| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
sound in wav-format
Hi,
im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? Thax for any help and sorry for any off topic post!! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
"Andreas Håkansson" wrote:
Hi, im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? Thax for any help and sorry for any off topic post!! What's the bit depth of the data? If it's 16 bit data, the upper and lower sample values bound at 32767 and -32768, or whatever 0xFFFF and 0x7FFF work out to. -- Les Cargill |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
"Andreas Håkansson" wrote in message
Hi, im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? Probably the units are arbitrary. In 16 bit digital, samples range in value from roughly -32000 to + 32000. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Andreas Håkansson writes:
im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant, since what matters is the relative value (5000 is twice as loud as 2500). Once in an amplifier, you could make an association between the waveform amplitude and the signal voltage, for example, but in the computer, it's arbitrary. The values can range from -32768 to +32767, limited by the 16 bits used for each sample. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
"CJT" wrote in message
wrote: Andreas Håkansson writes: im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant, since what matters is the relative value (5000 is twice as loud as 2500). ^^^^ I thought loudness was logarithmic. Good point. most .wav files (note, a wide variety of files can be encapsulated as .wav files but fortunately this seems to be relatively rare) are expressed in units of amplitude, not loudness. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Arny Krueger writes:
CJT wrote: I wrote: Andreas Håkansson writes: im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a 3 coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what unit are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to 5000.. but what!? They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant, since what matters is the relative value (5000 is twice as loud as 2500). I thought loudness was logarithmic. Good point. most .wav files (note, a wide variety of files can be encapsulated as .wav files but fortunately this seems to be relatively rare) are expressed in units of amplitude, not loudness. If you're going to be picky, then you should note that "amplitude" usually refers to the peak value of a waveform, whereas a value in a .wav file refers to the instantaneous value of a waveform. That is, the single sample value 25 does not necessarily represent a small amplitude if that value is part of a constant amplitude sine wave whose peak is at 32000. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
writes:
My answer to Andreas' question was not specific to the human ear. LOL.. Nice try. You're being defensive...which is actually kind of fun! Indeed, it didn't refer to the human ear at all. It could just as easily been referring to a microphone. But you should concede on this nit...see, once you used the term "twice as loud" you were screwed. NO biggie, though--it's a technical nit, and I'm feeling geekier just talking about it. Your folly is threefold. First, because loudness and what's seen in a WAV editor are not directly propotional, two because the ear _is_ involved by the very definition of "loudness" (for which there are actually units...Phons), and third, because these scales are logarithmic so the quantification of a linear scale number 5000 being "twice as loud" as 2500 was then wrong too. Hence, you can't speak of what you see in a graphical WAV editor and equate its dimensionless amplitude scale it to loudness without Fletcher-Munson curves which correlate dB SPL at a given frequency to perceived loudness in Phons. And the F-M curves wouldn't exist if there weren't ears...because well, ears were kinda involved in the "perceived loudness" scale studies that created the curves. Microphones alone can't do that. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. writes:
My answer to Andreas' question was not specific to the human ear. LOL.. Nice try. You're being defensive...which is actually kind of fun! On the contrary, I'm simply explaining the situation. Your fun is irrelevant. Indeed, it didn't refer to the human ear at all. It could just as easily been referring to a microphone. But you should concede on this nit...see, once you used the term "twice as loud" you were screwed. You're erroneously presupposing that I need to concede anything or that I am screwed. NO biggie, though--it's a technical nit, and I'm feeling geekier just talking about it. Save your geekiness for someone else. I'm not in the mood to play with you. Your folly is threefold. You're erroneously presupposing any folly on my part, Todd. First, because loudness and what's seen in a WAV editor are not directly propotional, Irrelevant, given that I didn't speak of what's seen in a WAV editor. two because the ear _is_ involved by the very definition of "loudness" (for which there are actually units...Phons), Irrelevant, given that I didn't make any reference to human ears. and third, because these scales are logarithmic so the quantification of a linear scale number 5000 being "twice as loud" as 2500 was then wrong too. Irrelevant, given that 60 dB isn't twice as loud as 30 dB, yet the dB is on a logarithmic scale. Hence, you can't speak of what you see in a graphical WAV editor and equate its dimensionless amplitude scale it to loudness without Fletcher-Munson curves which correlate dB SPL at a given frequency to perceived loudness in Phons. Irrelevant, given that I didn't speak of what I see in a graphical WAV editor, nor about any perception of loudness. A sine wave with peak value at 5000 is twice a sine wave with a peak value of 2500, regardless of someone's perception. And the F-M curves wouldn't exist if there weren't ears...because well, ears were kinda involved in the "perceived loudness" scale studies that created the curves. Irrelevant, because I said nothing about Fletcher-Munson curves. Microphones alone can't do that. So now maybe you understand why I didn't need to say anything about Fletcher-Munson curves. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
