lets get philosohpical

[Deus]

Originally posted by physix
isn't sound defined not only as the "soundwaves" that the crashing causes, but also our aural receptors taking in the soundwaves and interpreting them?

So then when do mechanical waves become sound? When the waves hit the ear drum? When the oscillate the ossicles? When they enter the cochlea? When they vibrate the cillia? When they travel throug the afferent auditory neurons? When the electrical pulses get to the auditory cortex?

 

[The Electrician]

Does anyone know how long a Sound wav travels for before it's dispersed into nothingness?

 

[physix]

Originally posted by Deus
So then when do mechanical waves become sound? When the waves hit the ear drum? When the oscillate the ossicles? When they enter the cochlea? When they vibrate the cillia? When they travel throug the afferent auditory neurons? When the electrical pulses get to the auditory cortex?

i asked the astro-physicist prof where i go to school and he basically has said what others have said on the thread... that it basically depends on how you define sound... and even light, too.
he said that there are schools of thought that label SOUND as perception and tries to differentiate between the energy itself and the perception.

he also said that getting everyone on that page will be more difficult than having people believe in that dark energy Einstein alluded too.... wait... that's already happened... but it took awhile...

so, the answer to the question doesn't answer the question
rather, tells us which side of the defining fence you sit on.

 

[vveerrgg]

* goes back into the studio *

 

[physix]

where you belong!

**shakes fists**

i demand music from my musicians...

... not deep thoughts!

 

[Syntax Error]

if a tree falls in the woods then Zanthor hears it because Zanthor hears all.


ALL HAIL ZANTHOR!!

 

[docta seuss]

fuck zanthor.

 

[mondo]

If you can verify that the tree actually did fall in the forest and that indeed no one was around-

Then how do you prove that the tree did NOT make a sound?

I figure it's cause and effect. Because if you can prove that the tree did NOT make a sound, then everything we know about sound can go out the window, as arbitrariness would take it's place so to speak. Meaning that when one object hits another, such as a tree hitting the ground, it may make a sound or may NOT make a sound.

I don't think it matters if sound has to be heard for it to have existed. The fact that the tree and ground existed and interacted is what is important.

... then again it's friggin late

 

[docta seuss]

Originally posted by mondo
when one object hits another, such as a tree hitting the ground, it may make a sound or may NOT make a sound.

this would be where philosophy and science collide.

but really, if somebody has to witness all events for them to have existed, you can throw much of what we think we know about a great many things right out the window. in my opinion, it would be a safe assumption <--(dangerous word, i know) to say, using what we know on the subject, that the contact between the two objects would create sound, but again, this brings up the tiresome debate over definitions.

Originally posted by mondo

I don't think it matters if sound has to be heard for it to have existed. The fact that the tree and ground existed and interacted is what is important.

agreed, which is why i have little patience for this question. people can argue the definition of 'sound' all they want, but it's really rather unimportant.

 

[docta seuss]

can we let this thread die now?

oh, and codex?

although met with initial hostility, i'd say mission accomplished, eh¿

people around here seem to be so intent on debating that they'll even argue over that which they don't care about. i find it refreshing.

 

[casual]

thank you...much appreciated....I am sorry, but discussing soft synths just doesn't really do it for me. I am a fuckinng geek, I like debating/discussing properties of sound, gear and recording techniques...

till next time