sound in wav-format

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Andreas HÃ¥kansson, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. 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

    >> 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.


    Incorrect, given that one could install a monitoring device including
    a microphone, for example.

    > The term "loud" is meaningless if you don't care about perception.


    Incorrect, given that "loud" could be assigned to a particular
    intensity level reached during a recording in the absence of
    human ears.

    >> 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.


    Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves,
    as was previously suggested.

    > The child probably doesn't.


    Irrelevant to the issue. The child probably also doesn't understand
    what a Fletcher-Munson curve is.

    > 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.

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


    > 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.

    >> 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.


    Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves,
    as was previously suggested.

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


    > You did use the word "loud".


    I'm well aware of what I wrote, Jonas.

    > 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.
  2. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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 tholen@antispam.ham, 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."
  3. CJT

    CJT Guest

    Todd H. wrote:

    > tholen@antispam.ham 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 tholen@antispam.ham, 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.
  4. 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 tholen@antispam.ham, 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.
  5. 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 tholen@antispam.ham, 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".
  6. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham 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."
  7. 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.


    > Oh, darnit... that's right you said 'loud.' And that has nothing to
    > do with "loudness."


    Correct, given the context in which it appeared. I even gave you
    several examples where that situation is also true.

    > See, I keep forgetting the rules of this odd
    > little parallel universe of yours. :p


    You're erroneously presupposing that I'm in some "little parallel
    universe", Todd. However, I can understand why you would choose
    to adopt such a losing argument strategy.

    > 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.


    Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd.
  8. Todd H.

    Todd H. Guest

    LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with
    I availed myself of our dear tholen@antispam.ham's posting history via
    a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tholen@antispam.ham

    Selected thread Subjects from the search:
    "tholen@AntiSpam.ham play's infantile game on COOA"
    "tholen@AntiSpam.ham's low IQ ( was: OS/2 is DEAD ! )"
    "Re: ANOTHER THOLEN THREAT!"
    "Re: The truth about Tholen"
    Re: What are the origins for the Tholen conflict?
    Re: A possible explaination for Dr. Tholen's behavior
    Re: Tholen flames his one remaining supporter - was Re: JASON
    RFC: comp.os.os2.tholen
    Re: Nature of Tholen's mental illness
    Re: Tholen isn't DR. Tholen, is he???
    Re: 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."
  9. > Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a
    > sound.


    But then you're not measuring how loud it is.

    > Incorrect, given that one could install a monitoring device including
    > a microphone, for example.


    That would not tell you how loud it is.

    The term "loud" is used to describe how a sound is perceived.

    > 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).

    >> 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.

    And I've never ever mentioned Fletcher-Munson curves.

    >> 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? First you tell other people that those curves
    are irrelevant, and now you tell me that what I say is irrelevant because
    the child doesn't understand those curves? If the curves are irrelevant to
    the question at hand, how can it then be relevant wether the child
    understands them or not?


    >> 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.

    >> 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?

    >> 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?

    >> 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.

    Some of us say that the word "loud" is description of perceived sound,
    which you do not agree with. This makes the connection between "loud" and
    "loudness" relevant (though not decisive) to the issue at hand.

    While you did not use the word "loudness", you did use the word "loud".
    *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.

    /Jonas
  10. tholen@antispam.ham wrote in
    news:toa_a.30514$8N.1343441@twister.socal.rr.com:

    > Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd.


    No, no. Now you've misunderstood the *important* issue at hand. 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. :)

    Regards
    /Jonas
  11. tholen@antispam.ham wrote in message news:<toa_a.30514$8N.1343441@twister.socal.rr.com>...
    > 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,

    You have the single most irritating method of "argument" I have ever
    come across.

    Considering the calibre of posts on this board, you've made a fool of
    yourself.

    Just admit that you got it wrong! in a discrete system of encoding, a
    doubling of energy does not mean twice as loud! and my statement not
    irrelevant because you may have stated it differently, you implied it,
    and everyone reading your post knew it!
  12. CJT

    CJT Guest

    Todd H. wrote:

    > LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with
    > I availed myself of our dear tholen@antispam.ham's posting history via
    > a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tholen@antispam.ham
    >
    > Selected thread Subjects from the search:
    > "tholen@AntiSpam.ham play's infantile game on COOA"
    > "tholen@AntiSpam.ham's low IQ ( was: OS/2 is DEAD ! )"
    > "Re: ANOTHER THOLEN THREAT!"
    > "Re: The truth about Tholen"
    > Re: What are the origins for the Tholen conflict?
    > Re: A possible explaination for Dr. Tholen's behavior
    > Re: Tholen flames his one remaining supporter - was Re: JASON
    > RFC: comp.os.os2.tholen
    > Re: Nature of Tholen's mental illness
    > Re: Tholen isn't DR. Tholen, is he???
    > Re: 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.
  13. Todd H. writes:

    > LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with
    > I availed myself of our dear tholen@antispam.ham's posting history via
    > a quick search. It was sad, but entertaining. Behold:


    What does any of that have to do with audio, Todd?

    > Plus threads that almost exactly mirror this one, but on other
    > subjects.


    Then they don't exactly mirror this one, Todd.

    > 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.


    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

    > I can't believe it took this long for me to Dx this one.


    You're erroneously presupposing that your research is accurate,
    Todd.

    > He's not just irretrievably thick, he's a troll.


    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Trolls are
    intentional trouble makers that have fun watching the fur
    fly. I did nothing but answer a person's question. You
    are one of the trolls for nit-picking the answer to death.
    Indeed, you've done nothing to answer the original question,
    which makes me the helpful person here and you the antagonist.

    > Troll be gone now *plonk*.


    Too bad that doesn't stop you from posting, Todd.

    > A peek inside your mind was entertaining though.


    Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd.

    > You've brightened my week.


    Your enbrightenment is irrelevant, Todd.
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. CJT writes:

    > Todd H. wrote:


    >> LMAO. Just to see what sort of strange individual we're dealing with
    >> I availed myself of our dear tholen@antispam.ham'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?
  18. CJT

    CJT Guest

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote:

    > 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.
  19. 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.
  20. tholen@antispam.ham wrote in
    news:RKo_a.33828$8N.1410859@twister.socal.rr.com:

    > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.


    Irrelevant as my post was playful rather than serious.

    > 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?

    If you haven't, you have no idea wether I'm ususally helping others or just
    thinking of my own entertainent.

    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.

    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.

    /Jonas

Share This Page