Jonas Eckerman writes:

You're not as entertaining anymore. :-(

Feel free to stop at any time, Eckerman.

Irrelevant, given that I never said you did, Jonas. Nevertheless,
they have been mentioned in connection with "loudness", which is a
term that I didn't use in my answer to the original questioner.

Aah. I see. You bring up the curves because they were mentioned by someone
else in connection with something you didn't say?

You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves, Eckerman.
I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the curves in
connection with the term "loudness".

Is it because you see the curves as irrelevant to the issue you
persist in bringing them up in your argumentation?

You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves, Eckerman.
I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the curves in
connection with the term "loudness".

I'm talking about the issue, Jonas.

The issue I've been trying to discuss (the meaning of the word "loud"), or
some completely different issue you're discussing?

Too bad you've tried to change the discussion to the meaning of the
word "loudness", Eckerman.

Where have you been?

A number of places. Did you have any special time period in mind when
asking that?

The time period during which the curves were brought up by somebody
else, Eckerman.

Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
Jonas.

Only in the context of it's relation to the word "loud", wich you might
have noted that I am not certain of.

Well, that would certainly explain why you don't understand the
connection between the word "loudness" and the curves.

Because you raised the issue of "loudness", Jonas.

No, that can't be the reason. I didn't raise that issue.

Liar:

"It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
is derived from the word 'loud'."
--Jonas Eckerman

A parent might
tell a child to turn down the stereo because it's too loud.

I've illustrated example where no perception is
involved, Jonas.

You mean that in this example, the parent does not perceive the sound as
too loud?

Non sequitur. Note the three missing levels of indentation.

What is it with you and those curves?

The same as it is with you and "loudness", Jonas.

I've only mentioned loudness twice in insubstantiated thoughts about it's
relation to the word loud. I have not centered any of my argumentation
around "loudness".

Incorrect:

"It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
is derived from the word 'loud'."
--Jonas Eckerman

You bring up the curves in half of your replies to my
post, and use them as sole arguments a lot of the time.

You brought up the term "loudness", Eckerman. You don't want to
discuss the curves, then don't bring up the term "loudness".

What is it with you and those curves?
Have someone tried to bite you with them?

You have tried to "bite" me with "loudness", Jonas, as evidenced by
the next line of quoted text:

] It is quite plausible that the word "loudness" is derived from the
] word "loud".

You call that a "bite"? Wov, you're sensitive. Especially as that sentence
was followed by a smiley wich you choose not to quote.

Classic spin doctoring.

The meaning of the word "loud" has been an issue.

Then why not restrict your discussion to the meaning of that word,
and leave "loudness" out of it, Jonas?

Because the word "loudness" might be relevant, depending on the relation
between the two words.

Or it might not be relevant, Eckerman. You would do well to find out
for sure before jumping into a discussion the way you did.

involving loud colors, which have absolutely nothing to do with sound,

This is still an example of "loud" beeing a description of something
perceived.

Not as sound, Eckerman.

This makes the connection between "loud" and "loudness" relevant
(though not decisive) to the issue at hand.

And exactly how are Fletcher-Munson curves relevant to the issue at
hand, Jonas?

According to me, they are not relevant to the issue I've been trying to
discuss with you.

Then why did you bring up the term "loudness", Eckerman?

*If* "loudness" is basically a noun form of the adjective "loud" (or
vice versa), then using "loud" would mean that you describe the
"loudness" of something.

Not necessarily, Jonas, given that someone could be using the term
"loudness" in a technical sense, referring to Fletcher-Munson curves
by implication.

With this kind of argument, almost anything can be called irrelevant, wich
can of course be fun.

Your fun is irrelevant, Eckerman.

If you have read my posts, the ones you've replied to, you could have
noticed that I have not centered my arguments on this relation and that I
have not used the term "loudness" in a technical sense.

The entire objection to my answer is based on a "technical sense",
Eckerman.

PS. Do you have a problem remembering names?

Non sequitur.

I ask because you keep repeating my name

Irrelevant, Eckerman.

(maybe to remind yourself that I'm not Jones, who also
participates in this thread)

Maybe not, Eckerman.

and you seem to be confused as to who has said what.

