real" noise and the "noise to be subtracted". Trying to XOR the two values together will thus result in many bits being different between the "original S" and the "computed S", and the noise level in the signal will probably increase almost as often as it decreases. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
Dick Pierce wrote:
Beta_Carotene wrote: If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. If YOU really think that Xoring will remove noise AND leave the original signal intact, then, indeed, no amount of fact will convince you otherwise. Let's take your example and follow it to its absurd conclusion. Say the signal of interest, which we will call S, has a value of 1. And let's assume that the noise, which we will call N, has a value of 1. Acoustically, the result by linear superposition, is: 1 + 1 = 10 Now, you claim, that if you XOR the noise plus signal with the noise, and we will assume, for the purpose of testing YOUR position, that we have the original N, thus: 10 XOR 1 = 11 There's something wrong with your truth tables here. I shall assume you were typing so fast, you didn't notice what you'd written. In that light, allow me to straighten it out: $01 + $01 = $02 $01 OR $01 = $01 $01 XOR $01 = $00 $01 AND $01 = $01 Hope I helped! |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
David Nebenzahl wrote:
So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. You have to remember that what you wrote is not what I wrote. A1 gives us a raw file with only binary fluctuations corresponding to the state of the diaphragm. No bits dedicated to exponents, or signs, or anything like that. (If you will recall, Input #1 hangs off the boom at about 2 feet or so. It picks up all kinds of stuff (ambience), and not just signal. Some of that "ambience" is certainly undesirable.) A2 gives us a raw file just like above, but from about 10 feet away, in a cross-direction. Again, there is a whole lot more "ambience" (most of which we ought to be able tolerate, though a case could be made for throwing up your hands in disgust because of the wind whooshing around). The point of A2 is for a reference level against which to mix A1. A3 is a lot farther away, maybe 30 feet or more, and is pointed directly *away* from A2; it is pointed at the only source of automobile noise - through a small gap in the trees where the dirt road runs. As for geographical locations, the cast, A2, and A3 are all in a straight line with each other. But A2 and A3 involve microphones pointed directly away from each other. Halfway through the shoot, a car drives by, and disappears into the distance. Let's say its boom box radio was blaring, too. Its noise is logged in the mic on A3. I will concede that there are times when there is just nothing you can do about noise. Like a dump truck, for instance. The noise is so loud that it washes out A3, A2, and A1 - in that order, and in that sequence - and even though there may be 20 to 30 feet between each of the mics, the sound propagates so fast that the rate of change exceeds the amount of bits dedicated to the samples per second. We don't really know how many bits are dedicated to each fraction of a second. it could be 80 but it is probably greater than 8, and I doubt greatly the bits are compressed, or resolved into floating point numbers. I suppose somebody here was suggesting we only needed 8 bits of resolution to 80, or even $80. Well, that's a value judgment. I would just as soon go for 80, as I wouldn't have to worry about loose carries floating around. As you know, a loose carry represents an overflow or underflow condition. The reason I avoid ADD or SUB is that they involve the Carry flag, whereas the Boolean operations of OR, XOR don't touch it. Here is the problem: the gain could be turned up on A3, resulting in an unusually "loud" file full of awful screeching automobile noise when the car drives by. Not all of the mics have the same gain. They all have to be set by the technician assigned to that sort of thing. Anyway, everything is preset because the technician walks away, and leaves well enough alone, and what do you know, the cast is delivering a moving and sentimental exchange of romantic whispers. At this point, the amplitudes are way different between A3, A2, and A1. They have to be matched before any of the Boolean operations can be performed on them! That's called "normalizing" - throwing away the bits that are out of range - introducing a regrettable inaccuracy, as the more bits you throw away, the worse the integrity of the file, and the less good you are going to get out of it. And we can't just throw the bits away without listening to the files, and making value judgments, scrutinizing again and again, as to what is Signal and what is Noise. There is no way to get rid of the technician at this point. There's nothing automatic. But having a file of raw Noise is useful because you can extract it by performing an XOR operation. It's done all the time with video data. The formula I suggested, was Noise = A3 XOR A2, assuming the files have first been adjusted so they shae the same magically correct degree of amplitude. I have no idea how you arrived at that magically correct degree of amplitude, short of having listened to it in the privacy of your studio. Anyway, after that is done, A1 XOR Noise (one or more times, according to how nicely it sounds to your ear) is a whole lot cleaner sounding than A1 alone.) |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/27/2009 11:57 AM Beta_Carotene spake thus:
Dick Pierce wrote: Beta_Carotene wrote: If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1 gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is any different than S XOR N. If YOU really think that Xoring will remove noise AND leave the original signal intact, then, indeed, no amount of fact will convince you otherwise. Let's take your example and follow it to its absurd conclusion. Say the signal of interest, which we will call S, has a value of 1. And let's assume that the noise, which we will call N, has a value of 1. Acoustically, the result by linear superposition, is: 1 + 1 = 10 Now, you claim, that if you XOR the noise plus signal with the noise, and we will assume, for the purpose of testing YOUR position, that we have the original N, thus: 10 XOR 1 = 11 There's something wrong with your truth tables here. I shall assume you were typing so fast, you didn't notice what you'd written. What "truth table"? He gave two *examples*--10 XOR 01 = 11 and 1 + 1 = 10 (binary, remember)--which are absolutely correct. I've concluded that you simply don't know what the **** you're talking about, which simplifies this discussion greatly. -- Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom? - harvested from Usenet |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Your entire basis for argument leads us to one of several conclusions, none of which are particularly good for you: 1. You are well-intentioned but technically naive, you've come to a conclusion based on your rather entrenched position and you can't or won't take the time to study the flaws in your understanding of the physics, acoustics and basic mathematics of the realm, 2. You believe you have discovered some miraculous breakthrough, something that the industry with a collective experience measuring thousands of years have utterly failed to grasp, and you will NOT be detered from your mission, ignoring, of course, the very real possibility you could be dead wrong and, of course, facts and reality be damned, 3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in in anything approaching a constructive discussion: your only interest is in being disruptive. You have wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any real substantive contribution, want to make your mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture. The smart money is on number three! :-) Surely Radium's latest alias. MrT. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"Beta_Carotene" wrote in message . .. In that light, allow me to straighten it out: $01 + $01 = $02 And you have also developed a new binary system I see! MrT. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
[replying to Dick Pierce's post which my ISP didn't pick up for some reason]
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... Your entire basis for argument leads us to one of several conclusions, none of which are particularly good for you: 1. You are well-intentioned but technically naive, you've come to a conclusion based on your rather entrenched position and you can't or won't take the time to study the flaws in your understanding of the physics, acoustics and basic mathematics of the realm, 2. You believe you have discovered some miraculous breakthrough, something that the industry with a collective experience measuring thousands of years have utterly failed to grasp, and you will NOT be detered from your mission, ignoring, of course, the very real possibility you could be dead wrong and, of course, facts and reality be damned, 3. You're a complete troll: you have no interest in in anything approaching a constructive discussion: your only interest is in being disruptive. You have wandered in to a technical forum and, lacking any real substantive contribution, want to make your mark by, instead, peeing on the furniture. So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here. Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to the test. -- Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom? - harvested from Usenet |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here. Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to the test. And you'd trust his tests, or believe it if he claims success? :-) (And don't say he could post the files, it's easy to start with a clean signal, add noise to it, claim that's the original, and then post the real original as the result.) Far easier just to ignore his trolls IMO, and wait for his ground breaking patent! :-) :-) :-) MrT. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
On 10/28/2009 9:21 PM Mr.T spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... So in the interest of being charitable here, I propose that the OP (the nym-shifter) actually try this scheme, and report the results back here. Since we've been totally ineffective at trying to dissuade him/her from his/her fixations, the only thing to do is to set it up and put it to the test. And you'd trust his tests, or believe it if he claims success? :-) (And don't say he could post the files, it's easy to start with a clean signal, add noise to it, claim that's the original, and then post the real original as the result.) I think we could trust the results. If they posted a noisy "before" file and an absolutely clean "after" file, then we'd know for sure it was a crock, right? Far easier just to ignore his trolls IMO, and wait for his ground breaking patent! :-) :-) :-) I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not a troll (at least in the classic sense). God-damned stubborn, though. -- Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom? - harvested from Usenet |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message s.com... I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not a troll (at least in the classic sense). Your choice. My money is on Radium's new nick. MrT. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Advice needed (was 'condensing water on microphones')
"David Nebenzahl" wrote...
I suppose so. For my part, I actually believe the guy is earnest and not a troll (at least in the classic sense). God-damned stubborn, though. There is no perceptable difference at this end. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Condenser microphones and water? | Tech | |||
Advice needed | Tech | |||
Advice needed | Marketplace | |||
advice needed. | Car Audio | |||
Advice on cheap microphones | Pro Audio |