Blah. Not impressed. The trickery is in what he's not showing. The software is treating the entire audio clip as a smart object, and it's referring to that for waveforms that it can use or manipulate to be close. Notice how he didn't show us the entire audio clip. I guarantee, he says "Jordan" and "three times" later in the audio. It's merely referencing that index where it detected those words before (speech recognition, in itself, an ancient technology, so not all that impressive), and simply copying them into the new clip. You can't just type in anything willy-nilly and expect results this good. If he typed "motherfucker caterpillar penis", it would have been nothing like this example, if it worked at all.

I'm curious how multi-channel audio is achieved, as a single waveform would only generate mono sound.

vocal chords are an oscillation that creates a frequency, as is a guitar string or a sax reed. hence the waveforms are similar. then just fuck with it with delays, pitch shifting, compression, phasing, and all manners of eq.

This goes beyond my knowledge level of signals and waveforms, but it was very interesting anyway.

That being said, OK, I'm sold on the concept that ADC and back doesn't screw up the signal. However, I'm pretty sure that real audiophiles could easily listen to several copies of the same recording at different bitrates and frequencies and correctly identify which ones are higher or better quality with excellent accuracy. I bet that is true even for 16bit vs 24bit, or 192kHz vs 320kHz -- stuff that should be "so good it is impossible to tell the difference".

Since some people that train themselves to have an ear for it CAN detect differences (accurately), the differences must actually be there. If they aren't artifacts of ADC issues, then what are they? I'm guessing compression artifacts?

In a visual version of this, I remember watching digital satellite TV around 10-15 years ago. The digital TV signal was fine and clear -- almost certainly better than what you'd get from an analog OTA antenna. BUT, the satellites used (I believe) mpeg compression to reduce channel bandwidth, and that compression created some artifacts that were easy to notice once somebody pointed them out to you. I specifically remember onscreen people getting "jellyface" anytime someone would nod slowly, or make similar periodic motions. I've got a feeling that some of the artifacts that we (or at least those of us that are real hardcore audiophiles) can notice in MP3 audio files are similar to an audio version of that jellyface kind of issue.

OK I'm confused by the title. Do physicists know a little or do they know a lot? Do they know a superposition of both states? Have I collapsed the waveform by questioning the syntax of the title?

I was so furious when i saw this road first time; i just had an epiphany two weeks prior when going thru a bridge that had two sized metalgrates and thus two pitches... I thought i had an original idea... then i saw one these videos... All though i still believe that using metal makes better waveforms, a bit more clearly defined tones.. Well i always have my dual tone version in mind..

Yo! I heard you like waveforms! We physicists put some waveforms in your matter so you can have waveforms in your waveforms!

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Did it not annoy anyone else that the timing of that damn printer was off? It was too slow to change notes, I found it incredibly painful from that standpoint.

Also, what was actually making the notes on the oscilloscopes? We see the waveforms, but not their sources

The thing about cats is, when they're not directly in your field of vision, they're technically in ALL places at once.

Until you look again, then you collapse the waveform and they're sleeping in an old Amazon box.

First I've never said anything about recording straight to vinyl. Second your just plain wrong that no one records to analog anymore. Yes it's cheaper and easier to do digital. But many sound engineers still prefer using analog in the mastering process. Do a simple search...you'll find plenty of articles and videos by sound engineers discussing the still on going debate (yes in 2012) of analog vs digital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcogbpdNTlY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering

Yes they use a computer while cutting the master...but they clearly say the computer is "monitoring" the process and makes adjustments to the "spacing" between the grooves. Letting the computer make adjustments to the "space" between the grooves has nothing to do with the transfer of the audio to the grooves.

>> ^schlub:

Dude, it's 2012... no one records straight to vinyl or other analogue medium anymore. It's cheaper and easier to use a digital medium. Besides, in the video you can clearly see the master is cut using a computer which is displaying the waveform -- it's basically a CNC lathe. Audio can't be stored on a computer in analogue form. Unless that's one of those new-fangled analogue computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

Dude, it's 2012... no one records straight to vinyl or other analogue medium anymore. It's cheaper and easier to use a digital medium. Besides, in the video you can clearly see the master is cut using a computer which is displaying the waveform -- it's basically a CNC lathe. Audio can't be stored on a computer in analogue form. Unless that's one of those new-fangled analogue computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
>> ^Grimm:

Didn't I say I must have missed that part?
Now where is the part where they said the source was digital?>> ^schlub:
9:35 - BAM!
>> ^Grimm:
I must have missed where he said "refuse to buy into the digital revolution". What I heard him say was "some say they sound better then digital CDs and MP3s".>> ^schlub:
People "refuse to buy into the digital revolution" by purchasing an analogue medium produced from a digital source. Yeah, good work.

If I remember my electronics college courses well "i" is used quite a bit in solving electrical problems, like sinusoidal waveform phases and all that. Sorry, it's been 30 years but I do remember that it factored in quite a bit with electrical theory.

>> ^schlub:

Interesting, I guess. But, how is this at all practical?

Nyquist Theorem at play here folks.
Brilliant example.

What we are seeing in the camera is an alias of the true waveform, limited (as previous commentators have noted) by the sampling rate of the capture device (Cameras frame rate).

Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem