S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. From past
experience, he's also impossible to educate because he thinks he knows it
all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test failed.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. From past
experience, he's also impossible to educate because he thinks he knows it
all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.


Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible. Arny is an idiot.



If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible. Did you
and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap hotel 25 cent
vibrating beds? ^hz of anything is useless in audio.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test failed.


Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just say the
word.


The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from there. Why
didn't you just respond in that forum Arny? LOL

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible and they are present at live performances of music.

Arny is an idiot.

Agreed, I'm an idiot for trying to reason with an arrogant fool like
sockpuppet wheel.


If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical, they are present at musical events and they are
perceptible. If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.


6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

No.



Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible


So is the smell of coffeee in the morning. I suggest you wake up and partake in
the smelling of the coffee.

and they are present at live performances of music.

Maybe maybe not.Doesn't matter. Body odor may also be present at a live
performance and the recreation of said body odor would be as audible and as
valuable.





Arny is an idiot.

Agreed,

Thank you ;-)



If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical,

Strawman. I said they are inaudible.

they are present at musical events


Many things are present at live musical events that are neither audible nor of
value to that live musical event. Another strawman.

and they are
perceptible.

As is the room temperature and the smell of the room and everybody in it an the
brightness of the light in the room. All of which are inaudible and completely
without value for the purpose of hearing the music.


If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.

But not an audible loss or a loss of anything of value to the playback of
music.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.

Do tell us about your experiences with the sound of 6hz tones in live music. I
think the vibrating bed is a more plausable explination since it is closer to
anything one would experience from 6hz tones.




6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.


Wrong.



He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

There was no "clear English" to be percieved. Clear English excludes incomplete
sentences.



The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

IOW you can't post there. It is pretty obvious that you miss it if you are
still lurking there. Oh well.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz,
and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a frequecy
that low? I ssem to recall that a crowd control weapon was thought of using
extreme LF. It didn't work because it wasn't possible to make the frequency
directional.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz,
and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a frequecy
that low?

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 hz in a live
setting.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:12:33 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil - - vendredi 16 Avril
2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ? Link ?

And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 hz in a live
setting.

I tried to send it to you but the mail bounced.

Oh well...

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink. I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a
frequecy that low?

AFAIK everybody does. Nikola Tesla was an early experimenter who discovered
this effect.

I seem to recall that a crowd control weapon was
thought of using extreme LF. It didn't work because it wasn't
possible to make the frequency directional.

I think they figured that out, too.

Lionel wrote:
dave weil - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ? Link ?

http://trauma.cofa.unsw.edu.au/Infra...ticweapons.pdf

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel and Weil
get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters built into their
turntables, which seem to be their references for judging all sound quality
and relevance. Because their reference music sources are incapable of clean
reproduction at 6 Hz, they are obviously and delusionally trying to convince
themselves and the world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or
below.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no pipe organ
that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The longest "standard"
pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning frequency of about 16 Hz. The
pipe organ I record has a true 16' rank, so its lowest fundamental would be
32 Hz. This is about the same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric
bass. However, my recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than
32 Hz.

A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical sounds, but
are instead sounds that are incidental to the production of music. However,
there are music works that use non-standard sound sources that produce
infrasonics as part of the musical performance. I'll cite two very well
known examples below. All this consternation about sound at 6 Hz in music
just proves what a bunch of musical ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at frequencies
that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant frequency. For
example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the resonance of its drum head,
which is relatively high. However, when the drum's pedal is operated
briskly, an acoustical transient is produced that has significant measurable
components that go far lower.

There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a live
setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:23:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Lionel wrote:
dave weil - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ? Link ?

http://trauma.cofa.unsw.edu.au/Infra...ticweapons.pdf

That's a musical device?

Ha!

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:23:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Lionel wrote:
dave weil - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't
"perceivable" (in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ?
Link ?

http://trauma.cofa.unsw.edu.au/Infra...ticweapons.pdf

That's a musical device?

Weil, if you were standing in front of it, it would be music to my ears

Tada-boom!

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel and Weil
get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters built into their
turntables, which seem to be their references for judging all sound quality
and relevance. Because their reference music sources are incapable of clean
reproduction at 6 Hz, they are obviously and delusionally trying to convince
themselves and the world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or
below.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no pipe organ
that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The longest "standard"
pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning frequency of about 16 Hz. The
pipe organ I record has a true 16' rank, so its lowest fundamental would be
32 Hz. This is about the same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric
bass. However, my recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than
32 Hz.

