Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

World's Worst Superpowerr (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143347)

"You can break glasses with your voice?"

"No, that's at the other end of the scale."

"But you can communication with elephants? Call them to rescue you and fight battles?"

"No, but they can hear me."

Re:World's Worst Superpowerr (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143449)

His superpower is the ability to make you shit your pants with the brown note.

Yeah, yeah, I know... Mythbusters, bla bla bla...

Re:World's Worst Superpowerr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143455)

"You can break glasses with your voice?"

"No, that's at the other end of the scale."

His answer should have been - if they can design a glass with minute flaws, and with a resonant frequency of 0.187Hz, then yes.

Re:World's Worst Superpowerr (5, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 years ago | (#41143551)

I'm not willing to rule out his ability to call elephants to battle.

He's badass until proven otherwise.

Re:World's Worst Superpowerr (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144667)

I'm not willing to rule out his ability to call elephants to battle.

He's badass until proven otherwise.

(Score:4, Insightful)

But can he sing? (3)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | about 2 years ago | (#41143359)

With all the innuendo around Barry White's voice, if this man can sing he'd be a real crowd pleaser!

-Matt

Re:But can he sing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143539)

With all the innuendo around Barry White's voice, if this man can sing he'd be a real crowd pleaser!

-Matt

maybe he can be a nigger too!

Re:But can he sing? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143599)

Not sure he'd want to even try. He might end up on the business end of some elephant wood!

Re:But can he sing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143749)

Yeah, the it's really quite a scene in the church auditorium when he starts singing "Amazing Grace", and all the little old church ladies start dropping their granny panties. (he's a Christian singer)

captcha hint:unclean

Re:But can he sing? (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41143909)

Apparently [youtube.com] he [youtube.com] can [youtube.com] (use good headphones or sub-woofer - otherwise is futile).

And the rockets red glare (occult & war) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143371)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."

- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

We now return you Americans to your media: Corporate, Government sponsored and controlled (rigged) elections..

Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143469)

In short: STOP PAYING FOR YOUR OWN INDOCTRINATION YOU STUPID FUCKS.

                                                                                   

Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143663)

WE SLEEP
THEY LIVE

Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) (-1, Offtopic)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41143683)

you missed a few:

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination — that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of our foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. And insofar as any people or states get in the way of our domination, they must be eliminated — or, at the very least, shown the error of their ways." -- former Attorney General Ramsey Clark

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark:

"We still have twenty-two commissioned Trident nuclear submarines, which are first-strike weapons. Any one of those submarines can launch twenty-four missiles simultaneously. Each of those missiles can contain as many as seventeen independently targeted, maneuverable nuclear warheads. And each of those warheads can travel seven thousand nautical miles and supposedly hit within three hundred feet of its predetermined target. If we fire them in opposite directions, we can span fourteen thousand nautical miles: halfway around the world at the equator. This means we can take out 408 centers of human population, hitting each with a nuclear warhead ten times as powerful as the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki."
Question: "This is all from one submarine?"
"One submarine."

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Nuremberg Trials

"In the midst of increasing mechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means used to prevent these things from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good grace. When man will be fully adapted to this technological society, when he will end by obeying with enthusiasm, convinced of the excellence of what he is forced to do, the constraint of the organization will no longer be felt by him; the truth is, it will no longer be a constraint, and the police will have nothing to do. The civic and technological good will and the enthusiasm for the right social myths — both created by propaganda — will finally have solved the problem of man." -- Jacques Ellul

no better place to learn about propaganda than jacques ellul, really.

Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143849)

Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

Whenever anyone says "wake up" to someone who isn't literally asleep, what they really mean is "change all your opinions to match my own, and don't you ever dare contradict me or disagree with me".

You are not an exception.

No longer vocalizations (3, Informative)

Bovius (1243040) | about 2 years ago | (#41143441)

For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143483)

I was going to post the same thing if I hadn't seen yours first. Heck, I can make a "sound" at 0.00001 Hz if I want - even lower than this guy! But that can hardly be called a sound.

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143505)

I was going to post the same thing if I hadn't seen yours first. Heck, I can make a "sound" at 0.00001 Hz if I want - even lower than this guy! But that can hardly be called a sound.

That's why it's not called a sound. It's an infrasound!

Re:No longer vocalizations (4, Funny)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 2 years ago | (#41143497)

Maybe they mistook his breathing for infrasonic sound?