What seems to you is irrelevant, Eckerman. In reality, I'm not confused
at all.

Like an accident scene that cries out 'look at me,'
writes:
Jonas Eckerman writes:
And you could also note that I said your entertainment is
irrelevant, Eckerman.

Not to me.

Classic self-centered view, ignoring the newsgroup where you're
imposing your entertainment on others.

How ironic, coming from a person whose masturbatory, circularly-argued
self-justification pollutes every newsgroup he touches, David.

And what does this follow-up have to do with audio, David?

[Neato, I think I've reverse engineered the tholen bot!]

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Todd H. writes:

Like an accident scene that cries out 'look at me,'

Classic inappropriate analogy. You're just trying to justify yet
another response, Todd.

Jonas Eckerman writes:

And you could also note that I said your entertainment is
irrelevant, Eckerman.

Not to me.

Classic self-centered view, ignoring the newsgroup where you're
imposing your entertainment on others.

How ironic, coming from a person whose masturbatory, circularly-argued
self-justification pollutes every newsgroup he touches, David.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, coupled with an erroneous
presupposition of a "masturbatory, circularly-argued self-justification".

And what does this follow-up have to do with audio, David?

You tell me, Todd, given that it's your follow-up.

[Neato, I think I've reverse engineered the tholen bot!]

What you think is irrelevant, Todd. You're erroneously presupposing
the existence of some "bot".

Feel free to stop at any time, Eckerman.

I do.

Aah. I see. You bring up the curves because they were mentioned by
someone else in connection with something you didn't say?

You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves,
Eckerman. I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the
curves in connection with the term "loudness".

And then *you* keep bringing up the curves, even though you see them as
irrelevant.

Is it because you see the curves as irrelevant to the issue you
persist in bringing them up in your argumentation?

You're erroneously presupposing that I brought up the curves,
Eckerman. I made it quite clear that somebody else brought up the
curves in connection with the term "loudness".

And then *you* keep bringing up the curves, even though you see them as
irrelevant.

Too bad you've tried to change the discussion to the meaning of the
word "loudness", Eckerman.

I haven't. I've mentioned a possible relationship. No more, no less.

Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
Jonas.

Only in the context of it's relation to the word "loud", wich you
might have noted that I am not certain of.

Well, that would certainly explain why you don't understand the
connection between the word "loudness" and the curves.

Irrelevant as I have not refered to the technical term "loudness".

No, that can't be the reason. I didn't raise that issue.

Liar:

"It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
is derived from the word 'loud'."
--Jonas Eckerman

As you well know, that was not the raising of an issue. That was a mention
of a possibility. No more, no less.

A parent might
tell a child to turn down the stereo because it's too loud.

And in this case, the parent *perceives* the sound as too liud.
The child probably doesn't. You've just illustrated that "loud"
describes how a sound is perceived.

Incorrect; rather, I've illustrated how "loud" can be used without
reference to Fletcher-Munson curves.

You still illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound is perceived.

On the contrary, I've illustrated example where no perception is
involved, Jonas.

You mean that in this example, the parent does not perceive the sound as
too loud?

Non sequitur. Note the three missing levels of indentation.

Now there's no missing levels of indentation. :-)

I've only mentioned loudness twice in insubstantiated thoughts about
it's relation to the word loud. I have not centered any of my
argumentation around "loudness".

Incorrect:

"It is quite plausible that the word 'loudness'
is derived from the word 'loud'."
--Jonas Eckerman

Are you now telling my thoughts in the quoted statemnt were substantiated?
If they were, please tell me how.

You brought up the term "loudness", Eckerman. You don't want to
discuss the curves, then don't bring up the term "loudness".

I brought up the *word* "loudness", not the term. Both the word "loud" and
the word "loudness" predates the curves, so the curves are irrelevant when
discussing the possible relationship between those words.

Classic spin doctoring.

Why do you believe everything not meant to be taken seriously to be spin
doctoring?

Because the word "loudness" might be relevant, depending on the
relation between the two words.

Or it might not be relevant, Eckerman.

Exactly! That's why I called the relation plausible, and it's also why I
called the relation relevant (but not decisive).