What about an organ with a 64' pipe?

Well? One of those will hit a measured frequency of a little over 8
hz.

A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical sounds, but
are instead sounds that are incidental to the production of music. However,
there are music works that use non-standard sound sources that produce
infrasonics as part of the musical performance. I'll cite two very well
known examples below. All this consternation about sound at 6 Hz in music
just proves what a bunch of musical ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Heck, it's *you* who seems so concerned about 6 hz in music that you
dragged this issue over to RAO.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at frequencies
that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant frequency. For
example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the resonance of its drum head,
which is relatively high. However, when the drum's pedal is operated
briskly, an acoustical transient is produced that has significant measurable
components that go far lower.

But if you remove these components (if they even existed), can anyone
tell through a dbt? I'd bet the ranch that they couldn't.

There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a live
setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

Prove that there was a 6hz component at the live show that you
attended. I'll bet you can't.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:46:23 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil - - vendredi 16 Avril
2004 14:26 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:23:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Lionel wrote:
dave weil - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ? Link ?

http://trauma.cofa.unsw.edu.au/Infra...ticweapons.pdf

That's a musical device?

Ha!

Yes that's true it's not a musical device I thing it's a least as dangerous
as a concert of Motorhead.
But this is an interesting information anyway better than a lack of
information.

Well...

Well, I tried to send it to you. Unfortunately, your email address
can't be responded to. That's not *my* fault.

But since you seem to crave the information, here it is:

http://www.contrabass.com/2002/2002-06-08.html

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:28:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:23:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Lionel wrote:
dave weil - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 11:52 wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't
"perceivable" (in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it.

I'm interested. Which one it is ? Can you provide information ?
Link ?

http://trauma.cofa.unsw.edu.au/Infra...ticweapons.pdf

That's a musical device?

Weil, if you were standing in front of it, it would be music to my ears

That doesn't surprise me at all, having heard some of your live
recording.

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

No response from Weil to a reasonable challenge. Obviously he was
posturing. Shooting off his mouth.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel
and Weil get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters
built into their turntables, which seem to be their references for
judging all sound quality and relevance. Because their reference
music sources are incapable of clean reproduction at 6 Hz, they are
obviously and delusionally trying to convince themselves and the
world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or below.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no
pipe organ that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The
longest "standard" pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning
frequency of about 16 Hz. The pipe organ I record has a true 16'
rank, so its lowest fundamental would be 32 Hz. This is about the
same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric bass. However, my
recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than 32 Hz.

What about an organ with a 64' pipe?

This was a test to see if you find the results of multiplication and
division by 2 to be remarkable, Weil.

Well? One of those will hit a measured frequency of a little over 8
hz.

Obviously Weil, you find the results of multiplication and division by 2 to
be remarkable.

A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical
sounds, but are instead sounds that are incidental to the production
of music. However, there are music works that use non-standard sound
sources that produce infrasonics as part of the musical performance.
I'll cite two very well known examples below. All this consternation
about sound at 6 Hz in music just proves what a bunch of musical
ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Heck, it's *you* who seems so concerned about 6 hz in music that you
dragged this issue over to RAO.

Inability to tell the difference between "consternation" and "concerned"
noted.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at
frequencies that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant
frequency. For example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the
resonance of its drum head, which is relatively high. However, when
the drum's pedal is operated briskly, an acoustical transient is
produced that has significant measurable components that go far
lower.

But if you remove these components (if they even existed), can anyone
tell through a dbt? I'd bet the ranch that they couldn't.

Weil, if your ranch wasn't mortaged up to its hamhocks, I'd take you up on
that.

The basic resonance of kick drum centers around 60 Hz. High pass filter a
recording of a kick at 60 Hz, and the results are clearly audible in a DBT.

Here's some good kick samples to try this experiment with:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/prodigalson/drum.htm

Use set 1, tight_kick_18.wav.

I used cool edit to repeat it 8 times for the reference .wav, saved that.

I then high-passed it with a FFT filter corner frequency 60 Hz, going from 0
dB to -100 dB below 60 Hz and saved that.

16/16 using the PCABX DBT comparator from www.pcabx.com .

There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would
bet that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a
live setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been
at a live performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about
these pieces of music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll
on what was left of his brain.

Prove that there was a 6hz component at the live show that you
attended. I'll bet you can't.

I'll bet you that a friend of mine made a digital recording of the
performance and shared his analysis of that recording with me.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:11:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

No response from Weil to a reasonable challenge.

It wasn't a reasonable challenge.

Obviously he was posturing. Shooting off his mouth.

Of course I was. I note that you can't tell the difference between a
dig and a factual statement.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel
and Weil get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters
built into their turntables, which seem to be their references for
judging all sound quality and relevance. Because their reference
music sources are incapable of clean reproduction at 6 Hz, they are
obviously and delusionally trying to convince themselves and the
world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or below.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no
pipe organ that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The
longest "standard" pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning
frequency of about 16 Hz. The pipe organ I record has a true 16'
rank, so its lowest fundamental would be 32 Hz. This is about the
same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric bass. However, my
recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than 32 Hz.

What about an organ with a 64' pipe?

This was a test to see if you find the results of multiplication and
division by 2 to be remarkable, Weil.

Well then, you failed, since I brought up a 64' pipe, something that
you don't seem to recognize. I guess you only know about "standard"
pipes, not other real-world pipe organ pipes.

Well? One of those will hit a measured frequency of a little over 8
hz.

Obviously Weil, you find the results of multiplication and division by 2 to
be remarkable.

A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical
sounds, but are instead sounds that are incidental to the production
of music. However, there are music works that use non-standard sound
sources that produce infrasonics as part of the musical performance.
I'll cite two very well known examples below. All this consternation
about sound at 6 Hz in music just proves what a bunch of musical
ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Heck, it's *you* who seems so concerned about 6 hz in music that you
dragged this issue over to RAO.

Inability to tell the difference between "consternation" and "concerned"
noted.

Oh I noted the difference even when I posted.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at
frequencies that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant
frequency. For example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the
resonance of its drum head, which is relatively high. However, when
the drum's pedal is operated briskly, an acoustical transient is
produced that has significant measurable components that go far
lower.

But if you remove these components (if they even existed), can anyone
tell through a dbt? I'd bet the ranch that they couldn't.

Weil, if your ranch wasn't mortaged up to its hamhocks, I'd take you up on
that.

The basic resonance of kick drum centers around 60 Hz. High pass filter a
recording of a kick at 60 Hz, and the results are clearly audible in a DBT.

I'm sorry, I was back on the 6 hz thing. My mistake for responding to
your strawman argument.

Here's some good kick samples to try this experiment with:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/prodigalson/drum.htm

Use set 1, tight_kick_18.wav.

I used cool edit to repeat it 8 times for the reference .wav, saved that.

I then high-passed it with a FFT filter corner frequency 60 Hz, going from 0
dB to -100 dB below 60 Hz and saved that.

16/16 using the PCABX DBT comparator from www.pcabx.com .

There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would
bet that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a
live setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been
at a live performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about
these pieces of music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll
on what was left of his brain.

Prove that there was a 6hz component at the live show that you
attended. I'll bet you can't.

I'll bet you that a friend of mine made a digital recording of the
performance and shared his analysis of that recording with me.

Your statement doesn't say anything that's relevant, except that
there's a recording and analysis of the show. If you want to make it
relevant, you're going to have to prove that there was a perceivable
(read audible) 6hz component in the show. Plus, you're going to have
to prove that your listening position allowed you to hear it.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/16/2004 4:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel and Weil
get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters built into their
turntables, which seem to be their references for judging all sound quality
and relevance.

Bull****.


Because their reference music sources are incapable of clean
reproduction at 6 Hz, they are obviously and delusionally trying to convince
themselves and the world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or
below.

Real life is capable of it but I find it of no use for the enjoyment of music.
But what would you know about enjoying music?



Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no pipe organ
that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The longest "standard"
pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning frequency of about 16 Hz. The
pipe organ I record has a true 16' rank, so its lowest fundamental would be
32 Hz. This is about the same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric
bass. However, my recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than
32 Hz.


Do they go to 6hz? since yo seem to find everything down to 6hz so valubale are
you getting everything you desire in your recordings?



A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical sounds, but
are instead sounds that are incidental to the production of music.

The shaking of the walls and floors. Not interested thank you.