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41144017)

actually, breathing constitutes an infrasonic sound, in every sense of that term

Re:No longer vocalizations (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143499)

For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

sound 1 (sound) n.
1.
a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
d. Such sensations considered as a group.

Re:No longer vocalizations (5, Insightful)

shokk (187512) | about 2 years ago | (#41143521)

"this is not sound anymore"

Tell that to the elephants.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#41143533)

The guy can make infrasounds [wikipedia.org] ... maybe he's related to Inframan! [wikipedia.org]

Re:No longer vocalizations (3, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41143557)

Your 'sound' wouldnt travel far in air, as it would not be loud enough (does not have a good enough amplitude). His sound would.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | about 2 years ago | (#41144493)

No, just breathing in and out is the highest "sound" amplitude that someone can generate at 0.189Hz. That does not require a special voice.

Re:No longer vocalizations (5, Insightful)

PostPhil (739179) | about 2 years ago | (#41143607)

People claiming that they can make "a sound every 2.5 seconds" don't get it. It's is not the same as a single continuous waveform oscillating at 0.189 Hz. There is a big difference between a continuous waveform at that frequency versus some joe blow making a click at 3 kHz for 250 ms duration every 2.5 seconds. No, it is not a set of pulses.

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41144361)

Actually, you can approximate an infrasonic sound with pulses... you just have to do it very fast (at least twice human hearing speed), and vary the pulse's amplitude continuously up and down, repeating every 5 seconds. The result is a 0.2hz audio wave... synthesized with clicks.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41144677)

People claiming that they can make "a sound every 2.5 seconds" don't get it. It's is not the same as a single continuous waveform oscillating at 0.189 Hz.

Not quite true. No, you can't just make a click every few seconds and call it "sound" at the corresponding frequency.

You can, however, simply breathe at that frequency, which follows a not-too-shabby sine wave.

For comparison, one of the "loudest" subwoofers made (though damned if I can find a link to it ATM) uses a fan with blades that pivot in phase with the sound... Effectively "breathing" in and out based on whether it has a positive or negative pitch to the blades at any given point in time.

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144709)

And a wavelength of 1800m??? Over 1 mile????

Re:No longer vocalizations (3, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | about 2 years ago | (#41143615)

For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

I am having a hard time imagining how, physiologically, the human voice mechanism could be capable of producing a vibration at such a frequency. Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me.

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 years ago | (#41143855)

"Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me."

I knew pciminion was an elephant!

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144123)

The human voice mechanism includes the lungs and diaphragm, which are quite good at creating 0.2Hz pressure waves.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

iiii (541004) | about 2 years ago | (#41144597)

Our vocal chords make clicks. In very low tones I can hear the individual clicks. I can see it being possible to for a person to gain the control over their voice to be able to make a single click, then do that at whatever interval they want. That doesn't really seem like a "tone" to me, but this must be what they are doing here.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about 2 years ago | (#41144829)

I am having a hard time imagining how, physiologically, the human voice mechanism could be capable of producing a vibration at such a frequency. Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me.

This looks absurd to me too. I know nothing of anatomy, but I think the vocal chords work like strings.

Can you imagine a string vibrating at 0.189Hz? That is 5.3 seconds per period! Until Guinness verifies it, and be open about how they verified it, I am skeptical.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

Yakasha (42321) | about 2 years ago | (#41143657)

For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

You sound like an 80 year old nerd doing the equivalent of yelling at the neighbor's kids, "Darn rock & roll! That ain't music! Its noise!"

In my day, musicians sang. They didn't just fluctuate their vocal chords in 5 second intervals to produce vibrations in the air!

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41143691)

Can you point to an accepted reference that states that sound stops at a specific frequency?

Re:No longer vocalizations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143787)

Can you point to an accepted reference that states that sound stops at a specific frequency?

At this point were really just dealing with inaudible audio frequency radio waves so it's all rather arbitrary.

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

Nursie (632944) | about 2 years ago | (#41143939)

At this point were really just dealing with inaudible audio frequency radio waves so it's all rather arbitrary.

Back to school, now, seriously.

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

Xero (19560) | about 2 years ago | (#41143943)

Radio waves? There is nothing electromagnetic about mechanical sound waves

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41143973)

If you agree that AM radio waves are "light" then I'll agree that sub-1Hz vibrations are "sound".

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41144055)

Are AM radio waves comprised of photons?

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41144107)

Well, yes and no. [answers.com]

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41144137)

Oh interesting!

