|
Jim, wrote:
... of a 150 pound female will respond to 33 cycles -- as the weight goes up, so does the frequency. I thought it would go down. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:01:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: ~~ very interesting tech note snipped ~~ Visit real audio stores, listen to a dozen decent-to-excellent speakers, and unless the listening room is phuqued up, you'll usually find you're OK with the bass reproduction. It's the higher frequencies that'll have you switching demo disks a million times, trying to decide whether you like the one that reproduces female voice the best, or the one that best handles flutes, high piano notes, guitar, mandolin. Actually, you'd hit on a rather hot button issue for me. I'm not big on faithfully reproducing bass level sound. Bass level sound is just percussion really even if produced on a string. All the subtle and nuance is in music is not produced at low frequencies but rather at the mid to low high frequencies. You and I agree that it is much easier to faithfully reproduce low frequency sound - I just don't like it. Later, Tom Suggest you catch this months Playboy Adviser. Supposedly the Clitoris of a 150 pound female will respond to 33 cycles -- as the weight goes up, so does the frequency. Hmmm. That explains why I'm so tired after spending last night with a 130 lb female. Fortunately, I'm able to roll my "R"s. |
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:04:32 -0800, -rick- wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Ahem - cough, cough... :) The science is only a guide. Sound, and fidelity which is a concept that seems to have escaped into the ether these days, is entirely subjective. Being subjective, what may sound good to you will not sound good to me. I take your point but you go too far in that it's not "entirely subjective". 20% distortion will sound less accurate than .01%. As an electric guitar player I understand that some kinds of distortion are more pleasing than others in sound creation but you weren't discussing violins or guitar amps. In sound reproduction accuracy is the goal. Todays instruments can measure the audible spectrum well beyond what human ears can discern in amplitude, frequency, or phase. Exactly. What's the point of reproducing a sound you can't hear? Later, Tom |
|
wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:08:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:54:48 GMT, wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:20:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:04:32 -0800, -rick- wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Ahem - cough, cough... :) The science is only a guide. Sound, and fidelity which is a concept that seems to have escaped into the ether these days, is entirely subjective. Being subjective, what may sound good to you will not sound good to me. I take your point but you go too far in that it's not "entirely subjective". 20% distortion will sound less accurate than .01%. As an electric guitar player I understand that some kinds of distortion are more pleasing than others in sound creation but you weren't discussing violins or guitar amps. In sound reproduction accuracy is the goal. Todays instruments can measure the audible spectrum well beyond what human ears can discern in amplitude, frequency, or phase. Exactly. What's the point of reproducing a sound you can't hear? Maybe you can feel it? Good question. I know that certain sub-harmonics are felt at low frequencies, but you are a musician (if I remember correctly) - do you "feel" high C when pulling a string on a Strat? I sure as hell never did but a good riff below the A fret with the occasional stroll up the fingerboard could just send shivers up the old spine. :) Consider that Wes Montgomery NEVER went above the B fret and BB King and or Buddy Guy don't stray much up there either - you've got to believe that the "soul" in the music is at the lower frequencies. Or am I just talking out my ancient and old musical butt? :) Later, Tom I think that Wes and BB (The other one!) realize, either conciously or unconciously, where most of the male human voice range can be found on the guitar. Meanwhile, I swear I've been to performances of a large pipe organ that produced low notes that could only be felt as vibrations. I also, have always wondered if our senses detect very high sounds, but process them differently than what we consider "audible". BB Low frequencies in that range are sensed by conductive hearing (through bone mass in the head). I can get more info about the specifics from my speech pathologist ex-wife, if she deigns to speak to me this week. :-) |
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:08:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:54:48 GMT, wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:20:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:04:32 -0800, -rick- wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Ahem - cough, cough... :) The science is only a guide. Sound, and fidelity which is a concept that seems to have escaped into the ether these days, is entirely subjective. Being subjective, what may sound good to you will not sound good to me. I take your point but you go too far in that it's not "entirely subjective". 