CJT writes:
Todd H. writes: My answer to Andreas' question was not specific to the human ear. LOL.. Nice try. You're being defensive...which is actually kind of fun! On the contrary, I'm simply explaining the situation. Your fun is irrelevant. Indeed, it didn't refer to the human ear at all. It could just as easily been referring to a microphone. But you should concede on this nit...see, once you used the term "twice as loud" you were screwed. You're erroneously presupposing that I need to concede anything or that I am screwed. NO biggie, though--it's a technical nit, and I'm feeling geekier just talking about it. Save your geekiness for someone else. I'm not in the mood to play with you. Your folly is threefold. You're erroneously presupposing any folly on my part, Todd. First, because loudness and what's seen in a WAV editor are not directly propotional, Irrelevant, given that I didn't speak of what's seen in a WAV editor. two because the ear _is_ involved by the very definition of "loudness" (for which there are actually units...Phons), Irrelevant, given that I didn't make any reference to human ears. and third, because these scales are logarithmic so the quantification of a linear scale number 5000 being "twice as loud" as 2500 was then wrong too. Irrelevant, given that 60 dB isn't twice as loud as 30 dB, yet the dB is on a logarithmic scale. Hence, you can't speak of what you see in a graphical WAV editor and equate its dimensionless amplitude scale it to loudness without Fletcher-Munson curves which correlate dB SPL at a given frequency to perceived loudness in Phons. Irrelevant, given that I didn't speak of what I see in a graphical WAV editor, nor about any perception of loudness. A sine wave with peak value at 5000 is twice a sine wave with a peak value of 2500, regardless of someone's perception. Once you use the word "loud" you can't escape consideration of what loudness is. Too bad some people immediately concluded that it involves human ears. If a tree falls in a forest with no life form present to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe even a loud sound? All your argument to the contrary does not help your case. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If your original post had been expressed in terms of peak values we wouldn't be here. If some people weren't so picky, we wouldn't be here. I could have said that 5000 is twice as "big" or has twice the volume of 2500, but I chose to use a description consistent with the level of knowledge being expressed by the questioner. Know your audience; it does no good to speak to third graders about RMS values or Fourier transforms, for example. And the F-M curves wouldn't exist if there weren't ears...because well, ears were kinda involved in the "perceived loudness" scale studies that created the curves. Irrelevant, because I said nothing about Fletcher-Munson curves. Microphones alone can't do that. So now maybe you understand why I didn't need to say anything about Fletcher-Munson curves. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
writes:
Once you use the word "loud" you can't escape consideration of what loudness is. Too bad some people immediately concluded that it involves human ears. You're missing the point still, I'm afraid. Loudness is by its definition a _perceived_ measurement, not an empirical one. And you can't have sound _perception_ without ears. Sure, you can measure SPL without ears, but to create a separate notion of loudness verus SPL, ears have to be involved. If a tree falls in a forest with no life form present to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe even a loud sound? The philosophical question tells me you're getting warm, but unforutnately, you're still a ways off. "If a tree falls in the forest and no being on the planet can or has ever perceived sound, would we have a definition of loudness?" would be a more germane question. What you are missing is that sound pressure level and loudness are two different things. Microphones can measure SPL. You need ears to measure loudness. Once you concede the need for ears when discussing the concept of loudness, only then can you create the F-M curves that can equate SPL at a given frequency to loudness (which is the perception of SPL). But if you refuse to concede the distinction of this well-established definition, you can live in a happy blissful world in which anything you've said in this thread makes sense (aside from your first post which was by and large helpful). Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. writes:
Once you use the word "loud" you can't escape consideration of what loudness is. Too bad some people immediately concluded that it involves human ears. You're missing the point still, I'm afraid. How ironic, coming from someone missing the point. Loudness is by its definition a _perceived_ measurement, not an empirical one. Irrelevant, given that I didn't use the word "loudness". I did use the word "loud", which is a relative term. As I previously noted, a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud sound, even if nobody is around to perceive it. A parent might tell a child to turn down the stereo because it's too loud. Some people refer to colors as being "loud". A speaker who can't be heard in a lecture hall might be asked to speak louder. Clearly, the word "loud" can be used in contexts that don't involve the concept of "loudness" as it relates to Fletcher-Munson curves and all that. And you can't have sound _perception_ without ears. Irrelevant, given that I didn't use the word "perception" either. Sure, you can measure SPL without ears, Like with a microphone, which doesn't necessarily behave according to a Fletcher-Munson curve. but to create a separate notion of loudness verus SPL, ears have to be involved. Irrelevant, given that I didn't create a separate notion of "loudness versus SPL". If a tree falls in a forest with no life form present to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe even a loud sound? The philosophical question tells me you're getting warm, but unforutnately, you're still a ways off. Too bad the question tells you the wrong thing. It should be telling you that I'm justified in the terminology I used, and that you're being too restrictive in your use of the same terminology. "If a tree falls in the forest and no being on the planet can or has ever perceived sound, would we have a definition of loudness?" would be a more germane question. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You see, if no being on the planet can or has ever perceived sound, then the original question wouldn't have been asked in the first place. That fact hardly makes your version "more germane". What you are missing is that sound pressure level and loudness are two different things. You're erroneously presupposing that a distinction between those two things was necessary to answer the original question. Microphones can measure SPL. Very good, but also irrelevant, given that I made no reference to SPL. You need ears to measure loudness. Irrelevant, given that I didn't use the word "loudness". Once you concede the need for ears when discussing the concept of loudness, only then can you create the F-M curves that can equate SPL at a given frequency to loudness (which is the perception of SPL). Why should I concede something that is irrelevant to the original question? That's like expecting me to concede that comet Kohoutek was a flop in 1973. But if you refuse to concede the distinction of this well-established definition, you can live in a happy blissful world in which anything you've said in this thread makes sense (aside from your first post which was by and large helpful). You're erroneously presupposing that that sort of concession is relevant to the original question. I stand by my answer, and nothing anybody has said since then persuades me to change my position. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
writes:
I did use the word "loud", which is a relative term. And it was "relatively" incorrect in the context in which it was used. Hint--your line is now: "Irrelevant!" I stand by my answer, and nothing anybody has said since then persuades me to change my position. Ah, the classical "Don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my mind" gambit. Well played! As I said at the very beginning, your original answer to the question was very good...marred only by the slight technical inaccuracy in terms of quantifying 2x of a signal level as being "twice as loud." Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, you're in a minority of one if you wish to regard your answer as techincally flawless. But it sure was an entertaining ride! Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. writes:
I did use the word "loud", which is a relative term. And it was "relatively" incorrect in the context in which it was used. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Hint--your line is now: "Irrelevant!" Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I stand by my answer, and nothing anybody has said since then persuades me to change my position. Ah, the classical "Don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my mind" gambit. Well played! Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I said nothing of the sort. As I said at the very beginning, your original answer to the question was very good...marred only by the slight technical inaccuracy in terms of quantifying 2x of a signal level as being "twice as loud." Nothing technically inaccurate about it. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, you're in a minority of one if you wish to regard your answer as techincally flawless. Technical flawlessness does absolutely no good if the answer goes over the head of the person to whom the answer is being given, Todd. As I said, you need to know your audience, and I intentionally chose the wording of my response to match what I perceived to be the level of understanding exhibited by the questioner. But it sure was an entertaining ride! Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
writes:
Jonas Eckerman writes: a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud sound, Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears it. "Loud" is a subjective description of a perceived sound. Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it could be detected by a microphone To borrow a phrase from Dan Aykroyd, "Tholen, you ignorant slut," Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). The two are related, but they are not synonymous. The relation was documented by a study done by Bell Labs over 70 years ago, and refined since then. The relation is shown in "equal loudness countours" that are explained/shown here among a lot of other places: http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm But, if I know my audience, I'm pretty sure that point will continue to be lost on you. :-) Whether you were dumbing down your response for your audience doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate that you still don't seem to understand: o Loudness and SPL aren't synonymous o SPL _can_ be objectively measured. o Loudness as defined by the pro audio, music, scientific, and all other communities other than , is a perceived measurement and cannot be related to SPL without using ears attached to humans. But perhaps I'm just using terminology that's going over you head. :-) Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. wrote:
writes: Jonas Eckerman writes: a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud sound, Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears it. "Loud" is a subjective description of a perceived sound. Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it could be detected by a microphone To borrow a phrase from Dan Aykroyd, "Tholen, you ignorant slut," Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). The two are related, but they are not synonymous. The relation was documented by a study done by Bell Labs over 70 years ago, and refined since then. The relation is shown in "equal loudness countours" that are explained/shown here among a lot of other places: http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm But, if I know my audience, I'm pretty sure that point will continue to be lost on you. :-) Whether you were dumbing down your response for your audience doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate that you still don't seem to understand: o Loudness and SPL aren't synonymous o SPL _can_ be objectively measured. o Loudness as defined by the pro audio, music, scientific, and all other communities other than , is a perceived measurement and cannot be related to SPL without using ears attached to humans. But perhaps I'm just using terminology that's going over you head. :-) Best Regards, For some reason (s)he has decided to stubbornly deny the obvious and continue to misuse the term. It's probably a lost cause. The issue has been fully exposed here; readers can judge the correctness of the assertions on both sides. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. writes:
Jonas Eckerman writes: a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud sound, Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears it. "Loud" is a subjective description of a perceived sound. Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it could be detected by a microphone To borrow a phrase from Dan Aykroyd, "Tholen, you ignorant slut," Too bad your argument isn't as funny as Point/Counterpoint. Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Todd. The two are related, but they are not synonymous. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". The relation was documented by a study done by Bell Labs over 70 years ago, and refined since then. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". The relation is shown in "equal loudness countours" that are explained/shown here among a lot of other places: Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". But, if I know my audience, I'm pretty sure that point will continue to be lost on you. How ironic, coming from the person on whom the point that I never said anything about "loudness" is lost. :-) Whether you were dumbing down your response for your audience doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate that you still don't seem to understand: What seems to you is irrelevant, Todd. o Loudness and SPL aren't synonymous Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". o SPL _can_ be objectively measured. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "SPL". But it's good to see you admit that you don't need a human ear to perceive a sound. o Loudness as defined by the pro audio, music, scientific, and all other communities other than , is a perceived measurement and cannot be related to SPL without using ears attached to humans. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". But perhaps I'm just using terminology that's going over you head. :-) Perhaps not, Todd. The real problem is that you're hallucinating terminology that I did not use. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
CJT writes:
Todd H. wrote: I wrote: Jonas Eckerman writes: a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud sound, Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears it. "Loud" is a subjective description of a perceived sound. Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it could be detected by a microphone To borrow a phrase from Dan Aykroyd, "Tholen, you ignorant slut," Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). The two are related, but they are not synonymous. The relation was documented by a study done by Bell Labs over 70 years ago, and refined since then. The relation is shown in "equal loudness countours" that are explained/shown here among a lot of other places: http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm But, if I know my audience, I'm pretty sure that point will continue to be lost on you. :-) Whether you were dumbing down your response for your audience doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate that you still don't seem to understand: o Loudness and SPL aren't synonymous o SPL _can_ be objectively measured. o Loudness as defined by the pro audio, music, scientific, and all other communities other than , is a perceived measurement and cannot be related to SPL without using ears attached to humans. But perhaps I'm just using terminology that's going over you head. :-) For some reason (s)he has decided to stubbornly deny the obvious and continue to misuse the term. You're erroneously presupposing that I used the term "loudness". It's probably a lost cause. Especially when you can't properly read what I wrote. The issue has been fully exposed here; readers can judge the correctness of the assertions on both sides. Indeed, and the readers can see for themselves that I didn't use the term "loudness". |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
writes:
Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Todd. By claiming that loudness can be objectively measured by a microphone, actually, you did. Because microphones transduce air pressure fluctuations into a time-varying voltage. They don't transduce "loud" into voltage. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". [snip] Perhaps not, Todd. The real problem is that you're hallucinating terminology that I did not use. Oh, darnit... that's right you said 'loud.' And that has nothing to do with "loudness." See, I keep forgetting the rules of this odd little parallel universe of yours. :-P My apologies to all for prolonging this, but there's a certain undeniable "accident scene" appeal to this anonymous individual's defenses and logic that's quite morbidly entertaining. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with I availed myself of our dear 's posting history via a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold: Selected thread Subjects from the search: play's infantile game on COOA" 's low IQ ( was: OS/2 is DEAD ! )" " ANOTHER THOLEN THREAT!" " The truth about Tholen" What are the origins for the Tholen conflict? A possible explaination for Dr. Tholen's behavior Tholen flames his one remaining supporter - was JASON RFC: comp.os.os2.tholen Nature of Tholen's mental illness Tholen isn't DR. Tholen, is he??? Tholen still doesn't get it! Plus threads that almost exactly mirror this one, but on other subjects. We appear to have a Ph.D. (or worse still, possibly someone without a Ph.D. or MD trying to call themselves a Doctor periodically) California resident with a long history of trolling in newsgroups, and who has apparently had his mental well-being questioned by several Usenet contributors. I can't believe it took this long for me to Dx this one. He's not just irretrievably thick, he's a troll. Troll be gone now *plonk*. A peek inside your mind was entertaining though. You've brightened my week. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Todd H. wrote:
LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with I availed myself of our dear 's posting history via a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold: Selected thread Subjects from the search: play's infantile game on COOA" 's low IQ ( was: OS/2 is DEAD ! )" " ANOTHER THOLEN THREAT!" " The truth about Tholen" What are the origins for the Tholen conflict? A possible explaination for Dr. Tholen's behavior Tholen flames his one remaining supporter - was JASON RFC: comp.os.os2.tholen Nature of Tholen's mental illness Tholen isn't DR. Tholen, is he??? Tholen still doesn't get it! Plus threads that almost exactly mirror this one, but on other subjects. We appear to have a Ph.D. (or worse still, possibly someone without a Ph.D. or MD trying to call themselves a Doctor periodically) California resident with a long history of trolling in newsgroups, and who has apparently had his mental well-being questioned by several Usenet contributors. I can't believe it took this long for me to Dx this one. He's not just irretrievably thick, he's a troll. Troll be gone now *plonk*. A peek inside your mind was entertaining though. You've brightened my week. Best Regards, If I had only known. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Jonas Eckerman writes:
Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. But then you're not measuring how loud it is. On what basis do you make that claim, Jonas? Incorrect, given that one could install a monitoring device including a microphone, for example. That would not tell you how loud it is. On what basis do you make that claim, Jonas? The term "loud" is used to describe how a sound is perceived. Not necessarily, Jonas. Incorrect, given that "loud" could be assigned to a particular intensity level reached during a recording in the absence of human ears. Well... You can allways assign whatever you want. I can assign "gnrffse" to the length of 42.37 meters if I like. Then I can say that a rope is gnrffse, and I'll be completely correct (as long as it's 42.37m long). Classic inappropriate analogy, given that we're not dealing with made-up words here, Jonas. And in this case, the parent *perceives* the sound as too liud. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. That's completely irrelevant to what I wrote. It's completely relevant to the argument used by some here, Jonas. And I've never ever mentioned Fletcher-Munson curves. Irrelevant, given that I never said you did, Jonas. Nevertheless, they have been mentioned in connection with "loudness", which is a term that I didn't use in my answer to the original questioner. The child probably doesn't. Irrelevant to the issue. The child probably also doesn't understand what a Fletcher-Munson curve is. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the issue, Jonas. Where have you been? First you tell other people that those curves are irrelevant, That's because they are in the context of my answer to the original questioner, Joasn. and now you tell me that what I say is irrelevant because the child doesn't understand those curves? Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness", Jonas. If the curves are irrelevant to the question at hand, how can it then be relevant wether the child understands them or not? Because you raised the issue of "loudness", Jonas. You've just illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound is perceived. Incorrect; rather, I've illustrated how "loud" can be used without reference to Fletcher-Munson curves. You still illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound is perceived. On the contrary, I've illustrated example where no perception is involved, Jonas. In this case "loud" is just as a description of how someone perceives a colour. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. What is it with you and those curves? The same as it is with you and "loudness", Jonas. Wich is because the listeners perceives the speech as not loud enough. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. Have someone tried to bite you with them? You have tried to "bite" me with "loudness", Jonas, as evidenced by the next line of quoted text: It is quite plausible that the word "loudness" is derived from the word "loud". Irrelevant, given that derivation of the word has never been the issue here, Jonas. The meaning of the word "loud" has been an issue. Then why not restrict your discussion to the meaning of that word, and leave "loudness" out of it, Jonas? Some of us say that the word "loud" is description of perceived sound, which you do not agree with. With good reason, given the examples I provided, which included one involving loud colors, which have absolutely nothing to do with sound, Jonas. This makes the connection between "loud" and "loudness" relevant (though not decisive) to the issue at hand. And exactly how are Fletcher-Munson curves relevant to the issue at hand, Jonas? While you did not use the word "loudness", you did use the word "loud". I'm well aware of which word I used, Jonas. Too bad that others didn't pay attention to that usage. *If* "loudness" is basically a noun form of the adjective "loud" (or vice versa), then using "loud" would mean that you describe the "loudness" of something. Not necessarily, Jonas, given that someone could be using the term "loudness" in a technical sense, referring to Fletcher-Munson curves by implication. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Jonas Eckerman writes:
Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd. No, no. Now you've misunderstood the *important* issue at hand. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. For a thread like this, the entertainment value (as perceived by it's participants) is almost allways more important than whatever issue seems (at a glance) to be the driving force behind the posters. :-) That's your problem, Jonas. Why not think of others for a change and try being helpful by answering a question, rather than thinking of your own entertainment? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Grand Wizard Jones writes:
Todd H. writes: Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Todd. By claiming that loudness can be objectively measured by a microphone, actually, you did. You're erroneously presupposing that I said that loudness can be objectively measured by a microphone, Todd. Please demonstrate where I used "loudness", Todd. Because microphones transduce air pressure fluctuations into a time-varying voltage. Very good, Todd. They don't transduce "loud" into voltage. Irrelevant, given that I never said they do, Todd. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". [snip] Perhaps not, Todd. The real problem is that you're hallucinating terminology that I did not use. Tholen, Jones, You have the single most irritating method of "argument" I have ever come across. What is allegedly irritating about the truth, Jones? I can understand that those who get caught by the truth can be irritated by the embarrassment. Considering the calibre of posts on this board, you've made a fool of yourself. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Just admit that you got it wrong! You're erroneously presupposing that I got it wrong, Jones. in a discrete system of encoding, a doubling of energy does not mean twice as loud! Irrelevant, given that I never said it does, Jones. and my statement not irrelevant because you may have stated it differently, Or I may not have stated it at all, Jones. you implied it, Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between implication and inference. Just because you inferred it does not mean that I implied it, Jones. and everyone reading your post knew it! On what basis do you speak for "everyone reading my post", Jones? Such a claim of clarivoyance undermines your credibility, Jones, which isn't particularly unusual for USENET. Faced with a losing proposition, I've witnessed many a poster claim that they're speaking for "everyone". Gosh, the Church spoke for "everyone" and claimed that Galileo was wrong. Those who fail to understand history are destined to repeat it, as the saying goes, and as you've just demonstrated. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
CJT writes:
Todd H. wrote: LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with I availed myself of our dear 's posting history via a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold: Plus threads that almost exactly mirror this one, but on other subjects. We appear to have a Ph.D. (or worse still, possibly someone without a Ph.D. or MD trying to call themselves a Doctor periodically) California resident with a long history of trolling in newsgroups, and who has apparently had his mental well-being questioned by several Usenet contributors. I can't believe it took this long for me to Dx this one. He's not just irretrievably thick, he's a troll. Troll be gone now *plonk*. A peek inside your mind was entertaining though. You've brightened my week. If I had only known. Why would you be interested in knowing false information? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
logic in tholen format (was sound in wav-format)
CJT writes:
We could take a poll. Hands up everybody who think tholen is on the prevailing side of the discussion. Prevailing side of "WTF?", well maybe... but prevailing side of the discussion? LOL. Well that's even funnier than his penchant for ending every sentence with the quoted author's first name. :-) I think someone could create a tholen autoresponder or hack of emacs "doctor" mode for "tholen-mode" fairly easily. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