So... sounds like AM waves are as much light as visible light is. Our sensory organs don't define the true nature of something, which is true regardless of whether us humans observe or comprehend it.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41144367)

If "made of photons" == "light" then that makes perfect sense.

But as it turns out both "light" and "sound" are defined in colloquial English as perceptual phenomena, and not as categories in physics:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/light [merriam-webster.com]
1 a : something that makes vision possible
      b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors
      c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sound [wiktionary.org]

1 a : a particular auditory impression : tone
      b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
      c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

In both cases the definition goes out of its way to specify only that subset of the physical phenomena which produces the perceptual phenomena.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41144467)

Now of course this is all in my own subjective opinion, but:

specifically such radiation, but generally not. Definitions are fuzzy. And I think that specificity is based on the tradition of the archaic meaning of it as an observable phenomenon. Science considers visible light a subset of all light. ...And Merriam-Webster -- although it is my favorite of the dictionaries -- doesn't define science. Probably a good thing. .... Supersonic sounds that only cats hear: I guess it's not sound because we don't hear it? Too arbitrary. I consider these words to be labels for physical phenomenon, not labels for conscious observations. Before science these words had a scientified basis, they were just labels for experiences. But after science, we learned the phenomenon that causes them, and that became the truer definition. NASA puts up space sounds to hear. ;) In sound's case, I believe 1c superceded 1b. In light's case, 1a superceded 1b, first specifically, then later more generally (as we discovered the wavelengths we can see are completely arbitrary, and a subset). An alien (or another earth species) comes along with eyes that see a different range: Does this change what light is? Is light just what human's see? If an animal sees a wavelength of light that we don't, is it no longer light? Just electromagnetic radiation. ...

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144533)

"Supersonic sounds", etymologically, are a bit of an oxymoron. Literally, "sound higher than sound." This phrase simultaneously affirms and denies the 'sound-ness' of supersonic vibrations! Which is exactly the kind of shit i'd expect from physicists. :)

Re:No longer vocalizations (4, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41144197)

0 Hz?

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41144205)

hehehehehehheheh :) Nice.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41143893)

Actually, no. Discreet pulses resolve to a fairly broad series of sine waves. That is quite distinmct from the spectrum of a human voice with the fundamental in the infrasonic range.

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41143991)

Yes, I sincerely doubt this man's vocal apparatus can actually move enough air back and forth to create a 0.2Hz fundamental tone which is actually separable from background noise by any instrumentation. At the very best he is creating harmonics which mathematically 'imply' such a fundamental.

Re:No longer vocalizations (4, Informative)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41144509)

At the very best he is creating harmonics which mathematically 'imply' such a fundamental.

Actually, that would be more impressive. You would have to sing two (or more) discrete pitches, without much in the way of harmonics for either one.

If an ear/nose/throat doctor says he has vocal cords twice as long as normal, and muscles that work differently, I'm more inclined to believe that he can produce a note that low, more than I would believe what you suggest.

In fact, what exactly do you think the Guinness Book of World people are measuring?

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/lowest-vocal-note-by-a-male/ [guinnessworldrecords.com]

The lowest vocal note produced by a male is G -7 (0.189 Hz) and was achieved by Tim Storms (USA) at Citywalk Studios in Branson, Missouri, USA, on 30 March 2012.

Timothy is the bass singer for the vocal group 'Pierce Arrow'. The attempt was witnessed by two college music professors and an acoustician. The frequency output of Timothy's voice was measured using Bruel & Kjaer equipment (low frequency microphone, precision sound analyser and laptop for post analysis).

I can read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.

Re:No longer vocalizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144637)

Hook a spectrum analyser up to the output of a pulse-width modulated function generator, or if you prefer, do a Fourier transform on an equivalent algebraic function.

As the PWM duty cycle approaches 0%, the sound energy present in the fundamental frequency also approaches zero. But the pitch of that note remains intelligible long after the fundamental itself has become inaudibly quiet. Dig?

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

marcansoft (727665) | about 2 years ago | (#41144037)

Actually, we can all produce something resembling a pure "sound" at 0.189Hz. All you have to do is compress and uncompress air in your mouth (or lungs, or a bottle) at that rate. The small air volume variation (translating to a variation in the volume of your body) should be enough to produce a sound pressure level of a few decibels at that frequency, particularly if you're in a small airtight room.

