sound in wav-format [Archive]

Todd H.

08-07-2003, 10:47 AM

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."

Arny Krueger

08-07-2003, 11:08 AM

"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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-07-2003, 11:45 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-07-2003, 11:49 AM

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. :-)

tholen@antispam.ham

08-07-2003, 11:54 AM

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.

Todd H.

08-07-2003, 06:17 PM

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."

tholen@antispam.ham

08-08-2003, 02:06 AM

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.

CJT

08-08-2003, 05:51 AM

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.
>

ds-south

08-08-2003, 07:34 AM

Sorry, I cant help...

tholen@antispam.ham

08-08-2003, 10:56 AM

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.

Bob Cain

08-08-2003, 08:45 PM

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

Todd H.

08-09-2003, 12:19 AM

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."

tholen@antispam.ham

08-09-2003, 01:32 AM

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.

Todd H.

08-10-2003, 11:43 PM

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."

Jonas Eckerman

08-11-2003, 01:18 PM

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

tholen@antispam.ham

08-12-2003, 03:49 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-12-2003, 03:55 AM

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.

Todd H.

08-12-2003, 10:49 AM

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 ****,"

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."

CJT

08-12-2003, 11:11 AM

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 ****,"
>
> 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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-12-2003, 11:13 AM

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 ****,"

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-12-2003, 12:00 PM

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 ****,"
>>
>> 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".

Todd H.

08-12-2003, 12:16 PM

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."

tholen@antispam.ham

08-12-2003, 12:31 PM

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.

Todd H.

08-12-2003, 04:58 PM

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."

Jonas Eckerman

08-12-2003, 05:59 PM

> 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

Jonas Eckerman

08-12-2003, 06:05 PM

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

Grand Wizard Jones

08-12-2003, 06:40 PM

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!

CJT

08-12-2003, 09:17 PM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 04:39 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 04:49 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 04:51 AM

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?

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 04:58 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 04:59 AM

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?

CJT

08-13-2003, 09:54 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 11:04 AM

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.

Jonas Eckerman

08-13-2003, 12:27 PM

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

tholen@antispam.ham

08-13-2003, 12:43 PM

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.

Jonas Eckerman

08-13-2003, 12:57 PM

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.

Jonas Eckerman

08-13-2003, 06:12 PM

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

tholen@antispam.ham

08-14-2003, 06:14 AM

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.

tholen@antispam.ham

08-14-2003, 06:26 AM

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.

Jonas Eckerman

08-14-2003, 05:14 PM

> 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