Split Thread henryco's new paper

[newton3376]

On one hand there are those who say that the sound of an explosion in one video is simply a small fragment of debris falling to the ground, yet on the other hand are totally comfortable with a close recording of the destruction of the building being almost silent and utterly overwhelmed by local noise sources such as footfalls and voices.

It's not "almost" silent....god man listen to videos of the collapse....the rumbling nosie of the collpase was hardly silent..

A clear understanding of microphone response patterns, noise gating electronics and a host of other technical details is vital to understanding what gets recorded, and what does not.

Microphone response patterns?

Do tell....what is the typcial "response pattern" of a microphone? Do you even know what this is or what it refers to?

Noise gating electronics?

First of all "noise gating" doesnt have to be implemented in hardware...you can post process the data and perform "noise gating"...

Besides that detail... all noise gating really amounts to is a threshold level....it's not some mystical, magical thing....

Please educate those of us here who are electrical engineers and those of us who are not as to what the heck "a host of other technical issues" means?

Im just curious...

I don't *do* discussion here. It's far too polarised, but the question should be looked at in detail...

Heh...yeah we know you don't "do" discussion...

Why was the descent of each building almost silent in A/V recordings ?

It wasn't "almost silent"...

 

[BasqueArch]

Is it really though ?

How loud do you suppose the collapse of a 110 storey building should be ?

On one hand there are those who say that the sound of an explosion in one video is simply a small fragment of debris falling to the ground, yet on the other hand are totally comfortable with a close recording of the destruction of the building being almost silent and utterly overwhelmed by local noise sources such as footfalls and voices.

A clear understanding of microphone response patterns, noise gating electronics and a host of other technical details is vital to understanding what gets recorded, and what does not.

I don't *do* discussion here. It's far too polarised, but the question should be looked at in detail...

Why was the descent of each building almost silent in A/V recordings ?

Video of firemen in WTC1 lobby as WTC2 collapses 100 feet away. Naudet's professional camera and sound. Can't get much closer than this. No Explosives Sounds.

 

[ktesibios]

A clear understanding of microphone response patterns,

Read this. Think I understand polar patterns well enough?

noise gating electronics

The mere fact that you mention noise gating in the context of suppressing high amplitude signals is conclusive proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Go and read about it on Wikipedia (it's actually a pretty good description). Perhaps you might gain some insight into how amusing your technobabble is to a knowledgeable reader.

and a host of other technical details is vital to understanding what gets recorded, and what does not.

Those technical details have been my job for over twenty years. If you want to talk shop I expect you at least to demonstrate some knowledge, not to try to handwave a fantasy into existence with glittering generalities.

I don't *do* discussion here.

Sine you have already demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about, that is probably for the best.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

As per the fire support I just received by people who most likely know far more about digital audio recording WRT video production, I can say this with a good deal of confidence:

Yes, femr2. It is really bonkers.

 

[Furcifer]

femr2 is just a victim of his own stupidity. Like many truthers you see posting on the net, they have no clue so they make things up to suit their dilusion. When they get called on it they Google themselves up an answer and hope no one catches on. If they were just a tad bit smarter they'd realize nobodys been fooled but themselves.

 

[henryco]

I work in the media business. I've been doing video production for years, and dabbled in recording technology as well.

What you just said is bonkers.

I'v just been practicing African drums for years:

It's almost impossible to catch the sound of the biggest drums properly with an amateur video, and on a hifi video it can also be filtered very easily!!

While you should get something like this (not even approaching what you actually hear when you are near the beast ) for the deep sounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5vR9FI5P8&feature=related

most of the time you get this (the deep notes are inaudible, dont try to hear the big drum on the floor at the center after 1:00, and yet it is actually dominant, what you hear is the sound of the other more higher drums, especially the hidden one, the sangban on the left, the djembes and bells)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cukX4AsYMUk


F H-C

 

[femr2]

The mere fact that you mention noise gating in the context of suppressing high amplitude signals is conclusive proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Really ? So you're suggesting that a recording with a gate in the chain will not filter out a *boom*, with an appropriate attack envelope ? As suggested, it's only one of many factors, as I'm sure you must concede.

Those technical details have been my job for over twenty years.

Great. Then explain why the sound of each 110 storey building crashing to the ground is very, very quiet in any kind of relative terms.

If you want to talk shop

What ? I'm highlighting the issues I have with the descent sound recordings. Whether you throw a hissy fit claiming superiority or not (which you're welcome to do, fine by me), I'm knowledgable enough in the audio arena to have an opinion. It's okay. It's the JREF thing. Makes you attack rather than consider. The bottom line is, sure, it would be great for the descent audio to be analysed by as many folk as possible, and the better the skillset, the better the analysis. Jumping up and down, hand waving, and no analysis does not an analysis make by the way.

I expect you at least to demonstrate some knowledge, not to try to handwave a fantasy into existence with glittering generalities.

What fantasy would that be ? That I think the audio of each building crashing to the ground is really quiet ? No, that's not a fantasy at all. That's an observation. My viewpoint is quite focussed on sound-path as an explanation (and of course the technical details of each recording device actually used to shoot each piece of footage/video conversion effects/...), so if you feel like picking any of the pieces of footage and explaining why the sound is not absolutely deafening to the extent of constant overload, that'd be great.

Assuming you've miked a drum kit a few times, I'm sure you appreciate Henryco's observation, especially isolation between low and high frequencies.

 

[carlitos]

Great. Then explain why the sound of each 110 storey building crashing to the ground is very, very quiet in any kind of relative terms.

Dude, the crashes were measured as seismic events on the freaking Richter Scale. Are you nuts? You should have quit when you were ahead, since you don't *do* discussion.

You are arguing from ignorance, by the way. You could stop, and it would help.

 

[femr2]

Dude, the crashes were measured as seismic events on the freaking Richter Scale.

The crashes ? Are you talking about the impacts, as I'm not.

But you're absolutely right, even, and especially, for the descents. Seismic level events which in video recordings don't sound very loud.

Why is that, you think ?

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)

A sound of a building collapsing would be loud, however explosives would be lourder than that and would be captured on the camcorders microphone. But no explosive sounds were heard and the only thing heard is a building collapse.

Swish!

 

[carlitos]

The crashes ? Are you talking about the impacts, as I'm not.

No, I meant the buildings crashing to the ground.

But you're absolutely right, even, and especially, for the descents. Seismic level events which in video recordings don't sound very loud.

"Don't sound very loud" comes off as an argument from incredulity. Save me from this misperception by defining "very loud" and applying this definition to a specific video recording. Then, perhaps, you could ask "why" and have it mean something.

 

[twinstead]

What exactly would the incredulous "less sound then there should be while it was collapsing" have to do with ANYTHING, anyway?

[Jerry Seinfeld voice] What's the deal with truthers arguing irrelevant minutiae? [/Jerry Seinfeld voice]

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think I know what Femr2's trying to say: "If a tree falls in the middle of the woods & if noone's around, does it make a sound?"

So what he's trying to claim is that the WTC Complex is in the middle of the "woods" & that noone heard anything that day.

 

[femr2]

defining "very loud" and applying this definition to a specific video recording. Then, perhaps, you could ask "why" and have it mean something.

Fair enough, though any and all video, especially that from close to the base are glaringly missing the *expected* tremendous noise imo.

Will get round to it.

 

[BadBoy]

The crashes ? Are you talking about the impacts, as I'm not.

But you're absolutely right, even, and especially, for the descents. Seismic level events which in video recordings don't sound very loud.

Why is that, you think ?

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)

Oh no, here we go...

Check out a few controlled demolitions on utube. See how loud the bangs are. Not to mention the bright flashes. Trade centre collapse is nothing like a cd.

You know, the real world is actually much more intersting than the imaginary one. You should try living in it sometime bud.

 

[twinstead]

Fair enough, though any and all video, especially that from close to the base are glaringly missing the *expected* tremendous noise imo.

Will get round to it.

Expected by WHOM?

 

[carlitos]

That was my point. He says he will "get round to it," so maybe that's progress though.

 

[BadBoy]

In fact, are you actaully saying that the buildings collapsing due to cd wouldn't be very loud fir some reason?

 

[twinstead]

In fact, are you actaully saying that the buildings collapsing due to cd wouldn't be very loud fir some reason?

I'm sure it's because all the mass was dustified by space beams. That's why it was "too quiet". The towers were suddenly turned to dust and just floated down. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Wake up sheeple!!!!111!!!1!!

 

[BadBoy]

Well, that's ok then. Holy *****, is the government aware of this? Someone tell sombody!