You would do well to find out
for sure before jumping into a discussion the way you did.

Why? I don't mind beeing proven wrong.

And exactly how are Fletcher-Munson curves relevant to the issue at
hand, Jonas?

According to me, they are not relevant to the issue I've been trying
to discuss with you.

Then why did you bring up the term "loudness", Eckerman?

I brought up the *word* "loudness", not the term. Both the word "loud" and
the word "loudness" predates the curves, so the curves are irrelevant when
discussing the possible relationship between those words.

The entire objection to my answer is based on a "technical sense",
Eckerman.

The objection to your answer to the post starting the thread, or the
objections to your later answers to other posts?

What seems to you is irrelevant, Eckerman.

In a discussion between two persons, the views of both personas are
relevant.

In reality, I'm not
confused at all.

:-)

/Jonas

Jonas Eckerman writes:
The entire objection to my answer is based on a "technical sense",
Eckerman.

The objection to your answer to the post starting the thread, or the
objections to your later answers to other posts?

You know Jonas, I think ole David thinks I actually objected to his
answer. The reality is that I started my post in congratulating him
on a nearly perfect answer to the OP, and then I (quite sheepishly)
raised what's at best a technical footnote that centered around his
use of the comparative word "twice" in the context of the adjective
"loud." In so doing, I had the temerity to drag that word's noun
buddy "loudness" into the discussion, and mention that loudness
actually had scientifically recognized units based on a study by two
guys whose names he's now evidently quite familiar with. (I wonder if
he knows loudness is not defined in the dictionary except as the noun
form of "loud.")

From there, off he went into what we've since learned is a predictable
and fascinatingly sophomoric pattern of defensivene arguments in a
dire attempt to justify his answer and avoid admitting what everyone
else finds exceedingly obvious: that he goofed--albeit slightly, and
not in a way anyone's terribly upset about--by quantifying a digital
audio sample that's 2x in linear scale value as being "twice as loud."

Where people started scratching their heads was when he followed with
all sorts of self-justifying techniques, leaving us to wonder if this
guy's employed anywhere and if so, who would ever wanna ever work with
him, what happened to him in his childhood that's made him behave this
way, whether he might benefit from seeing some sort of professional,
if he's actually taking anything that's been prescribed to him, and
when/where/how his postings will grace us again.

One thing's for sure, he can't let anyone have the last word, so his
response will come... and it'll involve a lot of phrases we've seen
before and sentences ending with our names.

Here's to continuing the psychological experiment. It's for the good
of science.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Apart from the orginal post of hellpope and his original
question, the rest of you are really quite vicious!
You all must be very unhealthy.

In article ,
wrote:
Andreas Håkansson writes:
They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant,

Irrelvant unless you care about things like headroom and compression,
that is.
--

writes:

They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant,

Irrelvant unless you care about things like headroom and compression,
that is.

Incorrect; headroom and compression can be computed in the same arbitrary
units.

writes:
writes:

They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant,

Irrelvant unless you care about things like headroom and compression,
that is.

Incorrect; headroom and compression can be computed in the same arbitrary
units.

Shhh. Everyone quiet. Maybe he'll go back to sleep.

(Don't feed the trolls. )

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

Todd H. writes:

writes:

They represent the amplitude of the waveform. The units are irrelevant,

Irrelvant unless you care about things like headroom and compression,
that is.

Incorrect; headroom and compression can be computed in the same arbitrary
units.

Shhh. Everyone quiet. Maybe he'll go back to sleep.

On what basis do you claim that "fishbowl" is asleep, Todd?

(Don't feed the trolls. )

Not very hungry, eh Todd?

You say approximately, but are you sure that is the peak? I would expect
them to top out at +-8000, since 8000 hex= 32768 decimal, and +-32768dec, or
+-8000h would give the range of 16 bit PCM

"Andreas Håkansson" wrote in message
...
Hi,
im using the program Origin7 to read a wav-files. The result is given in a
3
coloumns worksheet, Time, Right and Left (stereo). The time is given in
seconds, so far everything is just fine. The question I have is in what
unit
are the values for right and left. The values are approx. from -5000 to
5000.. but what!?

Thax for any help and sorry for any off topic post!!