On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:42:25 GMT, "Spiderant"
wrote:

Because I don't have a frequency analyzer kicking around, I tried to come up
with some images to see what you are referring to (see this link:
http://www.softpicks.net/software/Fr...yzer-6079.htm).

I appreciate your explanation.

It certainly appears on the above screenshot that there is more happening at
a given moment than a momentary energy pulse. And if the screenshot is
correct, then what I always assumed was only a linear stream of pulses
coming from the microphone is in effect a multitude of simultaneous pulses.
And if, for example, this signal is digitized, then instead of a linear
series of plusses and minuses you're saying that there is, in effect, more
like a continuous stream of shot gun-style pepper blasts of multiple
silmutaneous frequencies. Hmmmm. I have a bit of a hard time grasping this
because it would imply that, once the signal got to a speaker cone, the
speaker cone would need to move in and out simultanously, which doesn't seem
possible. Could you elucidate further where my thinking is flawed?

I think your impression of digitization and the movement of the
speaker cone is simplistic. Before applying philosophical rigor to a
process, it might be a good idea to become technically informed about
that process. There are some textbooks. Perhaps others will chime in
on this.

Kal




Much appreciated,

Roland Goetz.


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On issue is that the oscilloscope is not showing you all the
information in the signal that allows the discrimination of individual
instruments and other tonal/spatial details. The scope only shows the
envelope of the total energy at a particular instant and not the
individual elements which contribute to that envelope. As a simple
example, compare the single instantaneous value on the scope with the
detailed information seen on a frequency analyzer at that same
instant. The ear is pretty good at a similar discrimination and
extracts more information than a simple oscilloscope.

Kal

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:32:36 GMT, "Spiderant"
wrote:


"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Spiderant wrote:

I think you will find most of this group will tell you that your
philosophy
professor is completely wrong.

Ian
--
Ian Bell

I posted this question, which has intrigued me for quite a few years, in
this newsgroup because it seems that a lot of the posters here know what
they're talking about. If someone would tell me a proper explanation as
to
why my professor was wrong, I would really appreciate it.

But let me rephrase my question a bit. If a microphone is placed before
an
orchestra, and the microphone is connected to an oscilloscope, from what I
know of oscilloscopes, the signal is not going to show every individual
instrument, but only the combined sounds coming from the orchestra.
Consequently, no matter what I do with that signal after it is recorded,
and
even if I had as many speakers as instruments in an orchestra, I never
again
break the signal up to reproduce the original instruments. The recording
is
forever going to be only a shadow of the orchestra. Again, this seems
quite
logical to me.

Now, as I believe Chris Morriss suggested in another posting, the
diaphragm
of an ear is not unlike the diaphragm of a microphone. Consequently, when
listening to a live concert, I too would only hear the combined signal
coming from the orchestra. However, as I mentioned to Mr. Morriss, when
we
go to a concert, it is not a static event. We're constantly turning our
heads and thereby altering the signal coming to our eardrums. Therefore,
even if we can only experience the combined signal while attending a live
recording, this shadow is constantly shifting and changing along with the
shifts of our heads and it becomes possible to discern the individual
instruments that a static recording can never reveal.

Again, please correct me if this analagy is incorrect.

Roland Goetz.