[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] talk about supersonic signals and distortion



"Gear wars"??? You cannot disregard the equipment especially outside the
normally audible range.

Yes, 19-20khz should have an audible effect. I thought you were talking abut
exploiting frequencies above the audible range, but you seem to be talking
about normally audible stuff, sorry.

I thought I'd use low frequencies for a while and got some big
transmission-line boxes that starts to fall-off below 17hz. It was fun to
play with for a while but not really useful other than as an effect. You
could get chairs and other stuff to move around. But it was already
exploited by Throbbing Gristle quite a bit in the late 70s.

I think its Genesis P. Orridge that claim there is a low frequency that can
give people orgasms ... or maybe it was the Hafler Trio .. dont remember
right now. One of them. So the US military may be in for a surprise when
they start using those infrasound-weapons ... and that guy Rumsfeld
certainly looks like he need it ;=)

Den 03-05-18 17.41, skrev "macrosound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<macrosound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Starting at a bit rate of 192 and higher, frequencies at and above 19,000
> Hz are cut less for mpeg layer 3.  256 seems to be the shoulder of the
> curve where values at and above 20,000 Hz recieve a negligible cut.
> Anything significantly higher than 20,000 Hz is cut completely. But what
> is the point of using frequencies that high.
> 
> Extremely sub-audible tones at high amplitudes can still affect the
> listener but, and this is just my opinion, extremely high frequencies just
> get lost.
> 
> For my ear, the range between 19,000 Hz and 20,500 can still have an
> effect and especially when combined with other frequencies to accentuate
> and exploit "by-products in the normal audible range created by flawed
> filtering in the encoders (or other hardware/software)".
> 
> And then, of course, there is always your system which I won't discuss
> (gear wars).
> 
> Anyone here play with really low freq's?  I haven't had the chance to
> experiment with them much.
> 
> 
> mostek wrote:
>> 
>> But ... have you checked that these formats (and the encoders/decoders you
>> intend to us, and the supporting equipment) supports 20khz++ ?
>> 
>> Or are you just listening to distortion by-products in the normal audible
>> range created by flawed filtering in the encoders (or other
>> hardware/software)?
>> 
>> - "You must never play this note ... only think it"
>> 
>> /jan l.
>> 
>> 
>> Den 03-05-18 08.36, skrev "macrosound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>> <macrosound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>>> How 'bout I put this one up as an mp3 and I'll make a different track
>>> with
>>> even more inaudible tones for mp4? *smirk*
>>> 
>>> Anyone else for some inaudible microsound?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------