However,
there are music works that use non-standard sound sources that produce
infrasonics as part of the musical performance.

Again, I am not interested in shaking the walls and floors. nor am I interested
in subjecting myslef to weapons grade sonics.

I'll cite two very well
known examples below. All this consternation about sound at 6 Hz in music
just proves what a bunch of musical ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at frequencies
that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant frequency. For
example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the resonance of its drum head,
which is relatively high. However, when the drum's pedal is operated
briskly, an acoustical transient is produced that has significant measurable
components that go far lower.

To 6hz? Do tell?



There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a live
setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812.

Oh. Nice. Where was it and what orchestra palyed? Who conducted? They actually
had the cannons? That is rare.

Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music.

Be careful we are venturing into a discussion on music. You have quite a track
record of making an ass of yourself when music is the subject.


The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.





But then you make an ass of yourself all the time, like now.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/16/2004 4:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink.

Does this mean you had a moment of selfawareness as you came to realize that a
6hz tone is inaudible?

I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

Hopefully someday you will learn at least one way to enjoy music. Here is a
hint. Weapons grade subsonics isn't one of them.



BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.








You remain an idiot.

Lionel wrote:
S888Wheel - - vendredi
16 Avril 2004 17:18 wrote:

You remain an idiot.

S888Wheel .... contradicted at the same time, for
the same subject on RAHE and he comes here on RAO to insult and to
purge his frustration and hatred.

As the saying goes, the best revenge is living well. S888wheel has fimly
committed himself to the idea that only idiots have audio systems with
response below 20 Hz. That means that he can never buy a good subwoofer
without calling himself an idiot,

S888Wheel, son of bitch, you are now a potential client for Doctor
Richman. LOL

Richman seems to have a few personal issues of his own. "Doctor cure
thyself" comes to mind.

Arny said:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible and they are present at live performances of music.

Arny is an idiot.

Agreed, I'm an idiot for trying to reason with an arrogant fool like
sockpuppet wheel.


If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical, they are present at musical events and they are
perceptible. If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.


6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to conduct
yourself properly in public. Real-world IQ test failed.

Boon

Arny said:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink. I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart enough to
realize how?

Boon

Arny said:

Prove that there was a 6hz component at the live show that you
attended. I'll bet you can't.

I'll bet you that a friend of mine made a digital recording of the
performance and shared his analysis of that recording with me.


If you can call "stop ****ing e-mailing me, you sick *******!" a shared
analysis.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for just
this once, you know your own limitations.

http://www.google.com/groups?&q=auth...audio.high-end

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for just
this once, you know your own limitations.

Wrong. First of all, 100% of my post submissions to RAHE have been accepted,
and there is more than one. Second, your statement ignores the fact that I
regularly post on at least two other audio forums. And finally, you have no
idea what my limitations are, since I regularly kick your ass on audio
matters...or would you like to tell me again how Quad designed their ESLs to be
used with SS amplification, or what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

Boon

Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room and
the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to install a run
of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still worked.

Boon

Lionel said:

Marc Phillips - - samedi 17
Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

That includes 10 meters for patch cords on either side. The initial cable run
should be 90 or less.

Boon

Lionel said:

Lionel - - samedi 17 Avril 2004
01:57 wrote:

Marc Phillips - - samedi 17
Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

...And approx. 10 meters from your ass to your mouth if you want to use it
as a toothpick ! (

Hmmm...you're not funny, you're not witty, you're not clever, and you're not
interesting...whay exactly do you bring to the table here? You appear to be
somewhat knowledgeable about audio, why don't you stick to that?

If RAO was a car, you'd be the sound of the cigarette lighter popping out when
it's ready.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for
just this once, you know your own limitations.

Wrong.

Prove it.

First of all, 100% of my post submissions to RAHE have been accepted, and
there is more than one.

Phillips, since the RAHE moderators don't post rejected posts, you can tell
any lie you want to about 100% post acceptance.

As few posts as you had accepted to RAHE, any such claim is meaningless.

Secondly, you can't count posts you've made under other names. No way can
you ever compare your accepted posts to RAHE with mine. It's clear that you
were highly ****ed off about the fact that I had 100's posts accepted there.

Thirdly I'm not perfectly invulnerable. It looks like the RAHE moderators
were tired me working over their half-witted golden-eared buddies. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist fo figure out how to discriminate against me
unfairly and **** me off. You'd do it if you could.