I doubt Tim's voice, in practice, produces more energy at frequencies that low than the above method. More likely, the sound that he produces is pretty much entirely composed of harmonics (i.e. "clicks" at that rate, not a fundamental tone). The human voice just isn't capable of producing sinusoidal tones that low. Just listen to him (or anyone else with a deep voice) talk. His voice doesn't sound like a deep pure tone, it sounds like a deep growl (i.e. a series of higher frequency noises repeated at that rate).

Re:No longer vocalizations (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41144639)

Every person's voice breaks up as they reach their lowest possible note. When he sings in his deeper pure tone range, I can sing right along with him. As he gets lower, he retains the pure tone, but I start breaking up. Does the fact that my voice is breaking up mean a person can't sing that low?

No, it means that I am bottoming out my range, and I have probably relaxed my muscles enough they are just flopping about. With extra long vocal cords, he can go a lot lower before getting floppy. At his lowest, he does sound floppy. But he also has a larger range of floppy than I have ever heard.

If I go straight down a scale, I can get a good tone down to a low F, then it loses stability. It sounds floppy, but according to a tuner it is just unstable. I can get about half a second of clarity before it loses coherence. Does that mean I can't sing a low F? No, it means I can't sustain it. And if I go for something like steaming up a mirror with my breath, I can get it down to a quiet E. One arrangement requires me to go from low A down to an E. I can't nail an E, but if I relax on the A and then think about a mirror, I can breathlessly get out the E. In tune, sliding down quickly.

If you wish to view my previous reply, it should be available by clicking my username.

Actually, we can all produce something resembling a pure "sound" at 0.189Hz

I'm not entirely sure why I bothered to reply after reading that. Key phrases like "all you have to do" and "I doubt" are probably a large part of the answer, though.

Re:No longer vocalizations (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41144183)

The human voice is analog, not digital. This cannot be approximated by a discrete pulse once every 5 seconds, because it is a continuous wave that peaks every 5 seconds.

There is a *HUGE* difference.

If you were to meaningfully digitize it, then you must still sample it at thresholds above human hearing, and it would appear as discrete pulses whose peaks would appear to form a sine wave... one which has a frequency below that which we can hear ourselves.

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143471)

"Mua'dib!" My name is a killing word.

Re:Obligatory (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41144725)

"Read a book!"

Film trailers (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#41143511)

Storm's incredible voice also made him a hot commodity in the Hollywood voice over business, where industry executives eagerly track down people with low voices to add drama to film trailers.

Add drama, or sound stupid? [youtube.com]

Like a G7! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41143513)

Good. Sign him up. We need somebody on Earth who can scare the shit out of Thanos in the deeper-is-more-badass category.

Perfect match (4, Funny)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41143553)

Between him and Mariah Carey, they should both be able to summon every animal in the vicinity.

G-7 is a chord not a note (0)

s1d3track3D (1504503) | about 2 years ago | (#41143621)

can reach notes as low as G-7 (0.189Hz),

G-7 is a chord comprised of 4 notes, G, Bb, D, F It doesn't mention that he can sing 4 simultaneous notes, I assume they mean a G note.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (3, Informative)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | about 2 years ago | (#41143655)

No, it's G *negative* 7. Not a G7 chord. As in a G 11 octaves below middle C.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#41143699)

That's scientific pitch notation. C4 is Middle C is (the 4th C on an 88-key piano). G-7 is 8 octaves below the lowest G (G1) on a standard piano.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (2)

ToThoseOfUs (2377416) | about 2 years ago | (#41143899)

No the note G -7, (that is g negative 7) Middle C is C4 the G note below middle C is G3, so this is 10 octaves below that note.

But you are also correct that the G7 (should be G superscript 7) chord, which is the G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144619)

G7 is not Gmin7, G7 is the dominant seventh, which is the major chord with the 7th added. G B D F

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (1)

ToThoseOfUs (2377416) | about 2 years ago | (#41144861)

Sorry my mistake, It's been a while since I have done much music theory. In my head I was thinking G with the minor 7th note added as opposed to the major 7th chord which has the major 7th added (in this case F#).

I have no excuse for putting the Bb in there other than I copied from the GP without reading properly.

My apologies for being slightly misleading.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#41144733)

Or he may have been thinking of Gdim7 (G degree-symbol-that-slashdot-won't-display 7) -- G - Bb - Db - Fb.

Either way, he's a total failfuck.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (4, Informative)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41144777)

Beyond being schooled by AC here [slashdot.org] , let me add this.

