| What's the Sound Of A MethaneFall? |
Log in/Create an Account | Top | 25 comments | Search Discussion |
|
|
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned
by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any
way. |
Re:Really interesting, but...
(Score:1)
by shpoffo (114124)
<.nospam.
.at. .newalexandria.org.> on Thursday July 01, @03:14PM
(#9584670)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
without having read the article...
it seems
to me that any real-wrold recording is going to miss some of
the acoustic frequencies, as the medium can only catch so
much. However, what it does catch one might imagine as
pebble-drop-ripples moving toward the edge of a plane of water
(which when it gets to the edge, it 'crops' the ripple rather
than reverberating it). Visually observing this phenomenon our
brain can extrapolate what would happen beyond the edge of the
plane. I presume acoustically our brain can do the same thing
with recorded sound - 'holographing' in the stuff that it
extrapolates should be there. Whereas with this simulated
methan rain recording, the simulation has been designed to
'fit' the acoustic space of the recording - I PRESUME. All of
this falls apart if the engineers considered something like
this already.
I think it is this 'extrapolation
space' that we hear in a live recording that makes it more
convincing than a simulation
.
-shpoffo
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
but the Science sounds good! (Score:3,
Insightful)
by Pi_0's
don't shower (741216) <.ethan.
.at. .isp.northwestern.edu.> on Thursday July 01,
@03:23PM (#9584780)
(http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~siegel
| Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~Pi_0's%20don't%20shower/journal/)
|
They have a bit of the motivation on *why* they think this
is a pretty reliable method if they find a signal what they're
looking for here
[soton.ac.uk].
Those artificial sounds bear only a modest
resemblance to actual waterfall sounds To respond
to your comment, no, I don't think it sounds exactly like the
right waterfall, but the resemblance is strong enough that if
you listen to the artificial one alone, you go, "Oh, that's a
waterfall." Play the real one, and you'd say "Oh, that's a
waterfall." You might say they're different waterfalls, but
they sound similar enough to me.
Same thing here, if you hear the
"(m)ethane-fall" signal and play it next to the simulation,
you would conclude they're two of the same phenomena, just not
identical examples of it. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Re:Really interesting, but...
(Score:2)
by WindBourne (631190)
on Friday July 02, @09:43PM (#9597283)
(Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~WindBourne/journal/)
|
| Acutally, I think that these folks went at it the right
way. In the future, we will want systems/robots/androids that
can discerne what the different things are that they hear. the
only real way is to break things apart and then recombine
them. If you take the example of their waterfall vs. a real
one, the differences are made by a real physical world. As
these folks tear it apart and figure out what is making the
difference, they will not be able to reproduce it, but they
will be able to hear multiple sounds and figure out what each
is. Think in terms of ray-tracing. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
All trademarks and
copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004