Second, your statement ignores
the fact that I regularly post on at least two other audio forums.

Irrelevant. I still post to over 20 different Usenet audio forums from time
to time. So what?

And finally, you have no idea what my limitations are, since I
regularly kick your ass on audio matters...or would you like to tell
me again how Quad designed their ESLs to be used with SS
amplification, or what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

Go for it Phillips. I kicked your ass on both points, so I'm wondering why
you are going up for more abuse. But do try to get your facts right. I never
said that Quad designed all of their ESLs to be used with SS amps.
Furthermore, there are no such things as length limts on Cat 5 cables.

George M. Middius wrote:
Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more than
50 ft.

You're being lied to Middius, which is wonderfully ironic. Hope they charge
you $10 a foot for that Cat 6.

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more than
50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Lionel wrote:
Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

Here's the post that Phillips is whining about:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0mb-cu.aol.com

Notice that in this post we were talking about using CAT-5 for speaker
cable. This is typical of how Marc Phillips convinces himself that he wins
debates with me. One sick puppy.

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for
just this once, you know your own limitations.

Wrong.

Prove it.

First of all, 100% of my post submissions to RAHE have been accepted, and
there is more than one.

Phillips, since the RAHE moderators don't post rejected posts, you can tell
any lie you want to about 100% post acceptance.

As few posts as you had accepted to RAHE, any such claim is meaningless.

Secondly, you can't count posts you've made under other names. No way can
you ever compare your accepted posts to RAHE with mine. It's clear that you
were highly ****ed off about the fact that I had 100's posts accepted there.

Thirdly I'm not perfectly invulnerable. It looks like the RAHE moderators
were tired me working over their half-witted golden-eared buddies. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist fo figure out how to discriminate against me
unfairly and **** me off. You'd do it if you could.

Second, your statement ignores
the fact that I regularly post on at least two other audio forums.

Irrelevant. I still post to over 20 different Usenet audio forums from time
to time. So what?

And finally, you have no idea what my limitations are, since I
regularly kick your ass on audio matters...or would you like to tell
me again how Quad designed their ESLs to be used with SS
amplification, or what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

Go for it Phillips. I kicked your ass on both points, so I'm wondering why
you are going up for more abuse. But do try to get your facts right. I never
said that Quad designed all of their ESLs to be used with SS amps.
Furthermore, there are no such things as length limts on Cat 5 cables.

....and if RAO was a car, you'd be the roadkill stuck in the radiator.

LOL!

Boon

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more than
50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Obviously you didn't read that carefully enough.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart enough to
realize how?

Walking away from someone who isn't listening is not the same thing
as giving in.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Mr. Middius said:


Marc Phillips said:


what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more than
50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.


Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Well, "certified" is usually so lienient with any limit
that you can safely double it if there's no outside factors
or interference.

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
tone) would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty,
it's way to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink. I'm sure not
going to waste any more time beating it over the head trying to get
it to discover another way to enjoy the music.

BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they
spend too many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of
listening to music through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart
enough to realize how?

I've got enough experience with you Phillips, to realize that when cornered
you'll do just about anything to avoid admitting that you are wrong. I
haven't conceded a thing, and even if I did it wouldn't change the fact that
sockpuppet wheel is wrong about it being "useless" to reproduce musical
sounds below 20 Hz.

There are simply no debating trade tricks that can recover sockpuppet wheel
from the corner he's put himself in. Even Weil has figured out that there
are reliably perceptible sounds below 20 Hz in music. Sockpuppet wheel has
said, and I quote, that it is "useless" to reproduce them.

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Prove that there was a 6hz component at the live show that you
attended. I'll bet you can't.

I'll bet you that a friend of mine made a digital recording of the
performance and shared his analysis of that recording with me.

If you can call "stop ****ing e-mailing me, you sick *******!" a
shared analysis.

No such thing ever happened.

Phillips, prove that you're not lying, again.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Sockpuppet wheel has said, and I quote, that it is "useless" to reproduce them.

S888Wheel isn't interested in music.
He is just looking for new "friends" to show them his more and more
expensive audio-system.

In the end it would be cool to be one of his "friends", listening music
on his system, drinking his beer, ****ing his wife...

Boon what a wily ******* you are ! ;-)