sound in wav-format

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

  1. 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.
  2. You're not as entertaining anymore. :-(

    tholen@antispam.ham wrote in
    news:nJo_a.33827$8N.1410859@twister.socal.rr.com:

    > 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.


    Aah. I see. You bring up the curves because they were mentioned by someone
    else in connection with something you didn't say? Is it because you see the
    curves as irrelevant to the issue you persist in bringing them up in your
    argumentation?

    > I'm talking about the issue, Jonas.


    The issue I've been trying to discuss (the meaning of the word "loud"), or
    some completely different issue you're discussing?

    > Where have you been?


    A number of places. Did you have any special time period in mind when
    asking that?

    > Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
    > Jonas.


    Only in the context of it's relation to the word "loud", wich you might
    have noted that I am not certain of.

    > Because you raised the issue of "loudness", Jonas.


    No, that can't be the reason. I didn't raise that issue.

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


    > I've illustrated example where no perception is
    > involved, Jonas.


    You mean that in this example, the parent does not perceive the sound as
    too loud?

    >> What is it with you and those curves?


    > The same as it is with you and "loudness", Jonas.


    I've only mentioned loudness twice in insubstantiated thoughts about it's
    relation to the word loud. I have not centered any of my argumentation
    around "loudness". You bring up the curves in half of your replies to my
    post, and use them as sole arguments a lot of the time.

    >> What is it with you and those curves?
    >> 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".


    You call that a "bite"? Wov, you're sensitive. Especially as that sentence
    was followed by a smiley wich you choose not to quote.

    >> 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?


    Because the word "loudness" might be relevant, depending on the relation
    between the two words.

    > involving loud colors, which have absolutely nothing to do with sound,


    This is still an example of "loud" beeing a description of something
    perceived.

    >> 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?


    According to me, they are not relevant to the issue I've been trying to
    discuss with you.

    >> *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.


    With this kind of argument, almost anything can be called irrelevant, wich
    can of course be fun.

    If you have read my posts, the ones you've replied to, you could have
    noticed that I have not centered my arguments on this relation and that I
    have not used the term "loudness" in a technical sense.

    /Jonas

    PS. Do you have a problem remembering names? I ask because you keep
    repeating my name (maybe to remind yourself that I'm not Jones, who also
    participates in this thread) and you seem to be confused as to who has said
    what.
  3. tholen@antispam.ham wrote in
    news:tFv_a.34228$8N.1429718@twister.socal.rr.com:

    > I do have an idea as to how you've handled the current situation,
    > Eckerman.


    Are we on a last name basis now?

    > And you could also note that I said your entertainment is irrelevant,
    > Eckerman.


    Not to me.

    /Jonas
  4. 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.
  5. Jonas Eckerman writes:

    > You're not as entertaining anymore. :-(


    Feel free to stop at any time, Eckerman.

    >> 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.


    > Aah. I see. You bring up the curves because they were mentioned by someone
    > else in connection with something you didn't say?


    You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves, Eckerman.
    I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the curves in
    connection with the term "loudness".

    > Is it because you see the curves as irrelevant to the issue you
    > persist in bringing them up in your argumentation?


    You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves, Eckerman.
    I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the curves in
    connection with the term "loudness".

    >> I'm talking about the issue, Jonas.


    > The issue I've been trying to discuss (the meaning of the word "loud"), or
    > some completely different issue you're discussing?


    Too bad you've tried to change the discussion to the meaning of the
    word "loudness", Eckerman.

    >> Where have you been?


    > A number of places. Did you have any special time period in mind when
    > asking that?


    The time period during which the curves were brought up by somebody
    else, Eckerman.

    >> Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
    >> Jonas.


    > Only in the context of it's relation to the word "loud", wich you might
    > have noted that I am not certain of.


    Well, that would certainly explain why you don't understand the
    connection between the word "loudness" and the curves.

    >> Because you raised the issue of "loudness", Jonas.


    > No, that can't be the reason. I didn't raise that issue.


    Liar:

    "It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
    is derived from the word 'loud'."
    --Jonas Eckerman

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


    >> I've illustrated example where no perception is
    >> involved, Jonas.


    > You mean that in this example, the parent does not perceive the sound as
    > too loud?


    Non sequitur. Note the three missing levels of indentation.

    >>> What is it with you and those curves?


    >> The same as it is with you and "loudness", Jonas.


    > I've only mentioned loudness twice in insubstantiated thoughts about it's
    > relation to the word loud. I have not centered any of my argumentation
    > around "loudness".


    Incorrect:

    "It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
    is derived from the word 'loud'."
    --Jonas Eckerman

    > You bring up the curves in half of your replies to my
    > post, and use them as sole arguments a lot of the time.


    You brought up the term "loudness", Eckerman. You don't want to
    discuss the curves, then don't bring up the term "loudness".

    >>> What is it with you and those curves?
    >>> 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".

    > You call that a "bite"? Wov, you're sensitive. Especially as that sentence
    > was followed by a smiley wich you choose not to quote.


    Classic spin doctoring.

    >>> 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?