20% distortion will sound less accurate than .01%. As an electric guitar player I understand that some kinds of distortion are more pleasing than others in sound creation but you weren't discussing violins or guitar amps. In sound reproduction accuracy is the goal. Todays instruments can measure the audible spectrum well beyond what human ears can discern in amplitude, frequency, or phase. Exactly. What's the point of reproducing a sound you can't hear? Maybe you can feel it? Good question. I know that certain sub-harmonics are felt at low frequencies, but you are a musician (if I remember correctly) - do you "feel" high C when pulling a string on a Strat? I sure as hell never did but a good riff below the A fret with the occasional stroll up the fingerboard could just send shivers up the old spine. :) Consider that Wes Montgomery NEVER went above the B fret and BB King and or Buddy Guy don't stray much up there either - you've got to believe that the "soul" in the music is at the lower frequencies. Or am I just talking out my ancient and old musical butt? :) Later, Tom I think that Wes and BB (The other one!) realize, either conciously or unconciously, where most of the male human voice range can be found on the guitar. Meanwhile, I swear I've been to performances of a large pipe organ that produced low notes that could only be felt as vibrations. I also, have always wondered if our senses detect very high sounds, but process them differently than what we consider "audible". BB Low frequencies in that range are sensed by conductive hearing (through bone mass in the head). I can get more info about the specifics from my speech pathologist ex-wife, if she deigns to speak to me this week. :-) Supports my earlier comment re Playboy " Suggest you catch this months Playboy Adviser. Supposedly the Clitoris of a 150 pound female will respond to 33 cycles -- as the weight changes, so does the frequency. " |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Meanwhile, I swear I've been to performances of a large pipe organ that produced low notes that could only be felt as vibrations. I also, have always wondered if our senses detect very high sounds, but process them differently than what we consider "audible". Low frequencies in that range are sensed by conductive hearing (through bone mass in the head). I can get more info about the specifics from my speech pathologist ex-wife, if she deigns to speak to me this week. :-) So those with more bone mass in the head would hear those frequencies better. Hmmmm - brings new meaning to bonehead doesn't it? Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:23:36 GMT, wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:08:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:54:48 GMT, wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:20:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:04:32 -0800, -rick- wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Ahem - cough, cough... :) The science is only a guide. Sound, and fidelity which is a concept that seems to have escaped into the ether these days, is entirely subjective. Being subjective, what may sound good to you will not sound good to me. I take your point but you go too far in that it's not "entirely subjective". 20% distortion will sound less accurate than .01%. As an electric guitar player I understand that some kinds of distortion are more pleasing than others in sound creation but you weren't discussing violins or guitar amps. In sound reproduction accuracy is the goal. Todays instruments can measure the audible spectrum well beyond what human ears can discern in amplitude, frequency, or phase. Exactly. What's the point of reproducing a sound you can't hear? Maybe you can feel it? Good question. I know that certain sub-harmonics are felt at low frequencies, but you are a musician (if I remember correctly) - do you "feel" high C when pulling a string on a Strat? I sure as hell never did but a good riff below the A fret with the occasional stroll up the fingerboard could just send shivers up the old spine. :) Consider that Wes Montgomery NEVER went above the B fret and BB King and or Buddy Guy don't stray much up there either - you've got to believe that the "soul" in the music is at the lower frequencies. Or am I just talking out my ancient and old musical butt? :) I think that Wes and BB (The other one!) realize, either conciously or unconciously, where most of the male human voice range can be found on the guitar. Exactly. Good point. Meanwhile, I swear I've been to performances of a large pipe organ that produced low notes that could only be felt as vibrations. I also, have always wondered if our senses detect very high sounds, but process them differently than what we consider "audible". Back when I was a student, I had some electives to make up and two of those were in "humanities/arts". I took two semesters of Music History which, oddly, was very interesting. One of the things that stuck in my brain was that it was a common belief that music effects the "humors" in the body causing rising and falling passions. Researchers have pretty much proven that low frequency sub-harmonics can initiate fear and increased adrenalin output. There is probably a lot of truth to being able to "feel" music - I'm just not sure we can "feel" higher frequencies. Later, Tom Lower frequencies can be felt, but not heard. There are conceptual weapons that broadcast high power, low frequency sounds that can kill or incapacitate the target. There are many cases reported of people being ill from low frequency noise in buildings. And if it is Memorex, you can break wine glass. ;) |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:26:53 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Lower frequencies can be felt, but not heard. There are conceptual weapons that broadcast high power, low frequency sounds that can kill or incapacitate the target. There are many cases reported of people being ill from low frequency noise in buildings. And if it is Memorex, you can break wine glass. ;) I wonder if this can be turned into a weapon? Shoot down airplanes with an EMP type pulse? Hmmmm..... Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com