G superscript 7 is the standard jazz (fake book) notation for a major chord with a minor seventh added. G7 without the superscript is also acceptable, but you will generally see this in music where the presentation is less important than the information conveyed. Discussion forums, as an example, or lead sheets. The superscript is mandatory only in formal music theory, and assists quick reading while improvising so it is effectively mandatory, though variable, there.

"G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F" would be written as "Gm7", traditionally without the superscript, or "G-7" (again without the superscript) in a jazz setting. It is a minor chord with the minor seventh added.

Traditional music theory (Helmholtz) would write C4 as c' with C3 as regular c (with nothing following it). Lower octaves are indicated with capital letters, the next lower being C (again with nothing following). Then commas indicate lower octaves starting with C, as the next example.

It is only a logical extension for the subsubcontra range to use a negative number, since C0 was really quite low and anything below it was pretty much unheard of. Helmholtz allowed for an infinite range, but as you can see the scientific notation system really did not count on notes below C0. C-1 is the lowest I have seen, which is why it is very unnatural to refer to a note as G-7.

So you are correct that G-7 is much more likely to be understood, outside any context, as a chord. But for the wrong reasons. And of course if we are talking about a note, then how would you confuse it for a chord? Unless you wanted to demonstrate a tiny bit of trivia you picked up accidentally?

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note (1)

ToThoseOfUs (2377416) | about 2 years ago | (#41144935)

Yep, realised my mistake, replied to the AC as such.

This is infrasonic so referring to it by note name is a bit silly anyway other than referencing it as having a frequency of G * 1/2^n

I think at this frequency, Hz or just as the summary says 8 octaves below the lowest G on a piano is more meaningful.

btw. it is not trivia I picked up accidentally, I did study music theory, I just haven't made any use of it for 15 years or so, understandably it's getting a bit rusty.

infrasonic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143627)

Only elephants? Those of us with subsonic hearing beg to differ... and we'd like him to stop singing that low because to us it's painful. (Diesel engines, planes taking off, ELF's and now this ... mutant christian singer! Enough already!)

Thurl (0, Offtopic)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41143629)

Where's Thurl Ravenscroft when ya need him? I'm felling really Grinchy.

Nobody knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143669)

The trouble I have seen. Nobody knows but elephants...

My next car Sound System (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41143809)

I want to put Tim in my trunk and let that shit bang

Brown Note (4, Funny)

Rui Lopes (599077) | about 2 years ago | (#41143825)

We're gonna shit our pants once we hear him reaching the brown note [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Brown Note (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | about 2 years ago | (#41144019)

We're gonna shit our pants once we hear him reaching the brown note [wikipedia.org] .

Damn. I wish I still had mod points.

Re:Brown Note (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144711)

I once took a media class where a student brought up the brown note and the instructor (not professor - this was a community college) acted very surprised that a student would know about it. The instructor said that the brown note was supposed to be top secret, and that it had been tested on him when he was in the airforce. Either he was lying, which is a very real possibility, or there really is a brown note and he was not a very good person to trust with such a bowel-wrenching secret.

Cool! (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41143877)

Is there an MP3 of him singing?

Oh... uh... damn...

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144287)

there is an interview with him on the bbc world news podcast. i think 8-23

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144889)

Is there an MP3 of him singing?

Oh... uh... damn...

No, but I can make one

Oh yeah... (1)

used2win32 (531824) | about 2 years ago | (#41143883)

"Oh yeah, my Dad can go an octave lower than that..."

0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo (3, Interesting)

Broofa (541944) | about 2 years ago | (#41143941)

I actually thought the claimed frequency was a typo in the article. But in the interview, Mr. Storm says he can sing 8 octaves below the lowest note on a piano. If you work backwords and double 0.189Hz eight times (for each octave), you get 48Hz, making his lowest [claimed] note 8 octaves below the lowest G on a piano.

As for whether this qualifies as singing, I would argue that to be considered real singing he should be using the same vocal cords and musculature required to produce human-audible sounds. I.e. he should be able to produce a continuous sound that starts at a normal note and drops down to the claimed note, without any fundamental change in the way in which he's producing the sound. My $.02.

Re:0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41144827)

Everyone has a slightly different vocal cord length, and certainly different musculature based on their singing/practice experience. If everyone had the same physical attributes, they would have the same range.

Yes you can start out with exactly the same attributes and develop different ranges, but your musculature changes in response to training, and you can develop nodules and other problems which change the quality and/or range of your voice on top of what you mentioned.