logic in tholen format (was sound in wav-format)
Todd H. writes:
CJT wrote: We could take a poll. Hands up everybody who think tholen is on the prevailing side of the discussion. Prevailing side of "WTF?", That's not what he wrote, Todd. well maybe... but prevailing side of the discussion? LOL. Well that's even funnier than his penchant for ending every sentence with the quoted author's first name. :-) Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I think someone could create a tholen autoresponder or hack of emacs "doctor" mode for "tholen-mode" fairly easily. What you think is irrelevant, Todd. I see that you're still doing nothing to answer the original questioner, choosing instead to pollute the newsgroup with your self-gratifying nonsense rather than being helpful. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
CJT writes:
Grand Wizard Jones writes: Todd H. writes: Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL). Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Todd. By claiming that loudness can be objectively measured by a microphone, actually, you did. You're erroneously presupposing that I said that loudness can be objectively measured by a microphone, Todd. Please demonstrate where I used "loudness", Todd. Because microphones transduce air pressure fluctuations into a time-varying voltage. Very good, Todd. They don't transduce "loud" into voltage. Irrelevant, given that I never said they do, Todd. Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness". [snip] Perhaps not, Todd. The real problem is that you're hallucinating terminology that I did not use. Tholen, Jones, You have the single most irritating method of "argument" I have ever come across. What is allegedly irritating about the truth, Jones? I can understand that those who get caught by the truth can be irritated by the embarrassment. Considering the calibre of posts on this board, you've made a fool of yourself. Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Just admit that you got it wrong! You're erroneously presupposing that I got it wrong, Jones. in a discrete system of encoding, a doubling of energy does not mean twice as loud! Irrelevant, given that I never said it does, Jones. and my statement not irrelevant because you may have stated it differently, Or I may not have stated it at all, Jones. you implied it, Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between implication and inference. Just because you inferred it does not mean that I implied it, Jones. and everyone reading your post knew it! On what basis do you speak for "everyone reading my post", Jones? Such a claim of clarivoyance undermines your credibility, Jones, which isn't particularly unusual for USENET. Faced with a losing proposition, I've witnessed many a poster claim that they're speaking for "everyone". Gosh, the Church spoke for "everyone" and claimed that Galileo was wrong. Those who fail to understand history are destined to repeat it, as the saying goes, and as you've just demonstrated. We could take a poll. Hands up everybody who think tholen is on the prevailing side of the discussion. Illogical, given that USENET is not a visual medium. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
logic in tholen format (was sound in wav-format)
Jonas Eckerman writes:
Good God, I can't get away from Tholen *anywhere*. What does your problem have to do with audio, Andrews? The best ways to, with the help of effects, emphasize the moaning sounds he possibly issued before writing the above quoted sentence could be an interesting discussion wrt audio. First demonstrate the occurrence of the hypothesized moaning sounds, Eckerman. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Jonas Eckerman writes:
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Irrelevant as my post was playful rather than serious. Classic spin doctoring. That's your problem, Jonas. Why not think of others for a change and try being helpful by answering a question, rather than thinking of your own entertainment? Have you actually read everything I've posted to RAP or any other newsgroups? Irrelevant to the issue raised by the original questioner, Eckerman. If you haven't, you have no idea wether I'm ususally helping others or just thinking of my own entertainent. I do have an idea as to how you've handled the current situation, Eckerman. You could also note that I said that in a thread like this (and now I refer to the discussion you, me and others have been having with regards to your use of the word "loud"), entertainment is more important than the actual issue being discussed. And you could also note that I said your entertainment is irrelevant, Eckerman. When discussing something with people who actually read and try to understand other peoples arguments before they counter them, the issue being discussed is often more important than entertainment. Then you didn't read and try to understand my "argument" before you tried to counter it, Eckerman. That's your problem, not mine. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
sound in wav-format
Jonas Eckerman writes:
I do have an idea as to how you've handled the current situation, Eckerman. Are we on a last name basis now? Irrelevant to the issue, Eckerman. And you could also note that I said your entertainment is irrelevant, Eckerman. Not to me. Classic self-centered view, ignoring the newsgroup where you're imposing your entertainment on others. |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Advantage of tape over MD? | General | |||
| Computer Sound | General | |||
| Definitions of nomalize, clipping, limiting and compression | General | |||
| Heavy Guitar sound? | General | |||
Linear Mode
