sound in wav-format

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Andreas Håkansson, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. 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. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Andreas Håkansson" <9andreas@upvnet.upv.es> wrote in message
    news:bgtdm3$641$1@polaris.cc.upv.es
    > 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.
  3. 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.
  4. CJT

    CJT Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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.


    > 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.
    >
  5. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham writes:

    > 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).


    At the risk of being a being a completely technical
    ninny...and isolating a single word out of an otherwise fine and
    informative post, something compells me to add the following:

    "Loudness" and amplitude are two different thingees, and given the way
    the ear works, loudness countour studies say you need approximately
    10dB more SPL for something to seem truly "twice as loud." In terms
    of signal amplitude (which is what these dimensionless numbers are
    proportional to), 10dB = 20log(V2/V1), so the multiplier is ~3.16 for
    a given signal to be "twice as loud" as another in this scale.

    So, while 5000 is twice the _amplitude_ of 2500 on that scale, but
    it's not twice as loud. 7905 would seem twice as loud as 2500.

    Carry on. Return to your homes. Nothing to see here. An EE degree
    is a terrible thing to waste. Move along. :)

    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."
  6. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "CJT" <cheljuba@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:3F327D0D.5060504@prodigy.net
    > tholen@antispam.ham 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.
  7. CJT writes:

    >> 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.


    The way your ear perceives loudness is logarithmic. Would it help if
    I said that 5000 is 6 dB louder than 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.
  8. Todd H. writes:

    >> 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).


    > At the risk of being a being a completely technical
    > ninny...and isolating a single word out of an otherwise fine and
    > informative post, something compells me to add the following:
    >
    > "Loudness" and amplitude are two different thingees, and given the way
    > the ear works, loudness countour studies say you need approximately
    > 10dB more SPL for something to seem truly "twice as loud." In terms
    > of signal amplitude (which is what these dimensionless numbers are
    > proportional to), 10dB = 20log(V2/V1), so the multiplier is ~3.16 for
    > a given signal to be "twice as loud" as another in this scale.
    >
    > So, while 5000 is twice the _amplitude_ of 2500 on that scale, but
    > it's not twice as loud. 7905 would seem twice as loud as 2500.


    My answer to Andreas' question was not specific to the human ear.
    Indeed, it didn't refer to the human ear at all. It could just as
    easily been referring to a microphone.

    > Carry on. Return to your homes. Nothing to see here. An EE degree
    > is a terrible thing to waste. Move along. :)
  9. 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.
  10. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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."
  11. 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.
  12. CJT

    CJT Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:

    > 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. All your argument to the contrary does not help your
    case. If your original post had been expressed in terms of peak values
    we wouldn't be here.

    >
    >>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. ds-south

    ds-south New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...

    Sorry, I cant help...
  14. 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.
  15. Bob Cain

    Bob Cain Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
    >
    > CJT 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.


    Perception is the only context in which "loud" is defined.
    That's the reason your use of the word took the discussion
    in the direction that it did.


    Bob
    --

    "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
    simpler."

    A. Einstein
  16. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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."
  17. 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.
  18. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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."
  19. tholen@antispam.ham wrote in
    news:Js1Za.19480$8N.1026242@twister.socal.rr.com:

    > 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.

    > even if nobody is around to perceive it.


    If noone is there to perceive the sound, it's impossible to know wether it
    would have been perceived as a loud sound if someone had been there. The
    term "loud" is meaningless if you don't care about perception.

    > A parent might
    > tell a child to turn down the stereo because it's too loud.


    And in this case, the parent *perceives* the sound as too liud. The child
    probably doesn't. You've just illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound
    is perceived.

    > Some
    > people refer to colors as being "loud".


    In this case "loud" is just as a description of how someone perceives a
    colour.

    > A speaker who can't be
    > heard in a lecture hall might be asked to speak louder.


    Wich is because the listeners perceives the speech as not loud enough.

    > Irrelevant, given that I didn't use the word "loudness".


    You did use the word "loud". It is quite plausible that the word "loudness"
    is derived from the word "loud".

    :)

    /Jonas
  20. 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.

Share This Page