Your argument is absurd, and he can produce a continuous sound and drop down to the claimed note. If you listen, most of his lower range is sung with a lot of glissando, also known as sliding into the note. The definition of a continuous sound that drops down.

You can also look him up on some random ass website like, I don't know, the guinness book of world records. You can see how they verified his claim, and see if you agree. Or you can just post random words on slashdot I suppose, that's my two hundreths of a dollar.

I can do that too. (0)

slinches (1540051) | about 2 years ago | (#41143967)

In fact, we all should be able to make infrasounds. The difference is that the rest of us just call it breathing at a regular pace.

Seriously though, a sound that low would require moving a huge volume of air to create a pressure wave of any significance.

Re:I can do that too. (2)

Falconhell (1289630) | about 2 years ago | (#41144023)

Yeh given that every reduction of 1 octave requires double the power to have the same volume, it couldnt be that loud.

Re:I can do that too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144159)

Given that it's below the range of human hearing, it couldn't be "that loud" regardless of pressure.

high voice (1)

bob zee (701656) | about 2 years ago | (#41144035)

I am so jealous. I am one of those guys with a really high voice. I get mistaken for a woman one the phone all the time.

Well no wonder (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 2 years ago | (#41144101)

He has vocal chords, I only have vocal cords.

Subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144129)

Comment

Uncertainty Principle (1)

dwillmore (673044) | about 2 years ago | (#41144167)

Can someone explain to me how they are sure he sang a G-7? The Uncertainty Principle seems to imply he would need to hold it for quite a long time to be sure it was G-7 and not A-6 or F-7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle [wikipedia.org]

Re:Uncertainty Principle (2)

bipbop (1144919) | about 2 years ago | (#41144919)

I can attempt to explain two things. First, you can beat the time-frequency uncertainty principle if you're willing to be wrong sometimes. The ear does this, functioning foremost as a wavefront detector.(*) Second, most sounds including the human voice follow an approximation of the harmonic series. (Always an approximation; sometimes, it's not a very good model at all.) So you can detect the upper partials and reconstruct the fundamental if the audio in question fits the model well enough and the harmonics are present and measurable. Again, this works by being wrong some of the time.

I found an article detailing how the Guinness record was measured here [tylerjfrancke.com] . It was only measured for nine seconds; this gives us a (minimum) bandwidth of .1Hz, which at .0189Hz would be within error around 10 semitones up or 30 semitones down (though I had to clobber the numbers pretty hard with the error bar), keeping in mind semitones are separated by a factor of 2^(1/12). The transform to frequency domain was further inaccurate due to the window size, and the 2270 is only specced down to 3Hz in any case, so the measured numbers probably contained a generous helping of error.

So while I'm no expert, it looks like the the bandwidth of the measured sound definitely exceeds half a semitone in either direction, probably by at least one order of magnitude.

(*) Hartmann, W. H. (1995). "The physical description of signals," in "Hearing," Edited by B. C. J. Moore, San Diego, Academic Press, 1-40.

Hollywood are already onto it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144245)

Robert Redford is lined up to play him in "The Elephant Whisperer"

Worlds Deepest Voides -- Worlds Biggest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144285)

Penis?

Favorite Comment.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144345)

My favorite comment on one of his videos: "He didn't hit puberty, he beat the shit out of it".

I wonder what would happen if he said.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144553)

FUS, RO DAH!

Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144561)

There is no way he or anyone can vocalize at 0.189 Hz. Even if his vocal cords could flap at the rate of only 11 times per minute, no significant amount of acoustical energy would be emitted at 0.189 Hz without resonance. The wavelength (in air at sea level and room temperature) would be over a mile. Even if we suppose that an effective resonator could be constructed at a fourth of that size, it wouldn't fit inside a human, an elephant, or even a whale. Without resonance, the flapping vocal cords might still generate acoustical energy, but only in the form of intermittent impulses of much higher frequencies.

Wave your hand back and forth eleven times per minute. Hear (or feel) it? I didn't think so. Sure, the guy has a deep voice, but this story is utter nonsense.

Well, of course he can go very low! (-1, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41144689)

Just four days after graduating from high school he began his career in Christian music and has since appeared in a number of singing groups.

Ah, christians. If you want to the lowest of the lowest, leave it to them. Nobody can fall as low as adults with imaginary friends.

If a tree falls on a bear shitting in the woods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41144751)

And no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>