    > Because the word "loudness" might be relevant, depending on the relation
    > between the two words.


    Or it might not be relevant, Eckerman. You would do well to find out
    for sure before jumping into a discussion the way you did.

    >> involving loud colors, which have absolutely nothing to do with sound,


    > This is still an example of "loud" beeing a description of something
    > perceived.


    Not as sound, Eckerman.

    >>> 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?


    > According to me, they are not relevant to the issue I've been trying to
    > discuss with you.


    Then why did you bring up the term "loudness", Eckerman?

    >>> *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.


    > With this kind of argument, almost anything can be called irrelevant, wich
    > can of course be fun.


    Your fun is irrelevant, Eckerman.

    > If you have read my posts, the ones you've replied to, you could have
    > noticed that I have not centered my arguments on this relation and that I
    > have not used the term "loudness" in a technical sense.


    The entire objection to my answer is based on a "technical sense",
    Eckerman.

    > PS. Do you have a problem remembering names?


    Non sequitur.

    > I ask because you keep repeating my name


    Irrelevant, Eckerman.

    > (maybe to remind yourself that I'm not Jones, who also
    > participates in this thread)


    Maybe not, Eckerman.

    > and you seem to be confused as to who has said what.


    What seems to you is irrelevant, Eckerman. In reality, I'm not confused
    at all.
  6. > Feel free to stop at any time, Eckerman.

    I do.

    >> Aah. I see. You bring up the curves because they were mentioned by
    >> someone else in connection with something you didn't say?


    > You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves,
    > Eckerman. I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the
    > curves in connection with the term "loudness".


    And then *you* keep bringing up the curves, even though you see them as
    irrelevant.

    >> Is it because you see the curves as irrelevant to the issue you
    >> persist in bringing them up in your argumentation?


    > You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves,
    > Eckerman. I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the
    > curves in connection with the term "loudness".


    And then *you* keep bringing up the curves, even though you see them as
    irrelevant.

    > Too bad you've tried to change the discussion to the meaning of the
    > word "loudness", Eckerman.


    I haven't. I've mentioned a possible relationship. No more, no less.

    >>> Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
    >>> Jonas.

    >
    >> Only in the context of it's relation to the word "loud", wich you
    >> might have noted that I am not certain of.


    > Well, that would certainly explain why you don't understand the
    > connection between the word "loudness" and the curves.


    Irrelevant as I have not refered to the technical term "loudness".

    >> No, that can't be the reason. I didn't raise that issue.


    > Liar:
    >
    > "It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
    > is derived from the word 'loud'."
    > --Jonas Eckerman


    As you well know, that was not the raising of an issue. That was a mention
    of a possibility. No more, no less.

    >>>>>>> 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.


    >>>>> 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.


    >> You mean that in this example, the parent does not perceive the sound as
    >> too loud?


    > Non sequitur. Note the three missing levels of indentation.


    Now there's no missing levels of indentation. :)

    >> I've only mentioned loudness twice in insubstantiated thoughts about
    >> it's relation to the word loud. I have not centered any of my
    >> argumentation around "loudness".

    >
    > Incorrect:
    >
    > "It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
    > is derived from the word 'loud'."
    > --Jonas Eckerman


    Are you now telling my thoughts in the quoted statemnt were substantiated?
    If they were, please tell me how.

    > You brought up the term "loudness", Eckerman. You don't want to
    > discuss the curves, then don't bring up the term "loudness".


    I brought up the *word* "loudness", not the term. Both the word "loud" and
    the word "loudness" predates the curves, so the curves are irrelevant when
    discussing the possible relationship between those words.

    > Classic spin doctoring.


    Why do you believe everything not meant to be taken seriously to be spin
    doctoring?

    >> Because the word "loudness" might be relevant, depending on the
    >> relation between the two words.


    > Or it might not be relevant, Eckerman.


    Exactly! That's why I called the relation plausible, and it's also why I
    called the relation relevant (but not decisive).

    > You would do well to find out
    > for sure before jumping into a discussion the way you did.


    Why? I don't mind beeing proven wrong.

    >>> And exactly how are Fletcher-Munson curves relevant to the issue at
    >>> hand, Jonas?


    >> According to me, they are not relevant to the issue I've been trying
    >> to discuss with you.


    > Then why did you bring up the term "loudness", Eckerman?


    I brought up the *word* "loudness", not the term. Both the word "loud" and
    the word "loudness" predates the curves, so the curves are irrelevant when
    discussing the possible relationship between those words.

    > The entire objection to my answer is based on a "technical sense",
    > Eckerman.


    The objection to your answer to the post starting the thread, or the
    objections to your later answers to other posts?

    > What seems to you is irrelevant, Eckerman.


    In a discussion between two persons, the views of both personas are
    relevant.

    > In reality, I'm not
    > confused at all.


    :)

    /Jonas
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    In article <isrYa.10154$8N.847337@twister.socal.rr.com>,
    <tholen@antispam.ham> wrote:
    >Andreas HÃ¥kansson writes:
    >They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant,


    Irrelvant unless you care about things like headroom and compression,
    that is.
    --

Share This Page