jimmys69
MOODerator
Jersey Mikes man! You haven't tasted a sub until you have tried Jersey Mikes!
Hells yeah! 3.5 miles away from me! I'm gonna go get me some cobbler sub action from Jersey Mike!
Jersey Mikes man! You haven't tasted a sub until you have tried Jersey Mikes!
Hells yeah! 3.5 miles away from me! I'm gonna go get me some cobbler sub action from Jersey Mike!
So.... air moves.
On a molecular level, All matter's atoms also move unless they are at "Absolute Zero".
VP
Science is teh pwn .......... unless you're a conservative .......Science kicks *ass* once again!
You know, I ain't that good at physics (got a C); I am bad at conserving terms, so I need some help:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ComparativeRepresentationOfSoundFieldQuantities.pdf
So if a 1kHz 1Pa wave has a 385um particle displacement (almost half a mm, certainly larger than a molecule!), then how far should my ~100Hz 10Pa (114dBSPL) tom hit have displaced particles?
Given:
particle displacement = Pa / (Z0 * 2 * pi * f) (see wikipedia if you missed that earlier)
If I increase Pa by a factor of 10, and reduce f by a factor of 10, then my solution must be 100 times larger than a 1kHz 1Pa wave. Do you agree?
If so, that means the particle displacement was . . . drumroll . . .
.000385m * 100 = 0.0385m = 38.5mm, or about 1.5"!
Which is not too far off of what I observed with the candle (estimated at an inch).
Science kicks *ass* once again!
If you don't like analog, don't use it!
If you don't like digital, don't use it!
Why can't it be as simple as that?
Obviously at a sound source such as a drum, speaker or other large moving diaphragm, there will be considerable "Molecular Motion".
.
Why can't it be as simple as that?
I guess that was a short breath of fresh Spring air....
So like....do we want this thread to rage on, or is it time to bring it to a close, as I don't see any new ground being broken...?
I guess that was a short breath of fresh Spring air....
So like....do we want this thread to rage on, or is it time to bring it to a close, as I don't see any new ground being broken...?
Fact: there are people who prefer the sound of analog over digital for whatever reason.
Fact: there are people who can differenciate between the two in blind tests.
Fact: there remain high end studios that maintain and offer full analog rooms using tape and vintage outboard gear. They have clients willing to pay a premium for the use of this technology. I seriously doubt they do it to add "analog distortion".
Theory: like eyesight, individuals hearing is different from each other. Maybe even moreso than with eyesight as the differences in the physical structures of each individuals hear would have an effect on how they "hear" things. Is it possible that have more sensitivities in their hearing can diiferenciate between the two? And the opposite, those that cannot differenciate, cannot understand what they cannot hear. If you cannot tell the difference then digital would get the nod, cheaper, readily available current technology, less maintenance, no problem with dicey media.
Just my theory.
and so was I nor was I specifically targeting you other than to agree with your comments concerning hearing.I didnt mean to come across as worked up or outraged, as I am neither. Was just offerring observation.
Fact: there are people who can differenciate between the two in blind tests.
Do you have any links or documentation to support this? I'm not calling you a liar or anything; I'd just be fascinated to see someone actually be able to do this, because I'm almost positive I would never be able to tell.
When there's a thread where people are running around threatening to track down and kill each other ( it happens believe it or not
there's a reason those guys are still around and it's not because they're troublemakers.
So if they give someone a hard time there could very well be a legitimate reason for that.